meeting_id
stringlengths 27
37
| source
stringlengths 596
386k
| type
stringlengths 4
42
| reference
stringlengths 75
1.1k
| city
stringclasses 6
values |
|---|---|---|---|---|
DenverCityCouncil_05232022_22-0628
|
Speaker 0: It's been a minute. Hart with Herndon. With Councilman Herndon. So great work to the leadership. Denver class. Councilmember Cashman, would you please read the proclamation? 20 2-6 28 for us.
Speaker 2: Yes, thank you, Madam President. This proclamation 20 2-6 28 declaring June 3rd as National Gun Violence Awareness Day, June 3rd through fifth as where orange weekend in June is Gun Violence Awareness Month, whereas 41,000 Americans are killed annually by guns, an average of 110 each day and another 85,000 are shot and wounded every year. And. Whereas, the US accounts for only 4% of the world's population, but 35% of global suicides and Americans are 25 times more likely to be killed with guns than people in other high income countries. And. WHEREAS, in Colorado, 78% of firearm deaths are suicides. Nearly half of all suicide deaths in Colorado involve the use of a firearm, which is the most common method of suicide death in the state. And. Whereas, in 2021 in Colorado, 850 persons died from gun violence, with suicides claiming 633 lives and homicide another 182, with the majority of those dying from gun violence being less than 35 years of age. And. Whereas, in 2021, in Denver, 96 people died by homicide, with 85% of those committed by firearm. Another 228 people were shot but survived their injuries. And. Whereas, the Denver metropolitan area continues to remember and suffer the devastating impacts of mass shootings, including Columbine High School in 1999 and the imore Aurora Movie Theater in 2012. And. Whereas, research indicates there have been more lives lost from gun fire in America than in all the wars in which U.S. troops have been engaged since our nation's founding. And. WHEREAS, protecting public safety and the communities they serve is City Council's highest responsibility. And. Whereas, in January 2013, Hadiya Pendleton, a teenager who marched in President Obama's second inaugural parade and was tragically shot and killed just weeks later, should be now celebrating her 21st birthday. And. Whereas, to honor Hadiya and the 110 Americans whose lives are cut short and the 230 plus survivors who are injured by shootings every day, a national coalition of organizations designated the first Friday in June as the fourth National Gun Violence Awareness Day. And. WHEREAS, the idea was inspired by a group of friends who asked their classmates to commemorate her life by wearing orange. Choosing this color because hunters wear orange to announce themselves to other hunters when out in the woods and where. As anyone can join this campaign by pledging to wear orange on the first Friday in June every year to help raise awareness about gun violence. And. Whereas, by wearing orange on June 3rd through fifth 2022, Americans will raise awareness about gun violence and honor the lives of the victims and survivors. And. Whereas, we renew our commitment to reduce gun violence and pledge to do all we can to keep firearms out of the wrong hands and encourage responsible gun ownership to help keep our children safe. 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 the first Friday of each year, first Friday in June of each year, this year, June 3rd, 2022 to be National Gun Violence Awareness Day, June 3rd through fifth to be aware orange weekend and the entire month of June to be National Gun Violence Awareness Month and encourages all citizens to support their local. Community's efforts to prevent the tragic effects of gun violence and to honor and value human lives. 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 a copy be transmitted to Everytown for Gun Safety.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Cashman. Your motion to adopt.
Speaker 2: Yes. Thank you. I move that proclamation 22 days, zero 6 to 8, be adopted.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It's been moved and seconded. Comments by members of Council. Councilmember Cashman.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Madam President, I hate reading this proclamation every year. Those statistics are just mind numbing. They don't get better. Every year they get worse. Denver is in the midst of experiencing its own epidemic of gun violence. They're ending up in younger and younger hands. It is. It's just breathtaking and it's disappointing. And everybody I talk to, it's one of the main things on their mind. You know, I always tell people, you know, when I first took office back in 2015, the phone calls were about development, development, development, and now they're about crime, crime, crime, gun violence. It's something we need to wrap our hands around. I don't sit here with the answer, but I'm certainly willing and anxious to be part of the discussion. So with that, Madam President, I just ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this proclamation.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Cashman. Councilmember Sawyer.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. Just wanted to thank Councilman Cashman for bringing this proclamation forward this year. It is incredibly important. We youth gun violence is an epidemic in our city and in our country at this point. As you know, I've been working to run a gun buyback program. We had our most recent event this past weekend at Park Church. We took in another 55, I believe, weapons, although several of those were big guns, which totals a little over 360 weapons taken in in less than 10 hours over the course of this year. So it's really, really extraordinary how many weapons are out there, how many people inherit them and don't know what to do with them, don't know how to get rid of them, you know, or people, you know, experience trauma related to gun violence and don't know how to find closure. So this is really, really important. I will just say this weekend, the the the mother of a young man, 17 year old student at South High School who was killed several years ago, Devery Armstrong spoke at the event and it was extraordinary and sad. She told us that when Daivari was killed there were three friends of hers, so she and three friends got together. They were all mothers who had lost their sons to gun violence. That was two and a half years ago. There are now 19 mothers who are part of their support group. And that's extraordinary and sad. And and so I just want to thank Councilman Cashman for bringing this forward. I want to bring attention to this issue. And I hope we will all wear orange and just want to also let people know. Our next gun.
Speaker 0: Buyback event will be.
Speaker 3: Held on June 11th in Aurora at Heritage Christian Church, which is right next door to the theater where the Aurora mass shooting occurred. It is national gun buyback day on June 11th. So we will host the buyback from 10 to 1 and then we will do an event in partnership with the Broncos afterwards. It will be from 4 to 6 p.m. and the public is invited to come and join us. And I hope you all will. It will be a really, really, I think, moving event. So we're doing what we, you know, one small part of a greater community safety strategy that everyone is working on, recognizing this epidemic. And I just really think, Councilmember Cashman, for bringing this forward and elevating the conversation. Thanks.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much for your and likewise appreciate Councilman Cashman shining a light on this and making sure that we're continuing to remember those who were lost, but making sure that we're doing everything we can to mitigate any future loss of life. Madam Secretary, Roll Call CdeBaca.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 4: Cashman. I can teach. I. Sandoval. I swear, I. Torres, I.
Speaker 1: Black eye.
Speaker 5: Clark All right.
Speaker 4: Flynn.
Speaker 5: I.
Speaker 4: Hi.
Speaker 2: Hi.
Speaker 4: Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 4: 11 Eyes.
Speaker 0: 11 Eyes. Proclamation 20 2-0 6 to 8 has been adopted. Councilman Cashman will start that five minute timer, if you'd like to introduce. Who will accept the proclamation?
Speaker 2: Yes. Thank you, Madam President. We should have Abby Winters from every town on virtual.
Speaker 0: Right. I'll go ahead and get Abby moved over. Thanks for raising your hand, Abby. Go ahead, Abby. You can unmute.
Speaker 4: City Council.
Speaker 3: Councilman, can you hear me?
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Thank you so much for your time, Madam President and Council Members, thank you for declaring National Gun Violence Awareness Month and the weekend of June 3rd through the fifth where orange weekend. As you heard Councilman Cashman relay the statistics and remind us that this gun violence epidemic, it's not getting better. It's getting worse. Where orange is the time to renew our commitment, our opportunity to remember and mourn and lift up those impacted by gun violence. We are looking forward to joining with our community members that that weekend and throughout the month of June to rededicate ourselves to this work so that mothers, as Councilwoman Sawyer expressed, mothers like Daivari don't have to share their soul crushing stories about losing their child so that we don't have to hear about children accessing unnecessary deaths and not and not surviving. So to be very brief, thank you all for your work on this, for your continued support. And please join us the weekend of June 3rd through the fifth for our several events around the area. We hope to see you there. Thank you again. And thank you, Councilman Cashman, for bringing the proclamation.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much, Abby, and thank you, Councilman Cashman, for sponsoring this important proclamation as well. Madam Secretary, would you please read the bills for introduction?
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation declaring June 3rd as National Gun Violence Awareness Day, June 3 - 5 as Wear Orange Weekend and June as Gun Violence Awareness Month.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_05232022_22-0520
|
Speaker 0: No items have been called out under bills for final consideration. No items have been called out under pending. No items have been called out. Madam Secretary, would you please put the first item on our screens? Councilmember Hines, please go ahead with your questions on resolution 520 and 521, if you'd like to lump them together or it's up to you if you'd like to keep them separate.
Speaker 2: Having them together would be great. Thank you. Thank you. Council President. Honest, there will be a question. I do want to make a brief comment and I apologize for my voice. I have a computer science degree. I chose to study computer science because I believe in the power of technology and how it can make our lives easier . So when I heard that Colorado was the first state in the nation to provide regulation around transportation, never companies. I think Uber and Lyft. I was happy to hear that we were embracing technology and was hopeful that excuse me, that these technology platforms would help make people's lives easier. However, I remain concerned that the dignity gig economy embrace of technology continue to leave a group behind. Specifically people with disabilities. I've been pretty open about my concerns about micromobility contracts and that have taken right away from people with disabilities without providing anything for people with disabilities. Scooters are regularly on the sidewalk, either abandoned on the curb ramps or careening down the sidewalk at maximum speed. I have similar concerns to the other gig industries, like short term rental spaces and even industries with physical infrastructure, like how there are no regulations for people with disabilities concerning EV charging stations. So when I learned that Denver's specifically our airport was considering entering into contracts with Turo and Aveo, I was concerned. These are gig applications that match personal car owners with people who want to rent them for a day or so. So I reached out to each company and asked them for additional detail about their provisions for people with disabilities. I want to thank Dan, by the way, for their speed with which they connected us. I'll have to admit, I am cautiously optimistic about the attention these companies have said they intend to give to this topic, i.e. ensuring everyone has access to their platform, including people with disabilities. After all, if a government is entering into a contract with the company, we should feel comfortable that our taxpayer dollars are going to contracts that serve everyone, not just those easy to serve. Both companies have made it clear that this is not the best opportunity to force accessibility into these platforms. Simply put, there is no way we can fully implement a disability friendly platform in the short time between now and when this contract will be executed. But I am hopeful that both companies have described a path forward to add support for everyone, including those with disabilities. So I want to ask each company a softball question so if I could have a bill come. And basically, the only question that I have for you is, do I have your commitment that that you and a bill will will consider people with disabilities and make it a priority to figure out how to implement it in your platform. And when you mention your name and who you represent. For the record, too.
Speaker 3: I'm Nicole Domi and I represent a Vale. And yes, Councilmember Hines, we are we are committed to making it a priority and definitely have it on our roadmap. We're a young company, so we have a lot to build, but definitely.
Speaker 0: Looking forward.
Speaker 3: To working to get that.
Speaker 1: Accomplished.
Speaker 2: Thank you. That's the only question I have for you. And is there someone from Toro here as well as the same softball question? All right. Well, thank you. And I have shared my reservations, but I believe that this we should vote yes on both of these contracts tonight. Thank you. Thank you, Congressman.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Hines. And we'll go ahead and move on in the agenda. Councilmember Sawyer, will you please put resolutions 504 and five, 504 through excuse me, 513 on the floor for adoption.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Contract between the City and County of Denver and Anihi Newco, LLC dba Avail concerning operating a peer-to-peer car sharing platform at Denver International Airport.
Approves a contract with Anihi Newco, LLC doing business as Avail, for 10% gross revenue and for (3) three years, with 1 optional one-year extension, to operate a peer-to-peer car sharing platform at Denver International Airport in Council District 11 (202262130). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 6-13-22. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 5-11-22.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_05232022_22-0354
|
Speaker 0: Ten Eyes Cancer build 20 2-0342 has passed. We're going to move on to our next hearing. Thank you, friend. Council member Sawyer, would you please put Council Bill 20 2-0354 on the floor for final passage.
Speaker 3: I move that council bill 20 2-0354 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 2-0354 is open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. Good evening. Members of Council Valerie Ararat, Senior City Planner with CPD. I will be presenting an 80 rezoning case for the subject property located at 2640 North Grape Street. The subject property is in Council District eight with Councilmember Herndon. Located in the North Park Hill neighborhood. Subject property is currently 6190 square feet with a zone width of 50 feet. The request is for urban edge single unit d1x to allow for a detached accessory dwelling unit in the rear of the lot. The site in the surrounding properties to the north, south, east and west are all Eastside X, which allows for suburban and urban houses primary building forms with a minimum zone. Lot of 6000 square feet. Just southeast of the site is the McAuliffe International School. And East 26th Avenue to the south is classified as a residential collector street type. The site is single unit residential and surrounded by other single unit residential to the southeast as public quasi public to the northwest is a small grouping of office. Mixed use. Commercial retail park. Open space call outs. Subject property is mid-block with alley access and is located between 28th and 26th Avenue. There is an existing primary single unit structure and a detached garage accessory structure currently on the lot. The photo at the top is a capture of the alley adjacent to the site, showing the existing garage structure and the photo to the bottom is property to the west across the street. This Map amendment went to planning board on Wednesday, March 16th, where the item was recommended approval on the consent agenda. The rezoning was then forwarded to final hearing of city council by the Land Use Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on Consent on March 29 is being heard today. To date, staff has not received written input from any Arnaud's that were sent notice and no public comment. As we know, the Denver zoning code has five review criteria. The first is consistency with adopted plan, starting with comprehensive plan 2040. Staff found the rezoning to be consistent with several strategies shown in Plan 2040. Equitable, affordable, inclusive goals strategy, increasing development of housing units close to transit and mixed use developments. Goal two Strategy Create a greater mix of housing options in every neighborhood for all individuals and families. Environment Environmental Resiliency Goal eight. Strategy eight. Promote infill development where infrastructure and services are already in place and goal eight. Strategy B Encourage mixed use communities where residents can live, work and play in their own neighborhoods. Regarding Blueprint Denver This area is mapped as urban edge context and residential low, which consists of predominantly single and two unit uses on smaller lots and allows for accessory dwelling units to be thoughtfully and appropriately integrated where compatible. Additionally, blueprint Denver Guidance provides support through policy for diversity, housing choice through the expansion of accessory dwelling units throughout all residential areas. Strategy A citywide approach to enable a to use this preferred until a holistic approach is in place individual rezonings to enable it to use in all residential areas, especially where proximate to transit are appropriate unless there's a neighborhood plan supporting it to use. Region rezoning should be small, an area in order to minimize impact to the surrounding residential areas. This area also includes the Park Hill Neighborhood Plan of 2000, which provides support through the land use and zoning goal of maintaining the existing integrity of the residential character of Park Hill. Ensure continued growth and development in Park Hill results in a balanced and compatible mix of housing types and densities that can be found on page 32 Land Use and Zoning Action. Recommendation three Create and maintain a mix of housing types and sizes that are attractive and affordable to a diversity of ages, incomes, household types, sizes, cultural and ethnic backgrounds that can be found on page 33. Regarding criteria two and three staff found the rezoning to be consistent with adopted plans. The proposed rezoning will result in uniform application of zoned district building form, use and design regulations, and it will further, further public health, safety and welfare through implementing adopted plans and facilitating increased housing density . Staff on the proposed criteria. Criteria. Sorry southbound that the proposed rezoning is justified through a city adopted plan B and finally the context zone, district purpose and intent of ESU D1 X are all appropriate for this particular location given the surrounding area, the adopted plan guidance and the location of the site. Given the finding that all review criteria have been met. CPD Recommends City Council Approve Application 2020 1i0017 for based on finding a review criteria have been met. Just to note that approval of a rezoning is not approval of a proposed specific development project. Thank you. And I'm happy to take questions.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Val, for the staff report. And this evening, we have one individual signed up to speak on this hearing. Jessie Perez. Go ahead, please, Jesse.
Speaker 1: I mean, I'm okay with some parents and I'm all for Blackstar at the moment for self defense, positive for social change, as well as the Unity Party of Colorado, the East Denver Residents Council line. Black knows and I'll be the next Denver in 2023 by district eight. And Christopher Herndon just. There were three songs in my. As the I of the City Council while large in 2018. I continue to support them as mayor. I so to be mayor in 2023 and it meets all five of the criteria. So there's nothing I can say that's going to change my mind on the rezoning. Um, so, um. Herndon, you got the food. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. That concludes our speakers questions from members of Council on Council Bill 22, Dash 0354. Not seeing any. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 22, Dash 0354. I'll go ahead and chime in. I appreciate the staff report, Val, and this reasoning meets all of the criteria and so happy to support it this evening and would ask my council colleagues to support it as well. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 22, Dash 0354.
Speaker 4: CdeBaca.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 3: Black eye.
Speaker 2: Clark Right. Flynn All right.
Speaker 4: Hines.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 4: Cashman. Sandoval. I. Sawyer.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 4: Torres.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 4: Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 4: Tennis.
Speaker 0: Tennis Council Bill 20 2-0354 has asked. Councilmember Sawyer, will you please put Council Bill 20 to dash 0355 on the floor for final passage?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 2640 North Grape Street in North Park Hill.
Approves a map amendment to rezone property from E-SU-Dx to E-SU-D1x (allows for an accessory dwelling unit), located at 2640 North Grape Street in Council District 8. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 3-29-22.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_05232022_22-0355
|
Speaker 0: Tennis Council Bill 20 2-0354 has asked. Councilmember Sawyer, will you please put Council Bill 20 to dash 0355 on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 3: I move that council bill 20 220355 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 2-0355 is open and we have Val back up for the staff report. Go ahead.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. Good evening. Members of council again, Valerie Herrera, senior city planner with Community Planning and Development. I will be presenting an ad rezoning case for the subject property located at 480 South Tyrone Streets. The subject site is in Council District seven with Councilmember Clark. Located in the Ashmore Park neighborhood. Subject property is a large, fairly large site, currently 9370 square feet with a zone lot width of 50 feet. The request is for urban edge single unit B one to allow for a detached accessory dwelling unit in the rear of the lot. The site and the surrounding properties to the north and east are SUV, allowing only urban houses with a minimum zone. Lot area of 4500 square feet just south of the site is zoned eastside allowing for both suburban and urban houses with a minimum zone lot area of 6000 square feet. To the West Zone former chapter 50 9r1, which is a single unit detached dwelling, low density district. To the northeast is E2 C, which allows up to two units on a minimum zone lot area of 5500 square feet and to the north off Alameda Avenue is urban edge mixed use three a with use overlays one and two . The site is single unit residential and surrounded by single unit residential to the north east and south of the site. West of the site is classified public, quasi public where you can find the Mathematics and Science Leadership Academy, Rochelle Junior High School Catholic Charities, Michelle and KIPP Denver Collegiate High School all along South Taken Street subject properties , fairly large corner lot on the northeast corner of Virginia Avenue and South Tyrone Street, there is an existing primary single unit structure as shown in the middle photo and a detached accessory structure currently located on the lot. The photo at the top is a capture of the school campus across the street to the west of the property . And the photo on the bottom is a property across the street directly to the south. The Map amendment went to planning board on Wednesday, March 16th, where the team was, where the item was recommended, approval on the consent agenda. The rezoning was then moved forward to the final hearing of City Council by the Land Use Transportation Infrastructure Committee on Consent on March 29th and is being heard today. To date, staff has not received written input from any of the registered neighborhood organizations that were sent notice and no public comments received. The Denver Zoning Board has five criteria review criteria. The first is consistency with adopted plan, starting with comprehensive plan 2040. Staff found the rezoning to be consistent with several strategies shown from Campaign 2040. Again. Goal one strategy a increasing development of housing units close to transit and mixed use developments. Go to strategy a create a mix greater mix of housing options in every neighborhood for all individuals and families. Goal eight Strategy A under environment is promote infill development where infrastructure and services are already in place and environmental resilience. Goal eight Strategy B Encourage a mixed use communities where residents can live, work and play in their own neighborhoods. Blueprint under maps. This areas urban edge context and residential low, which consists of predominantly single and two unit uses on smaller lots and allows for accessory dwelling units to be thoughtfully inappropriately integrated where compatible. Oh. Additionally Blueprint Denver guidance provides support through policy for diversify housing choice through the expansion of accessory dwelling units throughout all residential areas as well as strategy. A city wide approach to enable adus use is preferred. The Ashmore Park perimeter plan of 2000 finds that the proposed rezoning demonstrates consistency with this plan, per the following goal found on page 14 of Overall Plan Goals and Strategies Section Goal one Promote neighborhood stability, support, preservation of neighborhood character and create sense of place strategies underneath that goal. Continue to maintain the integrity of residentially zoned areas and identify characteristics that make more, park a unique neighborhood and promote the neighborhood as a good place to live and work . For criteria two and three step on the rezoning to be consistent with adopted plans. The proposed rezoning will result in uniform application of zoned district building form, use and design regulations, and it will further the public health, safety and welfare through implementing adopted plans and facilitating increased housing density. Four criteria for staff found that the proposed rezoning is justified through a city adopted Plan B and finally, the context zone, district purpose and intent of ESU B one are all appropriate for this particular location given the surrounding area, the adopted plan guidance and the location of the site. Given the finding that all review criteria have been met. CPD Recommends City Council Approve Application 2020 1i-0 0 to 4 zero based on finding our review criteria have been met. Note is approval of a rezoning is not approval of a proposed specific development project. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Val, for the staff report. We have one individual signed up to speak on this hearing. Jesse Paris.
Speaker 1: Yes. Even in members of council, I find it odd. Let me turn off my camera, but we're going to go through with it. My name is just Wissam Paris, and I'm represented for Blackstar at the moment for self defense. Classic Memphis chains, as well as the Colorado the East Denver Residents Council, Frontline Black News. And I will be the next mayor of Denver in 2023 and I reside in just eight. And Christopher Hearn is just. I'm in favor of this rezoning. I've supported you in the past when our city council was a large enough, supported them and still 2022 soon to be 2023. I will continue to support. And rezoning is no different. It meets all five of the criteria, which is a simple adopted plan. It needs uniformity with district regulations. If our public health, safety and wellness, it meets justifying circumstances. It means consistency with neighborhood context. Don't use that purpose in. So with that being said, I support this and I hope you were well. Thank you. Sweep the council like they sweep the unhoused every night. Candy and cash went to say.
Speaker 0: Thank you. That concludes our speakers questions from members of Council on Council Bill 22, Dash 0355. Councilmember Flynn.
Speaker 2: Uh, thank you, Madam President. The orientation of the slot. The address of the slot is at odds with the rest of the Val Verde subdivision, that in which it's part it covers three lots of of that subdivision and the rest of the residences front on the east west streets, the avenues. But this one has an address on Tatum Home Street. So I'm curious, how does CPD apply the standards for placing an ADU on a lot like that because. If we recognized teo on street as the front, then the lot is only 75 feet deep. Mm hmm. And does that meet the requirements for a detached adu in the rear? 35% of that lot. Does that give sufficient space, or do we have the ability to. Modify some of those for special circumstances like this. The reason I ask is there is an alley, but it's on the side of the house rather than at the rear of the house. If you go by the address, the other houses on that block I think are oriented the same way. But they have addresses on the avenue, I think it was Alaska place. So how do how do we handle that?
Speaker 3: You know, I'll try to give that a stab, Councilman Flynn. Of course, the rezoning side of things sometimes we don't always see a proposal of what what what wants to be done with the site. But if and when we do receive a proposal concurrent with the rezoning, we typically connect with our development services team and help the applicant to understand what would be feasible, what would not. It would also be dependent on whether or not they want to demolish the primary structure. That could also be an option if they wanted to split the lot because they are going down to a smaller lot size. So there are a number of different options, but I think that we wouldn't be able to kind of narrow that down. And I don't know that what CPD would recommend on the development services side of things if and when a project came in for concept.
Speaker 2: Sure. I think the rest of the parcels, the rest of the.
Speaker 5: Lots on that block on.
Speaker 2: Alaska cover, only two lots of the subdivision. This one is three. So it's 75 feet. Mm hmm. Also, there is an existing garage on the property, and I wasn't able to drive by, but I just looking at the Google satellite view, which is not really a satellite, it looks like that might be it has several doors on it and a porch. Is that already being used as an aid to you? Do you know, or is that strictly a garage?
Speaker 3: You know, I would not be able to answer that, but maybe if the applicant is on right now, Paul Salazar is his name could respond to that.
Speaker 2: Sure. Thank you. Madam President, if Mr. Salazar's error, could he we do.
Speaker 0: I see him raising his hands and so will his hands. Who will ask the producers to bring him into the panelists, please?
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 1: All right.
Speaker 0: You have Mr. Salazar on.
Speaker 2: Mr. Salazar. If it does, the garage that's on the property right now, is that being used? Is that equipped as a residence? Is there a kitchen and bathroom and plumbing in there? No. Currently that garage is just a garage here. Thank you. It's it's hard to tell from Mr. Google. Appreciate that. Would you be able to follow up with us as to what are the standards for locating an ADU on a property when it's shallow like that and the backyard is just so narrow, whereas it would make more sense to put this adu where the garage is off the alley. I mean, that would be a perfect location for it. But would that fit within our standards and forms? Just to follow up would be helpful. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Absolutely. Councilman Flynn, thank you so much. I'm sure our ADU programs are already covering it. I'm sorry. I don't have a better response.
Speaker 1: Okay. That will follow.
Speaker 2: Are they watching?
Speaker 4: Possibly.
Speaker 0: I would assume so. Perhaps so. All right. Well, thank you, Val, for the response and council member Flynn for those questions. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 20 2-0355. Council Member Clark Thank you.
Speaker 2: Council President Thank you for that great presentation. I think this clearly meets the criteria that we're here to determine tonight, so I'll be very supportive of this. I also just wanted to flag for the rest of the council that Hammer and Valverde are now working with CPD and my office to do what the rest of West Denver has done and look at doing neighborhood wide use. And that is getting so popular that I'm not getting burned by Ruby Hill because they're a little upset that they were not included in the second round. So hopefully lots of good ideas on the way and hopefully fewer nights like tonight where we are sitting here and just approving one little edu at a time as we go. And so thank you to our president pro tem for leading the way over in West Denver. On my side of the things with some some neighborhoods that really got over it and are excited about it and who knows, maybe Ruby Hill by the time we're done with it in this room. So thank you very much. Definitely be supporting us tonight. Thank you. Council president.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Clark. And happy to support this this evening as well. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 22, Dash 0355, please.
Speaker 4: See tobacco.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 4: Clark Black. I. Flynn.
Speaker 5: Hi.
Speaker 4: Haines.
Speaker 1: Hi.
Speaker 4: Cashman. Sandoval.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 4: Sawyer. I know. I. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced the results.
Speaker 4: Of tonight's.
Speaker 0: Ten Eyes Council Bill 20 2-0355 has passed. Thank you for the staff report Val and the pre adjournment announcement this evening. On Monday, June 20th, council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 20 2-0469 Changing the zoning classification for 1895 North Quebec Street and 1800 North Oneida Street in South Park Hill. A required public hearing on Council Bill 22, Dash 0470, changing the zoning classification for 1450 North Olive Street in Montclair and a required public hearing on Council Bill 22, Dash 0476 Changing the zoning classification of 2524 through 2660 Larimer Street. 2609 2623 2641 Lawrence Street. In five points in a protest against Council Bill's 22 dash for six 920 2-470 or 20 2-476 must be filed with the council offices no later than noon on Monday, June 13. There being no further business before this body, this meeting is adjourned.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 480 South Tejon Street in Athmar Park.
Approves a map amendment to rezone property from E-SU-B to E-SU-B1 (allows for an accessory dwelling unit), located at 480 South Tejon Street in Council District 7. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 3-29-22.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_05162022_22-0578
|
Speaker 2: Moving on. There are no presentations this evening. There are no communications. There is one proclamation being read. Councilmember Cashman, will you please read Proclamation 20 to Dash five, seven, eight on behalf of Council Pro-Tem Torres?
Speaker 3: Yeah. Thank you, Madam President. As you said, this proclamation was written and filed by Council Pro Tem Torres as she is out of town and in her hopes that we don't suffer any more technological problems. She asked me to read this this evening. So this is Proclamation 20 2-0578. Designating May 15 through May 21 is public works week in Denver and congratulating the Denver Department of Transportation and Infrastructure's Employees of the Year for 2021. WHEREAS, in celebrating the American Public Works Association's 2022 theme of Ready and Resilient, we recognize the employees of Denver's Department of Transportation and Infrastructure, Dottie, who are always ready to serve their communities and resilient amid change or a new challenge. And. Whereas, one challenge being the recent pandemic, we want to acknowledge the work that Torrey employees performed throughout the public health crisis and thank the staff who couldn't work from home and who came in to work every day to keep our city clean and make our streets safer. And. Whereas, Dottie continues to deliver high quality and cost effective services to the city's residents and manage and maintain the public infrastructure to improve quality of life in our city. And. Whereas, the Department focuses on continuous improvement, implementing new trash collection routes to improve efficiency, developing and implementing innovative tools for equitable delivery of projects and accelerating the implementation of bike lanes and bus lanes that make travel by alternative modes easier and better. And. Whereas, the Department keeps the city's infrastructure in a state of good repair, including streets, bridges, traffic signals and signage and enhances Denver's air.
Speaker 0: And.
Speaker 3: Water quality through street sweeping and the installation of green infrastructure and improved.
Speaker 6: Stormwater.
Speaker 3: Infrastructure to reduce flood risks and protect life and property. And.
Speaker 6: Whereas.
Speaker 3: The Department is overseeing the delivery of projects that support a strong economy and put people to work, including the voter approved Elevate Denver bond projects and the expansion of the Colorado Convention Center and renovation of the 16th Street Mall. And. WHEREAS, The Council specifically recognizes and congratulate the employees of the year for 2021 for their achievements. Bossier Commence Project Delivery Administration Infrastructure. Mike Harmon Project Delivery Administration Transportation Micaela Martinez Finance and Administration Cathie Tongue Accounting Richard Court Fleet Management. Lawrence Garcia Right of Way Enforcement. Mike Sazerac Right of Way Services. Anthony Aragon Office of Community and Business Engagement. Darrel Herter Junior Solid Waste Management. Deshawn Mayberry Street Maintenance. Scott Burton Transportation Operations. Paula Stokes Wastewater Management. Special Recognition goes to Juan Esparza for winning National Waste and Recycling Association Driver of the Year. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Council of the City and County of Denver, Section one that the Council designates the week of May 15 through May 21, 2022, as Public Works Week in Denver and congratulate studies 2021 and. Boys of the Year for their outstanding contributions to the department and the city in Section two. But the Clerk of the city and county of Denver shall attest and affixed to seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation, and that copies hereof be forwarded to Denver Public Works and the ten public works employees listed above.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council Member Cashman, your motion to adopt?
Speaker 3: Yes, ma'am. I moved the proclamation 22 days, 0578 be adopted.
Speaker 2: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded comments by members of council. And we're going to call, I believe, on Council Member Torres first.
Speaker 7: That was my audio working. Can you hear me?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 7: Thank you so much. Thank you, Councilman Cashman, for your assist tonight. I was honored to be asked to sponsor this proclamation. And really, I think given the past several years that we have experienced, our team has really stepped up. We cannot function as a city without every single member of this agency. They're essential and valued. Thank you all. And I'm happy to support you and to recognize the 2021 employees of the Year. Thank you all so much for your hard work.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Counsel Pro Tem Torres. And we're going to go ahead and turn it over to Councilman Cashman since he had the the reading duties next to comment. And then we'll go to other members.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. There's I can't imagine any other department that touches.
Speaker 6: More Denver.
Speaker 3: Lives than the Department of Transportation Infrastructure. Just looking at this list of the people who who won were recognized and the areas that they work in. We've heard tonight and public comment about the need to improve our sidewalks. That's that's Dotty. They pay for our roads. They pick up our solid waste. They are involved with drainage projects. I mean, you could go on and on all day long. Body touches every family every week in some way or another. And so I just joined. Councilwoman Torres, thank her for bringing this forward. Thank you. Not just the winners, but all the employees of the Department of Transportation Infrastructure for what they do for us every day. That's all. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman. Councilmember Flynn.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Madam President. Through a little bit of serendipity, I had occasion to call an acquaintance that I was trying to get some information from. And when I was talking to him, he told me that he was at the at this national convention or conference of waste and recycling operators. And I don't know what city it was in. I didn't ask what they dropped out of the window instead of water balloons. But he told me that he had just attended the ceremony where Juan Esparza received his award. And I thought that is really remarkable for one of Denver's drivers to win this national award and just representative of the entire solid waste crew. I know that they've had a rough time through the pandemic, Mayor. They've had a hard time keeping up with the demand in the schedule, and I salute every one of them when I happen to be at my house. When the recycling or the trash truck comes through the cul de sac, I always go out and thank them for the hard work they've been doing under very difficult circumstances. But it's recognition that's well-earned and overdue. So with that, thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilmember Flynn. Councilmember Black.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Madam President. I will be brief. I just want to thank every single one of you. I appreciate all of you and everything you do. And so to my constituents. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Canete.
Speaker 7: I would just like to add my congratulations to our driver of the year. And if there is ever the term everyday hero, I would apply it to this department, not just to those who do solid waste as it may be large in number, but those who do transportation and all the other pieces of the safety net work , safety, sanitation. My dad worked in the sewer business and he had a saying I can't repeat on air, but the community would be, you know, buried. And you know what? If it weren't for the folks who do our infrastructure? And so I also just want to add a little kudos for a particular example of going above and beyond. Two weeks ago, on a Friday night at 410, a neighborhood in Central Park had an illegal dumping incident that blocked access to their alley. It was an incredible quantity of bizarre items. I, i i'm sure you've all seen way more than I have. I could not explain this particular dumping incident and what motivated it.
Speaker 0: Or.
Speaker 7: How it precipitated. But at 415 on a Friday, I was able to get through and the team cleaned it up in time for people to be able to access their homes that evening. The residents were incredibly grateful. I'm privileged to just be able to know how to reach you all, to be able to activate that system. I know you do that often for folks who call 311 or find you in other ways. I've heard those stories, so I know I'm not the only one who's been able to access those kinds of responses in an emergency. Just an example of going above and beyond. So thank you so much and thank you for bringing this forward. Councilwoman Torres.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Kenney. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Madam President.
Speaker 2: I also wanted to.
Speaker 5: Make a few.
Speaker 2: Comments recognizing the individuals who were named earlier in this proclamation. I won't take the time to read them again, but I know most of you are here in the audience tonight and just want to extend my gratitude and appreciation. I know you don't always hear from people when you're doing a good job. You do hear from them when their trash doesn't get picked up or a stop sign gets knocked down and doesn't get replaced right away. But you all do important work for our city, and I know that the residents do truly appreciate the work you do. You may not hear from them all the time. I know I do. When I'm out and about in the community and people talk about our agencies and the services that they receive. But for each one of you, I know you reflect the work that's done by all of our men and women who work within the department . And you're reflective of the hard work that each one of them do for our city. Day in and day out. So much, much praise and appreciation for your work. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Ortega and I will go ahead and add in that we are very, very grateful to our dotty folks. They really did keep the city running during a very tough time. But they also have in my time in office really improved how they listen to the community and how they actually get out and walk in the area that we might need to look at a little bit closer and work on education and work on making sure that people are heard. And that's so important, especially now in our neighborhoods when people are struggling and the cost of living and inflation is so high. And it means a lot when we can make infrastructure improvements that improves people's day to day lives. It makes you a little bit happier when you come home, when you can get in and out of your neighborhood in an easy way and you feel like you're getting those amenities that you're seeing in other parts of the neighborhood or the community. And so really appreciate our dotty folks and and wholeheartedly support this proclamation. Madam Secretary, Roll Call Torres.
Speaker 3: Cashman I.
Speaker 5: Black.
Speaker 7: I.
Speaker 5: CdeBaca I Clark.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 5: Flynn.
Speaker 6: I.
Speaker 3: Hinds II.
Speaker 5: Kenny Ortega, I. Sandoval Oops. Allergies. Sawyer.
Speaker 7: I.
Speaker 5: Madam President.
Speaker 2: I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 5: 11 Eyes.
Speaker 2: 11 Eyes Proclamation 20 2-5 78 has been adopted. We have 5 minutes for the proclamation, acceptance and Councilmember Cashman, who would you like to bring up?
Speaker 3: Well, it's as much a mystery to me as to you. I'm hoping someone from our find daddy staff. I see Executive Director Adam Phipps. Thank you, Councilman. And thank you, Councilwoman Torres and council president and council tonight. I'll be very brief here. It's my humble ability to be able to accept this on behalf of an incredible department. We have, when fully staffed, 1500 dedicated employees that serve the residents of the city and county of Denver and those who visit, work and play here on a daily basis. You know, the theme for Public Works this year is ready and resilient. We have a team that throughout the pandemic, more than two thirds came in every single day to provide the critical service that our community needs. I can't think of a more ready staff. And as far as resiliency goes. We had an incredibly intense snow season this year. We had 13 weeks of constant deployment. That's 24 hour coverage time away from family time, away from friends time away from hobbies that our team came in with unprecedented short staffing levels to ensure that our roadways were clear. We are ready and we are resilient and I am honored to be able to lead what an incredible and talented.
Speaker 6: Group of people.
Speaker 3: I do want to take just a moment while I've got the microphone here to mention safety, safety for our traveling public as well as safety for our employees. Our our commitment and desire to serve at times can come ahead of safety. And we're working to make sure that everything that we do in Denver and how we do it is at the safest standard possible. We ask everybody and I ask those listening online tonight for the ability to slow down. When you see our workers out on a construction zone, slow down when you travel around a solid waste truck doing its or performing its route, slow down when you see a pedestrian or bikeway or bike rider at a bikeway. And please put safety top of mind. And to the council members here, I thank you for the unanimous support of our department. We feel it not only tonight, but every single day that we're doing our job. And we appreciate that. And ask anybody that if you see a dotty employee, think that dotty employee recognize them for the hard work that they do every day. It's what I try to do. Where I strive to lead on a daily basis is recognizing that talent and appreciating everyone for their individual contribution. So with that Council President, thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. We appreciate it. And as a final plug for Dotty, they are also hiring. And so I would say, if you are interested in joining this great, amazing dynamic team, go to Denver gov dot org and look for some of the mini jobs that they are currently hiring for as well. So thank you, Director Phipps and I see Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 0: Yeah, I'm.
Speaker 3: Just wondering if we have any of the other winners whose names were mentioned, if they're in the audience, if they could stand up and be recognized.
Speaker 0: Councilman, we do have a handful and specifically.
Speaker 3: Directed to recognize that superior national driver as well. So please stand up to any of the non employees as well as our. Thank you, Councilman.
Speaker 2: All right. Thank you. I love it when we can have a celebration and then we can keep it going by recognizing people. And so congratulations again for your important work. All right. We're going to go ahead and move on to our bills for introduction.
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation designating May 15 through May 21 as “Public Works Week in Denver” and congratulating the Denver Department of Transportation and Infrastructure’s Employees of the Year for 2021
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_05162022_22-0479
|
Speaker 2: Council members say two Barca and Flynn have called out Bill 401 for a vote under pending. No items have been called out. Madam Secretary, would you please put the first item on our screens? Thank you. Councilmember Hines, will you please put resolution four, seven, nine on the floor for adoption?
Speaker 3: I move that resolution 20 20479 be adopted.
Speaker 2: Thank you. It has been moved. Can we get a second? Thank you. Comments by members of council. I'll go ahead and make my comment. This resolution, I will be abstaining tonight because my brother in law's company, Gilmore Construction, is a subcontractor on this. Madam Secretary, roll call on resolution 22, dash four, seven, nine.
Speaker 5: Torres. I. Black. I see. Tobacco. Clark.
Speaker 6: All right.
Speaker 5: Flynn.
Speaker 6: I.
Speaker 5: Haines.
Speaker 3: Hi.
Speaker 5: Cashman. Kenny Ortega. I swear, I. Madam President.
Speaker 2: I'm staying. And then, secretary, close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 5: One abstention. Ten Eyes.
Speaker 2: Ten Eyes. Resolution 22, Dash 479 has passed. Madam Secretary, please put the next item up on our screens. Councilmember Hines, will you please put Resolution 120 on the floor for adoption.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Contract between the City and County of Denver and Garage Door Specialties, Inc., concerning perimeter security gate maintenance and repair services at Denver International Airport.
Approves a contract with Garage Door Specialties, Inc. for $1 million and for 2 years, with the option for three (3) 1-year extensions, to perform maintenance, repair, and emergency response services of Denver International Airport’s (DEN) electric security perimeter vehicle gates in Council District 11 (202159110-00). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 6-6-22. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 5-4-22.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_05162022_22-0120
|
Speaker 2: Ten Eyes. Resolution 22, Dash 479 has passed. Madam Secretary, please put the next item up on our screens. Councilmember Hines, will you please put Resolution 120 on the floor for adoption.
Speaker 3: Of the Resolution 20 20120 be adopted.
Speaker 2: Thank you. It has been moved. Thank you for the second comments by members of Council. Councilmember CdeBaca.
Speaker 7: Thank you. I called this off to be in consistency with the community's Reimagining Policing Task Force. It was studied that there is little to no value to these investments on surveillance in our city, and it was part of the recommendations to decrease the amount of surveillance happening in our city. And so I will be a no on this tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council member State Abarca. Councilmember Flynn.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Madam President. I had occasion to be at a luncheon over the weekend with one of our members of our prosecutor team over in the district attorney's office. And I brought this up. These are the Halo cameras, the high activity location cameras. And we are living at a time where recently our legislature mandated that body worn cameras on law enforcement officers be used be worn and used. So to be saying that we don't find video to be useful, I think is not it's not a in itself a useful statement. What what the prosecutor told me was that she had had cases where a halo camera was absolutely essential in a lot of cases where the Halo cameras pick up crimes. It provides evidence when witnesses are reluctant to come forward for one reason or another. It also allows Denver police to solve crimes in real time when when a crime in progress can be seen on a Halo camera and it can be tracked from one location to another. It's incredibly useful. And so for that reason, and generally for the reason that body worn cameras, halos and other cameras, even on private businesses, have proven very successful in in resolving crime and solving and providing evidence. I think it's essential that we pass this. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilmember Flynn. Madam Secretary, roll call on resolution 22, dash 120, please.
Speaker 5: Torres. I see tobacco.
Speaker 0: Clark, I.
Speaker 5: Flynn.
Speaker 6: All right.
Speaker 3: Hanes i.
Speaker 5: Cashman.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 5: Kenny Ortega Sawyer.
Speaker 7: I.
Speaker 5: Black I. Madam President.
Speaker 2: I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results one day.
Speaker 5: Ten Eyes.
Speaker 2: Ten Eyes Resolution 20 2-1 20 has passed. Madam Secretary, please put the next item on our screens. Councilmember Hines, will you please put Council Bill 401 on the floor for final passage.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Master Purchase Order between the City and County of Denver and Stone Security, LLC for High Activity Location (HALO) camera maintenance and installation.
Approves a Master Purchase Order with Stone Security for $1,440,000 and for three years with two possible annual renewals through 11-30-2026 for High Activity Location (HALO) camera maintenance and installation citywide (SC-00006334). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 6-6-22. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 4-26-22.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_05162022_22-0401
|
Speaker 2: Ten Eyes Resolution 20 2-1 20 has passed. Madam Secretary, please put the next item on our screens. Councilmember Hines, will you please put Council Bill 401 on the floor for final passage.
Speaker 3: And move the Council Bill 22 to 0 401 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 2: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Councilmember Abarca. Your motion to amend.
Speaker 7: I move that council bill 20 2-0401 be placed upon final oops be amended in the following particulars on page three strike lines 13 through 33 and replace with it shall be unlawful for any person other than authorized personnel to possess, display, flourish or discharge any firearm within any park, parkway or mountain park b except as provided in section 38, dash 131. It shall be unlawful for any person to carry a firearm within any recreational facility that the city owns leases or is leased to the city. It shall be unlawful for any person other than authorized personnel to possess, display, flourish or use any weapon other than a firearm within any park, parkway, mountain, park or other recreational facility. And it shall be unlawful for any person other than an authorized personnel to hunt or kill wildlife or other animals within any park, parkway, mountain park or other recreational facility. It shall not be an offense under subsection A of this section to possess a firearm within any park, parkway or mountain park. And on page four, strike lines one through 11.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilmember CdeBaca. It has been moved and seconded comments by members of Council on the Amendment. Councilmember CdeBaca.
Speaker 7: Thank you. This amendment removes parks from the scope of this ordinance for several reason reasons. First, there are major concerns about the ability to enforce in open space without profiling. Other cities have banned guns in city owned buildings because it is enforceable. Given the national and historical data about law enforcement's racial bias in relation to pretextual interactions, removing parks from this ordinance would reduce potential for law enforcement to racially profile people and use unwarranted force on suspected violators of this ordinance. Second, if parks are not removed from this ordinance, open space, including mountain park parking lots could become targets for car break ins when firearms are left in vehicles. The amount of stolen guns from cars is increasing, and the current ordinance would encourage CCW carriers to leave their guns in their cars in these potentially targeted parking lots. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilmember CdeBaca. Councilmember Flynn.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Madam President. Anshul, I have a question. As I read through the bill that includes mountain parks and I've been curious, I know there was an answer maybe several years ago. I forget what it was. But can we cite for a Denver ordinance violation in in a Jefferson County or a Douglas County location where most of our parks or our mountain parks are located at?
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Flynn. Honorable assistant city attorney. We can presume at the state level we have regulatory authority over mountain parks that we've annexed.
Speaker 6: Okay, that's interesting. Can Jefferson County Sheriff Cite. In a mountain park for a Denver code violation.
Speaker 0: That is a good question. I don't know the answer to that question. I know that the state law, we have regulatory authority over those areas. I don't know if they have concurrent jurisdiction in those areas.
Speaker 6: All right. Thank you. Because I know we don't have enough officers right now to patrol certain areas of the city, let alone let alone our mountain parks. I don't think I've ever seen a Denver officer in a mountain park. We have gotten a ton of email on both sides on this issue for the last month or so. Madam President and colleagues and I found that a lot of it is based on a misunderstanding. At the very foundation of it. It is already illegal. To carry concealed weapons, firearms in city parks. Which this amendment would which this amendment speaks to, by the way. It's already illegal. The emails that we've gotten seem to be addressed from that that point of view. And in fact, during our general public comment session here, just before the council meeting, we heard testimony about some recent incidents in parks where in one case, a man was killed in llama park. And there was a young a young man killed outside or near the skate park over on, I think, 20th Street. And neither of those was committed by a concealed carry permit holder. So of all these emails that we got, I found one that was very. Interesting because I don't think she was making the point she thought she was making. A woman emailed all of us. I don't know if y'all remember it. She said she lived in Denver before, moved away, but she wants to move back now. And while she was on a visit a few years back, I think it was 2017, she was shopping in a Wal-Mart in Thornton that turned out to be the Wal-Mart that a day after her shopping trip, a gunman went in and, I believe, shot and killed three people and wounded others. And she pointed out that the police investigation into that shooting was hampered by the fact that there were other there were concealed handgun permit holders in that Wal-Mart who drew their weapons. And, of course, on video, police had to clear all of those people as suspects and that it complicated the case. And she promoted that as a reason not to permit concealed carry anywhere. And I thought what that says to me, ma'am, is that everywhere you have gone almost every day of your life, whether it's in a Wal-Mart or in a park or at a shopping center, you have had people around you, concealed handgun permit holders who've been carrying a concealed weapon, and you never knew about it. And what that Wal-Mart shooting showed was that, in fact, there are a lot of folks out there who have permits and who do carry, and you never hear from them. They're not being arrested. We asked the city attorney's office and DPD for evidence that any concealed handgun permit holders have been behind any of the firearms crimes and the incidents of which we've seen too many in this city. And we haven't had any. We didn't get any in return. Mostly because we don't even keep such data. If it were happening frequent with any degree of frequency, we'd have some data on it, you would think. It makes sense that what we're doing here is it's already illegal to carry concealed weapons in a city park. There is an exception in the ordinance that if you have a valid permit, concealed handgun permit, you may and that's an exception to it. This ordinance tonight is not about making it illegal to carry concealed weapons in a park. It's about removing the exception for people who have permits to do so. This makes about as much sense to me as addressing drunk driving by taking car keys away from teetotalers. Simply because it would reduce the number of cars on the road. So I asked for data on a number of firearms related crimes committed by permit holders. We found out there is none. We asked for demographic data on who holds these permits. Councilwoman CdeBaca Thank you for asking for that. I don't know if you intended to address it, but what I saw on that date is that one of the highest percentage increases in permit holders being approved is among the African-American population in Denver. Finally, in an effort to find out if there's any foundation for removing the exemption, I asked late last week. I asked DPD for any data on the renewals every five years. Permit holders have to come in and have it renewed if they wish to keep it every five years. So I asked last week, do we have any data that would show if any permit holders have been rejected for renewal because of a firearm violation? And what I found out is there is no such data. What we do know is that since 2017, there have been 17 occasions when a permit has been revoked. Among a total population of permit holders over that time period of 16,718. The data don't show whether any of these revocations were related to a firearms violation. So in essence, we don't have any we don't have any foundation to pass this other than to feel good about trying to reduce the number of weapons in a park, when, in fact, there's no indication that any permit holders ever cause a problem . I feel like I'm in the Bermuda Triangle, a political Bermuda Triangle right now, because I find myself in agreement with Councilwoman CdeBaca. But not only with her, because I rarely find myself in agreement with her, as you saw in the last item. But we are also in agreement with David Kopel of the Independence Institute. And I don't think you could find two more opposite individuals on this issue than Councilwoman CdeBaca and the Independence Institute and David Kopel in particular. I think I said on one occasion, if Councilwoman CdeBaca and I were in agreement on something, it was either the best idea in the world or the absolute worst. I'm not sure which one this one this is, but it feels like this is something that I should support with this amendment. And so I will I will support the amendment. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilmember Flynn, Councilmember Torres.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Madam President. I'm I'm in agreement on this as well. I feel the removal of parks is an important aspect. And I, while I support the rest of the bill, as realistically enforceable, as understandable, as important, I think I appreciate, councilman, to the bill because willingness to tailor her, her amendment to keep rec centers in the bill, I think is a major employer. We have an obligation to keep our buildings gun free. Our parks.
Speaker 0: Are more a more.
Speaker 7: Opaque space for me. And I also kind of reference, I think, learning from the data that Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 2: Referenced as well. And we don't just have parks in Denver there throughout this region, which also.
Speaker 7: Creates a.
Speaker 0: Bit of a complexity in enforcement. I will be.
Speaker 7: Supporting the amendment. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilmember Torres. Councilmember Hines.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Council President regarding record keeping of concealed carry permit holders in crime. So a question for probably the city attorney's office. I don't know exactly who, but I know that there are a lot of legal restrictions on record keeping anything related to firearms. Are we legally allowed to carry records on crimes committed by concealed carry? Hold back concealed carry permit holders? Then the nature of the question is maybe we don't have any data because we can't collect the data.
Speaker 0: So Reggie Ngubane, on behalf of the City Attorney's Office, so we did request that information. The city attorney's office did request that information from DPD that keeps that data. And we were informed that that that's not information that they that they collect. They don't collect information related to this whether or not a CCW permit here has committed a crime when the crime has actually been committed. That's just not that's just not a statistic that they were able to give us. I'm not sure if they're legally able legally able to or not, but that's that's something that we would. Yeah. That's we don't really know of anything that would prohibit them from keeping that information, though.
Speaker 3: Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Council President.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilmember Hines. And I'd like to recommend a recognized council member Herndon to the meeting as well. And I will go ahead and go at the end of comments. And so, Councilmember CdeBaca, we have you and Councilmember Flynn back up.
Speaker 7: Thank you. And and as Councilman Flynn said, it's a rare occasion when he makes my case for me. He hit all of my points. But one of the points that I want to highlight, because I can get to supporting the ban if we amend it in this way. But the main reason I think that we need to make this amendment is because I requested an enforcement plan. How would we do this in parks when by nature a concealed carry permit holder is not? Brandishing or showing you their weapon. And there was no enforcement plan provided to us. And this is a question that came up last year or two years ago when this exact situation happened. Somebody called in and alleged that someone had a gun on them. And the police response to that kind of allegation is to show up, guns drawn. Regardless of whether that person has a weapon or not. And we watched it. Community members watched this happen. And this is what doesn't sit right with me. We just spent the last two years. Learning by use of excessive force is inappropriate and what it can lead to. And this policy single handedly justifies an excessive use of force in any case where there's an allegation that someone has a gun on them. So imagine your family barbecue kids running around. You have something tucked into your shirt. Could be an iPad, could be a wallet, could be anything, your kids toys, whatever it is. And someone sees you and thinks that that's a gun and they call the cops and report that someone has a weapon in this park. There is no plan on how this can be addressed in a way that doesn't bring cops to the scene with guns drawn on whoever. The subject is of this allegation. And so because of all the reasons that Councilman Flynn mentioned, on top of the simple fact that we have no enforcement plan that looks different than reporting, or then when we have a report, someone who is brandishing a gun or is an active shooter, that is a problem. And I hope that my colleagues take that into consideration because this is exactly what we have been saying. We were committed to ending over the last couple of years. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Next up, we have Councilmember Flynn.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Madam President. I just wanted to address something that came up after my remarks, and that is the data. I want to commend Matt Lunn from Denver Police Department. He's a really fantastic wizard and guru of all the data that they have over there. And of the 17 permanent revocations that I referenced in the one, two, three, four since 2017 through 2021, over five years, 16,700 some odd permit holders. Of those 17, ten were revoked two in 2017, six in 18 and two in 2019, because the permit holder had been arrested for something. But for what? We don't know what sort of firearms violation. It's not noted on the record. So I just wanted to put that out on the table since someone had asked about it. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilmember Flynn, and appreciate you asking the question, Councilmember Hines, that took care of my question. Madam Secretary, roll call on the amendment.
Speaker 5: Torres. CdeBaca, I. Clark.
Speaker 0: No.
Speaker 5: Flynn.
Speaker 6: I.
Speaker 0: HERNDON No.
Speaker 3: HINES No.
Speaker 0: Cashman No.
Speaker 5: Can each. No. Ortega. Sawyer? No. Black? No. Madam President.
Speaker 2: No. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 5: Three eyes, nine nose.
Speaker 2: Three eyes, nine nays. The amendment to 20 2-41 has failed. Council Bill 22, Dash four one is on the floor for final passage. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 22. Dash or one. Council members say to Barca. And then we'll go to Councilmember Flynn.
Speaker 7: Thank you. I'm really disappointed in my colleagues today. And. This is a common sentiment that I have when I leave this place. But this one in particular is painful. As a person of color, as someone who has been affected by police, excessive use of force in our family, in our community. We just open the doors to justify it. And when the first case happens, I hope that everyone on this dais knows that there is blood on their hands. So for those reasons, I won't be supporting this tonight.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilmember CdeBaca. Councilmember Flynn.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Madam President. I would just add to that that. Being no data, no foundation, that this actually does anything at all to improve our safety. I will join Councilwoman Sheila Bark in voting no.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilmember Flynn. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 22, dash four one, please.
Speaker 5: Torres. May. Black.
Speaker 7: I.
Speaker 5: See tobacco? No. Clark.
Speaker 6: All right.
Speaker 0: Flynn may. Herndon High.
Speaker 3: Haynes High.
Speaker 5: Cashman. Can each.
Speaker 7: I.
Speaker 5: Ortega. Sawyer.
Speaker 7: I.
Speaker 5: Madam President.
Speaker 2: I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce results.
Speaker 5: Three days. Nine eyes.
Speaker 2: Nine Eyes. Council Bill. 22 dash for one has passed. 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 I.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance amending the weapons and missiles division of the offenses chapter of the Denver Revised Municipal Code and the parks and recreation chapter of the Denver Revised Municipal Code to prohibit firearms in city-owned or leased buildings and city parks.
Amends Chapters 38 & 39 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code to prohibit concealed carry within city parks and buildings owned by, leased by, or leased to the city. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 4-27-22.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_05162022_22-0345
|
Speaker 2: Ten Eyes Council Bill 20 2-352 has passed. Councilmember Hines, will you please put Council Bill 20 to dash three, four or five on the floor for final passage and.
Speaker 3: Move the Council Bill 20 20345 be placed upon final consideration.
Speaker 0: And do pass.
Speaker 2: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded the required public hearing for Council Bill 20 2-3, four, five is open. May we have the staff report, please?
Speaker 3: Yes. Good evening, Scott Robinson with community planning and Development. So this is a request to rezone 6972 Argonne Street and 19300 72nd Avenue from CMU ten with waivers IO CMU 30 with waivers you are one IO and CMU 30 with waivers and conditions. You are 102i annex eight with waiver you will want eight. I know. And I annex eight with waiver. Oh, so I know there was a lot of gibberish, but I will explain what all that means in just a minute. As you know, this property is in Council District 11 in the DIA neighborhood. It is just south of Pena Boulevard and the Boulevard and the RTD line tracks and east of Tower Road, abutting Adams County to the south and east. The requested Annex eight zone district is industrial mixed use with a maximum of eight stories, which allows a variety of industrial, commercial and residential uses in general, in the townhouse general and industrial building forms. And the applicant is requesting rezoning to allow for the Pepsi Bottling and distribution facility to be built on the properties. So the requested waiver to the proposed Annex eight zone district would change the requirements for the manufacturing fabrication and assembly and general use. So currently that use requires a zoning permit and special exception review, which means that it has to go to the Board of Adjustment for uses that are larger than 60,000 square feet that operate overnight , which the proposed use would do. So the requested waiver would remove that zip C requirement and instead the use would be allowed as a standard zoning permit handled administratively. The i o is the DEA airport influence area overlay which prohibits residential uses and surface parking primary uses on properties in the area. So I mentioned that the IMF generally allows residential uses, but with the I know this would not be allowed. And then the other one is the adult use overlay that allows certain adult uses. The existing zoning, as I mentioned, is CMU ten and CMU 30, which are both former Chapter 59 old codes on districts that are commercial mixed use or that allow a variety of commercial and some industrial uses. The waivers and conditions on those properties prohibit residential uses and also prohibit a few other heavy industrial uses and require an application is meant to be signed with the airport. The site is currently vacant shows a pure agricultural surrounded mostly by vacant land with the hotels and other commercial uses along Tower Road and the Gaylord Hotel in Adams County to the Southeast. Here you can see the subject property in the bottom right with the Gaylord Hotel there in the background and then some of the surrounding properties that are along Argonne Street. This probably went through the larger development review process in 2021. That process called for the Foreign Office an amendment that you just voted on, the GDP amendment that was discussed earlier, this rezoning and the mobility study which has been completed. The General Development Plan is the high point GDP, which lays out the locations of future streets and open spaces and currently calls for a mix of office and mixed use on the site and also open space along the West Fork of the Second Creek and a trail along that corridor. As discussed earlier, the GDP is in the process of being amended. Following tonight, it will be amended by the Development Review Committee. That amendment will reflect the revised Street Network called for in the plan and call for industrial uses instead of those of the commercial office mixed use uses. The subject site is also subject to the Denver Gateway Urban Design Standards and guidelines, and those would remain in place. This went to planning board on March 16th, received a unanimous recommendation of approval. Was that ludie on March 29th? As discussed earlier, the LDR of the Plan Amendment went through an extensive public process. The applicant has also signed the Good Neighbor Agreement with the Master Association in the area addressing truck routing. You have in your packet two comments in support discussing how the applicant is a good member of the community and would bring important jobs to the area. And three comments in opposition, mostly concerned about traffic and noise from the proposed development. In order to approve a rezoning, the city must find that these five criteria have been met. The first criterion is consistency with adopted plans, and there are three plans that apply to this property. First is Comprehensive Plan 2040. As discussed in your staff report, staff has found that the proposed rezoning is consistent with multiple goals and strategies in Plan 2040, mostly relating to providing appropriate development, inappropriate locations, and providing for more business and jobs. So I won't go through all of these, but did want to point out a couple of them. One, relating to equity. The proposed rezoning would improve equity by improving access to resources in areas that are currently undeveloped. And also in terms of climate, would promote in-fill development, inappropriate locations and focused growth in places served by existing transportation infrastructure. So staff finds the proposed rezoning consistent with a comprehensive plan. 2040. The second plan is Blueprint Denver. That was will be updated or was updated by the amendment to the far north east area plan. So what I have here right now are the maps of what was the context in place type. So I'm actually going to skip over these and we'll talk about context in place with the far northeast area plan and its recently adopted amendment. But there are other strategies and recommendations in Blueprint Denver that I want to address. One is recommending rezoning properties out of former Chapter 59 into the Denver zoning code, which this amendment would or this application would do. Second is one that recommends against using customized zoning like waivers unless it's a unique or extraordinary circumstance. In this case, the amended for Northeast Area Plan calls for allowing these types of uses without additional review by the Board of Adjustment. So we find that the proposed waiver is consistent with the Blueprint Denver policy. And then third is to maintain existing regulations that limit residential and other inappropriate uses near the airport, which again the proposed overlay would do. Because the property is larger than five acres. We also did an equity analysis in terms of access to opportunity at scores between one and two out of four, which means it has less access to opportunity. Mostly that is because there's no street network on the property built out right now. So we can actually access the the community corridor along Telfer Boulevard, which have a road. In terms of vulnerability to involuntary displacement, it scores a two out of three. But again, there's no housing on the property and no housing allowed or would be allowed. So by allowing additional well-paying jobs in the area, it would potentially help limit involuntary displacement elsewhere in the neighborhood, but not directly on the site because no housing would be allowed. And similarly, for housing diversity right now in scores of three out of five. But again, no housing is currently allowed. No housing is there, and no housing would be allowed. So wouldn't have an impact on housing diversity. And finally, in terms of jobs, diversity, right now, jobs in the area skewed towards innovation. So allowing more manufacturing jobs in the area would help balance out the the job mix in the neighborhood. So staff finds the proposed rezoning consistent with Blueprint Denver. The third plan is the far northeast area plan as amended. So now the context designation for this is district, which calls for specific uses such as industrial, which is consistent with the proposed rezoning. The future place designation is value manufacturing, which again calls for things like industrial mixed use, which is consistent with the proposed Annex eight zone district. And the revised height map in the plan calls for an eight storey maximum. Consistent with the proposed zoning. Future streets are local for the most part, with High Point Boulevard and Dunkirk and 71st as collectors to serve the property and the locals making those final connections out to Tower Road, which is an arterial. The front of this plan also has some relevant recommendations, including calling for large scale employment opportunities in the area which this rezoning would do. And also, as I mentioned earlier, calling for allowing those manufacturing uses without additional review. So consistent with the proposed waiver. So that stuff finds the most resounding, consistent with far northeast area plan as amended and the first criterion met. The second criterion is uniformity of district regulations that finds that post rezoning would result in the uniform application of the annexed eight zone district with waiver. The third criterion is to further the public health, safety and general welfare of the city. Staff finds the proposed rezoning would do so by implementing the city's adopted plan and providing for additional jobs and development in this appropriate location. The third criterion, or the fourth criterion is justifying circumstances that finds the proposed rezoning justified by the new adopted plans in the area calling for this use and the fact that the property has retained former Chapter 59 and this would bring it into the Denver zoning code. And the final criterion is consistency with neighborhood context, zone district purpose and intent. And staff finds that the proposed rezoning would result in development consistent with the description of the industrial context and the purpose of the intent of the Annex districts. So that staff finds that all five criteria have been met that recommends approval. I'll be happy to answer any questions.
Speaker 2: All right, great. Thank you for the staff report. We have five individuals signed up to speak this evening. Steve Lawrence is first. Okay. He's declining to speak. That's all right. That's all right. We'll go ahead and move on. We've got Martin Lawrence or Martin Wallace excuse me on Zoom. Martin Wallace. Go ahead.
Speaker 0: I'm happy to.
Speaker 3: Answer any questions.
Speaker 2: All right. Thank you. Next up, we have Brian Conley.
Speaker 1: Good evening. Council members Brian Conley again with the law firm Abidin Johnson representing PepsiCo Beverages North America. I had intended to use this time to speak to our public outreach process that we've gone through. But but we were able to cover that during our discussion of the plant amendment. So I appreciate Scott putting together a very thorough presentation. We certainly agree with everything in it and would respectfully request your approval. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. We're going to go ahead and move back to Zoom. Katie, Your Highness. Hi.
Speaker 0: My name's Cleo Jennings. Thanks so much for.
Speaker 7: Letting me talk today.
Speaker 2: I currently live in Denver.
Speaker 7: I'm a Denver.
Speaker 0: I'm a Colorado native, grew up here, went to Colorado State and started with Pepsi, started my career with Pepsi right after right out of school. So I've been with Pepsi now for almost 20 years. I'm in support of this. It means a lot of good things, not only for the community but for Pepsi as well. You guys have hit on a lot of the high notes, but I just want to speak a little to my experience with Pepsi and why I found it so valuable that we're looking to expand and invest in this Denver area. They've always been a good company to me, and most importantly, their acceptance of inclusion and diversity and women in the workforce, especially in a tough manufacturing environment. That's something that I don't think is is common everywhere. And this.
Speaker 2: Opportunity here in.
Speaker 0: This Denver area to grow, to increase technology, sustainability. A lot of the notes that you had mentioned before is very exciting for me, not only as an employee, but as a Colorado resident. So thank you so much and.
Speaker 7: Thank you for my time.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Our next speaker is Jesse Paris.
Speaker 3: Yes. Good evening. May I be heard?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 3: Yes. My name is just Wissam Paris, and I'm represented for Black Star Movement for Self-defense and Positive Action Command for Social Change, as well as the Unity Party of Colorado. The East Denver Residents Council Front Frontline Black News. And I'll be the next mayor of Denver in 2023. And I reside in District eight in Councilman Hernandez district. I'm in favor of. The Bill to change the classification for 6972 North Oregon three and one nine 300 is. 72nd Avenue. And yeah, my only concern is the traffic in this area. As has been stated by previous speakers at a previous hearing. This is going to cause a very, uh. Traffic catastrophe. If the infrastructure isn't built out to supply all of these trucks that are going to be coming in and out of this area. So I wanted to know if there had been a extensive traffic study done on this proposed area. Yes. There's going to be this is going to bring jobs to the community, to the city. However, it doesn't negate the fact that this is going to be a traffic catastrophe if the infrastructure is not built out. So if someone could please answer that question about the traffic study. How that factors into the comprehensive plan 2040 and the is far northeast plan with the added amendments. I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks and have a blessed evening.
Speaker 2: Thank you. That concludes our speakers this evening. Questions from members of Council on Council Bill 22, Dash three, four, five. Councilmember Ortega. Yeah. This is for the planning department. So why the CMC?
Speaker 3: Hi. It's an x y man.
Speaker 2: Jerry.
Speaker 3: That was the the Africans choice their refuse in districts, as I understand that would work for what they needed and were consistent with what we were hearing from the community about the the the plan amendment.
Speaker 2: So does this cap heights at all?
Speaker 3: It is based on? Yes. Yeah. The Annex eight has a maximum height of eight stories and 110 feet, I believe.
Speaker 2: Okay. And I'm assuming the structure is not going to be eight storeys high. If someone from Pepsi can address that or if you can address that in the documents that have already been submitted to the planning department.
Speaker 3: I just wanted to confirm that it is eight stories, 110 feet is what the zoning would allow and let the Afghans speak to the proposed building.
Speaker 1: Again. Brian Connelly for Pepsi. I'd be happy to address the height question. The reason that we requested IMAX aid is that the I mentioned in the hearing on the area plan amendment that one of the technological features of the plant is what's called an automated storage and retrieval system. So it's a it's a tracking system that's internal to the building that uses guided vehicles and uses automation to store finished product in the it's it's sort of a ready made structure and it's shipped in parts, but it's assembled on site and it requires about 90 to 100 feet of height to actually have that racking system in it. It will not be the entirety of the building. The building itself is is very large, small portion of it. But that was the internal discussion that drove the height question and then also to the point that Scott made the the plan guidance for this area both before and after the final revised area plan amendment that you all approved this evening did indicate support for eight stories of height.
Speaker 2: Okay. So I guess, I think like way out into the future. I believe this investment is being made to be here for a very, very long time. But if there were to be some reason that Pepsi were to be sold off and moved away to some other place, then the entitlements for this parcel allow somebody to build the entirety up to eight stories. And so that's why I'm asking the question. And. If someone were to buy it at some point in time in the future, they wouldn't necessarily have to come back before Denver City Council. Many of us would be long gone by then to, you know, do something different with the site. So so Scott, I don't know if you want to add anything more to that, but I really do believe this is going to be there for a very long time. Pepsi has been at its current location for I don't even know how many years, but as long as I can remember.
Speaker 5: So go ahead.
Speaker 3: Yeah, you're absolutely right that this this request is not specific to Pepsi. It's for the property, whoever owns it, you know, there's no guarantee that Pepsi will build what they're proposing. Right. There could be changes in the next year that that they end up selling it off before they build anything. And so we evaluate this based on is this the zone district that's appropriate for this property regardless of use or ownership? And is it consistent with those five criteria? And based on the plan, as we went through, as Brian said, the plan calls for it stories, calls for value manufacturing. That's consistent with the proposed dynamics, a zone district, regardless of of who ends up building or using the property.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Thank you, Madam President. I thank you, Scott. And thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. Just to put a pin in that, if you wouldn't mind, schools would come back up. So remind me the totals, I understand, were the plans you're talking about could change. But the plan the size of the building.
Speaker 6: Is.
Speaker 1: It's about a million square feet.
Speaker 3: Right. And the plan, the size of the eight storey racking area, which you describe, is a small portion of it. How how many square feet would that be?
Speaker 1: 150,000 square feet.
Speaker 3: 150,000 square feet. About 15% of the building. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 1: I would also just add in response to Councilman Ortega's question that I think the reason the plan had originally suggested eight stories in height was because of the future there, the potential for a future commuter rail station there to support transit oriented development. So perhaps in the 100 plus years when Pepsi is no longer there and the future commuter rail station exists, then you could have eight story structures around it.
Speaker 2: If I may, Madam President, this is within the LDA noise contour. If it would have a lot to say about whether or not we tried to place residential within that area. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Ortega and I agree. And that's why we have been very consistent in not allowing any residential past 64th Avenue out in the far northeast and no single family residential past 56th Avenue as well. And so appreciate that. All right. Not seeing any other questions from members of council. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 22, Dash three, four or five. And I'll go ahead and give my comments since this is then my council district and this has been a very, very long process. We made sure that we reached out to the community. And I really want to thank the community steering committee members and all of the far Northeast community members who went to plenty of meetings, who gave their follow up input, who stayed very involved in this entire process. And I want to especially thank Mr. Benitez for being here tonight for both the Far Northeast Plan Amendment and the rezoning. And I'm really confident in going forward you staying in contact with the Pepsi representative, with Community Planning and Development and my council office as well, because we've developed some relationships and requests that we quite frankly, made of this development applicant about being a good neighbor, about making sure that they were investing in our far northeast infrastructure as far as traffic signals, making sure that they were reducing the negative effects of hopefully electric soon tractor trailers, and that we also have a great opportunity to work with your students and talking about the career path that they could look at, especially around the automated side of this Pepsi manufacturing plant. And they're starting to do some of that work already. They're going to be training at the current Pepsi plant in this new technology. And so I just hope that we can stay in contact and make sure that we're lowering any negative issues with the church and the school youth right there in kind of the same area. I also want to thank Lily with the CPD staff. She's done a great, amazing job and really explaining things that are complicated and that, you know, folks had worked on the far northeast plan a bit ago and she had to get us all back up to speed and having those conversations. I would like to thank the planning board and then a special thank you to Deborah Cameron with our Denver Economic Development Office. I know that there were times in this process that I was probably going to give Deborah a heart attack on it, and it was all making sure that we got the community's voice front and center and that they were heard. And that's indicative of this is a massive project for the far north east. And on each hearing, we've only had five speakers and we don't have community members saying they don't want this in the neighborhood. They're they're definitely informed and they know the benefits of it. And then thanking Brian Conley and all of the PepsiCo staff, because they also went above and beyond during this process answering hard questions. And so this is going to facilitate a large manufacturing campus. It's going to bring almost or close to 500 jobs that are high paying jobs, and that really creates a workforce development and training facility in our community. On top of what we're doing out of Denver International Airport and through our collaborative efforts with various community organizations and residents, we really created a framework that I believe sets a path for intentional growth and economic development. I don't know how many of you have heard me say it, but I will say it again on the record that I'm not going to go anywhere in the far northeast. And after my time on council, I'm certainly not going to get stopped at the grocery store. Or at a community event by a community member who says, you know what, you didn't you didn't do your due diligence. You didn't ask the questions. You didn't carry forward our wants and needs. I feel confident that we have carried that forward and that we've answered that and that we will continue to answer those questions as this project moves forward. And so I would ask my colleagues tonight to vote in favor of this. This is a game changer for the far northeast in having close access to a large scale employment center. Folks could actually ride their bike to work and that's a big deal in the far northeast. And so appreciate it. And with that, I will close out my comments, asking my council colleagues to vote in favor of this rezoning. And we'll go ahead and move to Councilwoman Kenny next.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Councilwoman. President. And I want to thank all the teams. It's been a lot of detailed information between the prior presentation and vote in this one. And I especially want to thank our council president because her diligence and her set up for the community engagement and conversations to make sure that stakeholders with a deep understanding of these plans understood the changes that were going to come forward is evident tonight, right, in terms of the depth. You know, I just wanted to comment for a minute about, you know, this concept generally of industrial, you know, in in in a long ago era when we created these highly separated zone districts in the early 1900s. You know, manufacturing was a harmful process. You know, it always involved dangerous chemicals and or loud noises. It was always deeply destructive to water air. There are still forms of industrial that are impactful in those ways, but less and less so every day as technology gets cleaner, as these processes are modernized, as there's more technology and they have an important role to play in our city and in our.
Speaker 2: In.
Speaker 7: Our in our economy. And I want to bring up two things in particular. One is job quality and wages. Our city cannot survive, in my humble opinion, on low wage retail and food service and hospitality jobs and high end housing alone. Right. And so I think that these jobs tend to have wages that are a notch higher and they are still accessible for those who may not have a college degree, which, by the way, we still have a lot of residents in our city who do not and they deserve to have good paying jobs. My mom was a factory worker. I'm going to share that. And, you know, we didn't have a lot of extras in our house, but there was food on our table and there was health insurance in our house. And that was because of her manufacturing job that she stayed at for 42 years with her rural high school education . And, you know, I think that that creating space in our city for those jobs, particularly in zones like this, they're not going to be residential, but even sometimes adjacent to residential because it is cleaner, quieter and less impactful than its 100 year ago. Ancestor is really important and it's important for the residents of far northeast in particular in terms of the workforce efforts that are going to be made because we have working class residents up there who may want to work closer to home than they do today and may not have a college degree and deserve to continue to have a good quality of life. The second thing that I want to flag is our conversation about property taxes. One thing I know about residential is that it pays a lower property tax rate in our city, but still growing because values are going up.
Speaker 5: And our residents demand a lot.
Speaker 7: Of services. Right. They require schools and they require, you know, libraries. And they they use a lot of city services. And that's appropriate. That's what we exist to do, is to serve residents. But the proportion of property tax paid in compared to services out is is a pretty high ratio for residents. What we know about industrial employers is they do have impacts on our roads. Right. We hope they don't have impacts on our air quality or our other things in this newer generation like this, like this particular facility will be modern and not have some of those historic impacts. But their use of services is very limited and they pay three times the property tax rate of residential. So if you care about property tax rates in our city for residents.
Speaker 5: And you care.
Speaker 7: About how the economics of providing our services in our schools work, then you got to care about keeping industrial employers in the city because they have a lot of square footage. And, you know, to their credit, they are taking on the obligations of being a member of our community. Yes, they're receiving some incentives, but they will also be taking on some obligations. And included in those are property taxes and other pieces of the contributions that people make when they're part of our community. So we have to keep working to keep these types of facilities and spaces both zoned and placed in our communities. We do not win. If every single inch of our city turns to residential or retail, that's not the right city for our future. And it's it's already happening. I recognize the the horse is out of the gate a little bit on that. But every vote we take, even on individual projects, matter. And I think that, you know, given the enormous community process input, the way this fits with the larger vision of the plans, even if a few tweaks were needed, all of that, the work that Councilwoman Gilmore and the team have done, I will be supporting this tonight and just wanted to say a little more about why. So thank you very much.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Kenney. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 22, dash three, four, five, please.
Speaker 5: Black.
Speaker 7: I abstain.
Speaker 0: CLARK All right.
Speaker 5: Fine.
Speaker 6: All right.
Speaker 3: Herndon, I.
Speaker 5: Hines Cashman. Kenny Ortega. So here.
Speaker 7: I.
Speaker 5: Am. Madam President.
Speaker 2: I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced the results.
Speaker 5: Ten eyes, one abstention.
Speaker 2: Ten I's Council build 20 2-3, four or five has passed our pre adjournment announcement and thank you everybody for being here for the hearings. Appreciate it. On Monday, June 13, the Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 22, Dash 471 changing the zoning classification for 2070 South Franklin Street in University and a required public
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 6972 North Argonne Street and 19300 East 72nd Avenue in DIA.
Approves a map amendment to rezone property from C-MU-10 w/waivers AIO, C-MU-30 w/waivers UO-1 AIO and C-MU-30 w/waivers & conditions UO-1 AIO to I-MX-8 w/waiver UO-1 AIO and I-MX-8 w/waiver AIO, located at 6972 Argonne Street & 19300 72nd Avenue in Council District 11. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 3-29-22.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_05092022_22-0424
|
Speaker 0: Council member Sawyer has called out Council Bill 424 for an amendment and council members say to backing Flynn have called out Council Bill 401 for comment. Under Bill's 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. Thank you. Council Member Canete, would you please put the council bill 4 to 4 on the floor for publication?
Speaker 4: I move that council bill 20 2-0 4 to 4 be ordered published.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It's been moved and seconded. Council Member Sawyer, your motion to amend.
Speaker 4: Thanks, Council president. I move that council bill 20 2-0424 be amended in the following particulars. One actually it says one, but there's only one. So here we go. On page one, line 30, Strike Clerk File number 20220052. As filed with the Denver City Clerk on April 27, 2022 and replace with clerk file number 20220052a.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It's been moved. Can we get a second, please? Thank you. Comments by members of Council on the Council Amendment. Council Member Sawyer.
Speaker 4: Okay. Hang on. Let me look here. There's a little more for me to read. Do I need to? Yes. Specify elements will make my house.
Speaker 0: Okay. I'm going to do.
Speaker 3: Perfect.
Speaker 4: Okay. So thank you, Madam President, for clarifying that this amendment is just a small tweak to the amendment that Councilwoman Sandoval had brought regarding parking that was adopted in LUTI. And the purpose of it is just to align the requirements for any developer within a quarter mile of a proposed transit corridor or rail line with the current citywide parking requirements for affordable housing developers. So that's point one parking spots per unit. I agree 100% with Councilwoman Sandoval's amendment. I'm just concerned that there's going to be real world implications resulting from that change. Not only is it going to cause some safety issues in the neighborhood that board it border these transit zones. But actually I believe it will end up exacerbating gentrification and displacement in some of our most vulnerable neighborhoods. The way it reads now, it would require zero parking spots for any developer that's building the affordable units into their development along that planned transit corridor. So functionally, this does two things. First, people are still going to have cars and no parking means those cars are going to end up on the street. We see major problems with sightlines on the streets. That line major transit corridors. For example, we have a section of 14th Avenue between Grape and Hudson. In the three years I've been in office, we have had over 14 crashes. And I'm not talking about like fender benders, like rollover crashes that have taken out people's fences, people's front yards, people's almost people's houses. And we're still waiting for the city to do something about it. I don't want to make this problem any worse. Second, allowing a parking exemption in this area makes the land within that buffer zone more attractive to market rate developers. That drives up the cost of the land along our planned transit corridors. That means it's going to be impossible for affordable housing developers to purchase that land. So instead of getting 30 affordable units in a development being built by an affordable housing developer, we're going to get four affordable units and 26 market rate units built by a market rate developer. It will take ten of those developments to get the same number of affordable units along a transit line. We're already seeing this trend in East Colfax, even with the parking exemption in place. So, for example, we've got three motels in East Colfax that were all recently purchased by market rate developers, even though there were affordable housing developers bidding on those properties as well. We've see that the affordable developers simply cannot compete with the offers coming from market rate developers exempting all parking requirements for a developer who only plans to build to finish percent, maybe a little more of the total units as affordable is only going to make this problem worse and thus exacerbate the gentrification and displacement that we already see happening in East Colfax, which is one of our most vulnerable neighborhoods. That said, as I mentioned before, I agree 100% with the intent behind Councilwoman Sandoval's amendment. So I'm just proposing this point one parking amendment to align I think it strikes with the affordable housing developer requirement, which is city wide, not just along transit corridors. I think that this is sort of striking a balance. So it's offering an incentive to market rate developers to build those affordable units into their developments along the transit buffer zones. But it doesn't necessarily make those challenges to gentrification and displacement or those safety issues that we're seeing along these corridors any worse. So by aligning those parking incentives in the buffer zone, market rate developers with the already existing parking incentive for affordable housing developers, which, like I said, exists across the city, I think that's just a little bit of a better balance. So that's why I'm making this recommendation, and I hope you will support it tonight. Thanks, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Steuer. Next up, we've got Councilmember CdeBaca.
Speaker 3: Mine is just for comments, not a vote on an amendment tonight, but just wanting to give my colleagues a heads up that I will be proposing an amendment to the three on the 30th. And Blake, this one and the. The other piece of this, the map, one just to one increase our fees and then to to make the 38th and Blake amendment not up zone. I think it's area seven all the way to 12 stories that's out of compliance with the plan the neighborhood plan that we have. And so I'd ask my colleagues to honor that and take a look at them. And it'll be in your inbox tonight when you all get home. And then the map amendment to match it. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. We're going to go ahead then and return to the amendment on the floor. Councilmember Sandoval, go ahead.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. If it's okay, can I please call and please hook up to help us answer some questions?
Speaker 0: Sure. Just introduce yourself and Elise for the record.
Speaker 3: Good evening. Members of Council Annaliese Hoke, principal city planner with Community Planning and Development. Thank you for being here tonight, Annalise. So with this amendment, even though the language seems to be simple. I have found when I been working within the zoning code. It's not as simple as it always seems like. It's called out in in different areas. So can you just talk about are there any unintended consequences of this particular amendment? It's hard to know the magnitude of unintended consequences, as we haven't had a ton of time to really evaluate it. But one just piece, it's more of a technical drafting thing that sometimes we don't get into the weeds. Our Denver zoning code has our parking minimums, but then within that it also has parking exemptions, parking reductions and alternative parking ratios. The parking exemption language that is being proposed through this change is remaining in that parking exemption section of the code, but it's actually an alternative parking ratio of 0.1. So there's a little bit of a technical confusion where we're essentially adding another layer of an alternative parking ratio, but in kind of a different section of the code . So there's sort of that technical piece. I think it's also important to note that this is not only peeling back the amendment that was passed out of ludy as it pertained to expanding this to BRT corridors once they were constructed. But it's also peeling back the parking exemption in areas that are within a quarter mile of a fixed rail transit station, which we have really not received any opposition or concerns about. If anything, we've seen a higher rate of comments supporting those to be expanded further. So I don't know if that's helpful. Thank you. So one quick one. Also question can cause this policy so dense? There's a lot in it. The. The proposal for the parking exemption. Can you talk about how it's an incentive to for the policy and how you would actually if a developer chose to go with the incentive, they would. What's their deliverable? Are they're in for the amount of affordable units we would get? Great question. Yes. So this policy sort of has two tiers of build on site requirements as well as alternative compliance. And the incentives are really designed to ensure that we are getting as many units built on site creating mixed income, affordable housing . That first tier is base incentives, and that includes the alternative parking ratio, which gets a reduction down of all units by point one. And that's context sensitive. So that is for building units on site. Depending upon that compliance option, it ranges from 8 to 10% on their market area. However, in exchange for a greater level of affordability on site to more affordable units, developer applicants have the ability to then pursue additional incentives. Parking exemptions is one of those. It's important to note that these parking reductions and exemptions were really also derived out of conversations with the affordable housing development community, as they are commonly the ones who are looking at those really small, really challenging, hard to develop parcels that are often passed up by market rate developers because they are still continuing to provide parking that is well above the minimums that we see. And so this is really serving as another meaningful incentive to allow for projects to move forward in those transit rich areas and provide more units over affordable or excuse me, more units of both market rate and affordable over parking spaces. Thank you. And one last question, one last comments. Last question. In the public comments that you have received after the amendment from Moody, did you receive public comment for this bill supporting the amendment that we brought forward to reduce the parking around the quarter mile? And I want to make sure that I'm clear I'm built or something that is going to be built into it can't just be aspirational. And the city actually has to be something that we are going to build out. Can you talk to us about some of the public comment you received? Yeah, certainly. So throughout this process and up until the formal public hearing, we are going to continue to gather public comment that we receive. But there is a notable spike in public comments following the amendment. The majority of those comments coming in were speaking to support of those changes. There was certainly, you know, folks that do raise concerns, but it was certainly at a much smaller ratio than those in support and those will be included. Anything that came in after will be included in the council packets along with any other public comment. Great. Thank you. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Sandoval. And thank you, Annaliese. Next up, we've got Councilmember Hines.
Speaker 7: Thank you, council president.
Speaker 1: I share Councilmember Sawyer's concern. We have a lot of cars in our city, and we continue to have more cars in our city and we continue to have crashes.
Speaker 7: And lots of traffic and gridlock.
Speaker 1: Colorado, which my colleague from District five and I share, might as well charge for parking. It is just such a mess. That said, I think that we should get rid of we should get government out of the business of parking minimums at all. Frankly, if the funding stack would allow it, I would prefer parking maximums in our city. I think that that what we need to do is make sure that we have good alternatives to cars, including a broad.
Speaker 2: Inviting, pedestrian experience.
Speaker 1: Protected bike lanes and and other ways for people to get around our city without a car. We're expecting an additional 200,000 people to move to the city of Denver by 2040. That's in the Blueprint 2019 adopted plan. And if we don't provide viable alternatives to cars and encourage that, those 200,000 people will bring at least an additional 200,000 cars. So if you think parking is bad now when we have 30% more people in cars here, it'll just be way worse. So I recognize that we have a lot of challenges and issues with traffic in cars. I want to make sure that we encourage people to live along areas where we can have car alternatives, such as major transit corridors. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Hines, Councilmember Flynn.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. On a list, could you expand a little bit on the advisory committee? And it's how you address some of the comments and concerns that you heard with them, because my understanding is that when this went. From the advisory committee. Whenever I'm from CPD two Planning Board, it included part of an exemption only for affordable, deeply affordable at a near fixed transit stations like rail zacharek. Okay. And the recommendation from planning board was to bring it to committee where it was amended by Councilwoman Sandoval to extend or to restore that exemption. That was in the original proposal that had been modified at the advisory committee.
Speaker 3: Is that. Yeah. I'll clarify a little bit more. So the advisory committee is comprised of about 20 or so individuals with various backgrounds throughout the city of Denver. Councilman Sandoval and can each have also been serving on that committee and thank you for your continued time commitment on that. In the kind of last round of public comments before publishing that that planning board review draft, we did hear some concerns, particularly out of some of the committee conversations around the expansiveness of the parking exemption. And so we peeled that back to only apply to the fixed rail transit stations. At the advisory committee, we did have some members that, you know, expressed some concern and disappointment with that change. However, overall, we just felt like it was still appropriate and still a strong proposal to move forward with a parking exemption but allowed in fewer areas of the city. Councilwoman Sandoval then brought forth an amendment that did not restore it to its entirety of the original proposal, but rather take a more nuanced approach that was focused on corridors within that that capital investment that the city was making as realized. And we had that adequate infrastructure in place.
Speaker 1: Okay. Can you explain what that adequate infrastructure is? I'm thinking of Federal Boulevard, which is a really good service. Yeah, but it is proposed in the future for BRT. I'm sorry, bus rapid transit speak, an acronym. So would this not apply until and unless the BRT is built out on Federal Boulevard and it would not apply now when it's simply the Route 31 and 30?
Speaker 3: That is correct. So I think the nuance of it is it's not just saying transit corridors as they exist today and have high frequency transit service, but corridors as they exist as Denver moves envisions them with not only high frequency transit service, but also the infrastructure in place to support that high, high frequency frequency capacity where you have, you know, unloading offloading off of station. So all of that is detailed in the definition in the Denver zoning code. I thought I had it printed here, but I don't.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you for that clarification. I really appreciate it. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Flynn. Councilmember Sawyer, we have you back in the queue, but I wanted to see if I could go to each and Ortega first. Sure. Okay. Thank you. Councilmember. Can each.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Council President I just wanted to clarify two questions so everyone understands what they're voting on. You and Councilwoman Sandoval had a long conversation, but I just want to underscore. So if this amendment were to pass, we wouldn't just lose the parking exemption that Councilwoman Sandoval introduced for bus. Is that correct? What would we also lose?
Speaker 3: Yes, we would also lose the parking exemption of sites that are providing enhanced affordability within a quarter mile of a fixed rail transit station. So it entirely eliminates options for projects to to provide zero parking and provide that higher level of affordability.
Speaker 4: And we did not get feedback about that exemption around rail. So we would be losing an exemption. We got no negative feedback about, generally speaking.
Speaker 0: None, none.
Speaker 3: That I have directly received through our various feedback forms.
Speaker 4: The second question I want to ask is the exemption is not only available to market rate developers. So there was some rationale that, you know, this is going to change. But can you please describe how the incentives in this bill are also available to affordable developers and how this amendment would affect them?
Speaker 3: Yeah, absolutely. So, you know, while this is designed with market rate developers in mind, it has also been designed with how do we remove existing known barriers to affordable housing development of those low tech projects that are providing the deeply affordable, much necessary affordable housing that we need in the city. And so by even though they do have that existing point one alternative parking ratio for units at or below 60%, AMI this did allow for those projects to build on those really small, unique, challenging sites at a to zero parking ratio. So by peeling this back, it not only would have impacts on the market rate projects which have candidly kind of said Denver's not quite there yet. We need we need this infrastructure to come along. But the affordable housing projects, some of these really small sites, they can't fit the parking and the needed turn radius to develop the housing on it. And so it allows for them to actually go in and access some parcels that might otherwise be passed up by market rate developers, because there's still that expectation of needing to provide vehicle parking in the market rate development. So does that clarify?
Speaker 4: Thank you. So I'm just going to add my comments. I appreciate that. There are places where we as colleagues may just differ. So I respect the concerns that my colleague has. I will not be supporting this amendment tonight for the following reasons. One, because it does take us backwards on rail, and also because I believe that our bus rapid transit investments, when they are made with capital infrastructure, are intended to deliver rapid transit and the type of infrastructure to more neighborhoods than we would get through rail alone. So I supported the original Sandoval amendment and worked with the team and supported the creation of that very narrow piece. And so I absolutely do not believe that we need to remove this exemption, not just from those bus corridors, but also from those rail corridors. So that's the first reason. Secondly, I, I do not respectfully agree with the rationale behind the amendment. Affordable developers have always, in this city, had to compete with market rate developers for land. It's very rare that a piece of donated or city land is available. So this is not a new phenomenon. And yet they have managed repeatedly to identify more parcels than we've been able to find. Every year, multiple projects go into the low income housing tax credit application round and only a few are selected and other projects, unfortunately, are unable to succeed. That's on us to continue to grow the the resources that we have. But we have seen, you know, time and time again, that doesn't mean every affordable developer is able to take down every piece of property they compete for. But it means that we don't need to change our zoning code in an attempt to try to create market outcomes that have, you know, for decades managed to occur even in a tough market. I don't at all envy those affordable developers having to go out and do that competition. But there's no reason and there's no evidence behind the fact that this parking reduction alone would somehow create a differential in their ability to compete for land. There's just not data to support that. So for those reasons and then finally for the fact that we have a very dedicated planning board and a very dedicated set of stakeholders who spent time on this. And there was strong support from the stakeholders as well as from the Planning Board, for us to treat bus rapid transit a little more equitably with rail. That's the original intent behind the amendment. So for those reasons, I will not be supporting the amendments and I would urge my colleagues to reject it as well with the comfort that the market has been building plenty of parking in plenty of places where they're already not required to build any like downtown. The market has not under built parking in this city to date. And so I think that we do not need to go through back flips in our zoning code for for that purpose. So thank you very much, Council President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember each. Councilmember Ortega. Thank you, Madam President. I wanted to ask an ELISA question about the developments that we're seeing so far at our TOD sites and what am i levels that we have seen commitments to.
Speaker 3: At a high level. I don't know if I have a clear answer for you is that's not something that I've specifically been tracking. I think it's important to note that today we do not have any requirements to construct affordable housing. We have a very nominal linkage, which most people choose, and then we have our affordable housing projects that the city has opportunities to put funding into. And then there's a handful of projects that pursue voluntary housing agreements as a part of rezoning. So if there's something in those three segments that's of particular interest, I'm happy to follow up on that. But generally, I don't think I have a summary point. My apologies.
Speaker 0: Okay. No problem. Thank you for answering the question. I wanted to speak in support of this amendment and. Let me spell out what those reasons are. First of all, I have served on the board of a nonprofit housing development group as the president for many, many years. Keep trying to give away that role to my colleagues, and none of them choose to take that. But I've had intimate involvement with many of the projects that we have worked on. They're all low income projects, and it takes multiple rounds to go through the low income tax credit application process with the Colorado Housing Finance Authority, because the dollars are very competitive, both for the 9% and the 4% dollars. What I have seen in the development that has occurred across our city where they are private development and they're being asked to include affordable housing lots of times, even when we have some of our money in there, we're typically seeing commitments at 60 or 80% . Those are typically people that own cars. Where we see folks that typically don't own cars are 0 to 30% of the area median income. And even in projects that have the 0 to 30. Typically for nonprofits, they are blending incomes of people in a building there, not a project that is all 0 to 30 of the am I. It's a mix of 0 to 30 on up to typically 60, maybe 70% on the high end. So I am concerned that we are seeing for low income people that will live in a project that is an affordable unit, they're not going to they're not going to own a car. They're not going to need a parking spot. And they will be the people challenged to go find a parking spot for their cars. Yes, we all want to see people get out of their cars. But until we have the right transit system and the connectivity that allows people to get out of their car and address their first mile, last mile, we will still have people driving their cars, which is why we've actually been bringing some people from different countries and states to have presentations with this body to help us look at expanding our thinking about how we do transportation in this city. So I think this is a reasonable request. I really believe that there is a threshold difference between the 0 to 30 projects and anything from 60% above. And I would suggest that assuming this bill moves forward tonight, with or without the amendment, that we should address that threshold difference and review this ordinance at some time in the future to see exactly what is happening with the difference between those two emission levels and what's happening with the the parking issues and challenges. I can remember going to see a project in Seattle and I think some of you were part of the trip. I think this was a partnership trip, if I'm not mistaken. And we saw some affordable micro units that didn't have any parking and the people who lived in those units had cars and they were having to park four and five blocks away carrying their groceries. None of them had children because the units were too tiny. They were basically targeted for single individuals. But I don't want to exacerbate our parking issues, and I clearly understand there is an additional cost to create a parking space for a unit in these projects. But at the same time, I don't want to create a classism problem that says if you live in a low income unit, you're going to have to park your car further away because we just don't have a parking spot for you. But if you can afford one of the, you know, higher, more expensive units, then you'll get a parking spot in in your in the building. And that's that's a huge concern for me. So I will be supporting this amendment tonight. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Ortega. Councilmember Sawyer.
Speaker 4: Thanks, Madam President. Just wanted to ask Anshul to clarify. I heard several councilmembers say that this would that this was a drafting thing that would remove the parking exemption. And it does remove the parking exemption and replace it with 0.1 or 10% parking requirements for the total unit. Can you just walk through that with me and maybe clarify and confirm that what I'm saying is correct because it sort of presented a little bit differently.
Speaker 2: Sure. Thanks, Councilman Sawyer. So the the amendment that you're proposing would remove the exemption that's enjoyed by the and compliant structures in those areas, by rail transit authorities and then those particular design districts. And that exemption will point 9 to 27.1 units per unit.
Speaker 4: So it does apply to rail? Correct. And it does apply to BRT. Got it. It's just doing nothing else but changing. 02.1. Correct. Okay, great. Thank you for clarifying question for analysts really quickly. You had mentioned that you didn't have time to really take a look and dig in at this amendment. When was the first time I contacted you about this amendment?
Speaker 3: You followed up after alluding and I apologize. I've been out on PTO.
Speaker 0: So.
Speaker 4: Totally fair. I just wanted to make it very clear that two and a half weeks ago, two weeks ago, I reached out about this amendment. So there was plenty of time.
Speaker 6: Now, we.
Speaker 3: Looked at how we could have drafted it, but we weren't sure if you were planning to move forward. That is on my bad for not following up and understanding that this was something that you were seriously considering moving forward. So my apologies. Okay.
Speaker 5: Interesting.
Speaker 4: Great. Thank you. I really appreciate that. And no further questions at this time.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Councilmember Sawyer, council member state.
Speaker 3: Thank you. I support this amendment tonight for many of the reasons my colleagues have shared. I do have some questions for Annalise. Can you tell us how much it costs a developer to build a parking space? Because we don't often talk about that. Yeah, certainly. So it very much depends as to whether it's a surface structured or a sub grade surface is anywhere from 8 to 12000. Sub grade goes up to about $40,000 per parking space structured as around 20 to 30. Obviously, construction costs have gone up substantially in the past year. So it might even be slightly higher than that.
Speaker 5: So we're talking about a range from 6000 to.
Speaker 3: About 15,000 or 30,000, 40000 to 40000, $6,000. So that's $40,000 we could be capturing per space that we're waiving to figure out what we want to do with it if we have another mode or method of approaching this. Right. If we charge developers what it costs, market rate developers, what it costs to wave a parking space. I'm not sure if I entirely follow your logic. My apologies.
Speaker 5: So instead.
Speaker 3: Of a. Broad brush stroke, exempting parking for market rate and affordable housing developers in these TOD areas, BRT areas. What we could be doing is continuing our parking waiver system and actually charging for each space that's waived and capturing those.
Speaker 0: Dollars for.
Speaker 3: Our affordable housing fund. Is that possible? Okay. Thank you for clarifying that. So saying we're going to require you and please correct me if I misunderstand this. So our code will still require you to provide one or 1.25 parking spaces per unit, but will let you provide none or a lower parking ratio if you pay us $40,000 . Is that correct? In terms of the scenario that that you would want to in these particular areas that we're asking them to provide in any way for free? Yeah. So I think it's important to note that while that is the cost to construct parking spaces are often times a revenue source. So in addition to the rents that folks are paying, then they're going to pay an additional cost to access those parking spaces. And so to say, to say a developer don't build a parking space and pay us is really does not have the market operates in terms of development. What this is really trying to do is eliminate a barrier. If we were to say you have to provide parking or pay us. I would be shocked to see a single developer pay us that fee and not provide the parking spaces because. It just doesn't quite work that way. What we see in our peer cities is really them taking a move to action, to getting zoning out of the way as a barrier to providing affordable housing and and ensuring that we're promoting our multimodal transportation system. So, you know, it's been, you know, something that I've heard before, but I, I just don't actually think that we would see anyone take advantage of that and pay into the funding. But we've never tried it, correct? No, we have never tried, nor has it any other city, because I think we understand the basic economics of market development. And the basic economics suggests that a developer can afford parking spaces, but it's more lucrative to not provide it. Correct. No. Right now, the market demands the vast majority of market rate developers are expected to banks are still expecting market rate developers to provide parking, which is why we see the vast majority of market rate developers over parking beyond what the minimum requirement is. What this is really doing is setting up a systems change to allow for areas in our city where we're making significant or have made significant investments to not provide parking in exchange for greater levels of affordability. But there's no control at in the area of transit or BRT. There's no control for making sure that we're getting affordable housing. This applies also to market rate developers, and so this applies to projects that have a covenant restriction, ensuring that they are providing a higher level of affordability. Anything in our zoning code that is one of these incentives requires an affordable housing plan at time of development plan and then a covenant that is recorded against the property in perpetuity prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy and the building permit. So this is not a just I'm a market rate developer and don't feel like providing parking. It is another lever for us to drive the outcomes that we want, which is providing more onsite affordable housing in our transit rich areas and which are making those investments. That higher level is not defined. So we it is it's the enhanced onsite. So in the DMZ, there's the base onsite affordable requirements and then there's the enhanced onsite affordable requirements. They must meet the enhanced onsite affordable requirements, which is a higher percentage of total affordable housing units to access those. They also have the opportunity for other fee and loos in which none of these parking reductions or incentives are available. So if a market rate project says, I'm only going to pay the fee and layer because I don't want to provide affordable housing, that's going to be a painful fee in lieu. And they have no access to these incentives or any of the other ones as a part of this package. But the affordable housing that they create, the value of it doesn't have to match the value that they saved from the parking that they don't have to construct. We don't have a formula. We're not checking that we don't even have a range pin down of what it costs per parking space that we're holding them accountable for. We have done analysis and that's included as a supplement to the financial feasibility to look at what is the added value of the incentives. So there is a notable value that we have calculated. I apologize. I don't know what off the top of my head because there's a lot of different pieces that we looked at. But essentially it shows that it is a significant value. But we also have to reality check it with what the market is expecting, where our lenders are at. We even see sometimes traffic being a little bit hesitant in some areas to go with lower parking ratios. So we know this is an evolution in our conversations and this is really us trying to lead the way of where we want our city to grow and evolve and to start to house people over cars. Well, in the information that you provided us, there was not a sufficient analysis of that. And given that our city has not reached a place where it is feasible to take multiple children across town to different schools in our School of Choice system and get to work in a reasonable amount of time, we are setting up a context where we are not building homes for people with children, for people with more than one job, for people who have disabilities or have medical conditions where they have to get to multiple doctor's appointments on public transit or on foot in a day. We're not building for the people that we say we're trying to house. We're not there yet. And so it seems as if we would be better off trying a more experimental approach to our parking waivers, expanding on the current parking waiver system that we have in a way that lets us control project by project in a more sophisticated way rather than a blanket approach to this. So for those reasons, I do not support the current bill as it stands, and I would support this amendment tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember CdeBaca Councilmember Sandoval.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. I find it interesting that we're having a conversation about not supporting building more housing. We just had a whole entire conversation from people, from public comment who were telling us to build more housing. And so to build two parking spaces is about 600 and give or take 650 700 square feet, two parking spaces for your car. You can also have a condo for 700 square feet. That can house people with two bedrooms, a bathroom and a closet, actually, a really nice condo. So I prefer to spend money and I would prefer to give incentives to developers, to not house cars and to house people. And that's what this amendment is doing. Just along certain areas where the city and county of Denver is also putting money and dollars to get better transit along our city. I agree with everybody. Our transit is underpass. It is not very accessible. It's not very easy to take. It needs major overhaul and major updating. But we have to live in the reality where we are now. And I would rather have housed two people in a 700 square foot condo than two cars with 700 square feet. So I would hope that my colleagues do not support this amendment and have the bill moving forward as soon as it is presented. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Sandoval. Madam Secretary, roll call on the amendment, please.
Speaker 3: Sawyer I.
Speaker 5: Torres They.
Speaker 3: Black CdeBaca, I. Clark.
Speaker 1: No. Flynn No.
Speaker 5: Hines?
Speaker 2: No.
Speaker 5: Cashman?
Speaker 1: No.
Speaker 5: Kenny Ortega. Sandoval No. Madam President?
Speaker 0: No, Madam Secretary. Close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 5: Nine days, 3 hours.
Speaker 0: Three eyes the amendment to 20 2-424 has failed Council Bill 20 2-424 is on the floor for publication. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 20 to dash 042 for Council member say to market.
Speaker 6: Just reminding you I explained my call.
Speaker 3: Outs tonight were for comments to let council members know that there are amendments to review in your inbox tonight so that everyone is not feeling like anything was sprung on them. They are the amendments that I mentioned at committee. So just getting it on record. They are coming to you and I hope you all will support them.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember CdeBaca. Councilmember Sawyer.
Speaker 4: Thanks, Madam President. Just wanted to say that I will be supporting this this evening. Obviously, I'm disappointed that the small change to the Luti amendment was not passed, but this is an incredibly important piece of legislation and no legislation is perfect. So I will still be supporting it tonight because it is too important for a small issue like that. So I just wanted to clarify that I will be voting yes tonight and next week, but I'm disappointed that the the point one parking amendment did not pass. However, this is the legislative process and this is what we do. Thanks.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Sawyer. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 22, dash four. Two, four, please.
Speaker 5: Sawyer I. Torres, I. Black eye. CdeBaca, I.
Speaker 1: Clark Eye for an eye. Hines, I. Cashman I.
Speaker 5: Can eat. Ortega. Sandoval, i. Madam President, I.
Speaker 0: Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 5: 12 Eyes.
Speaker 0: 12 Eyes Council Bill 20 2-424 has been adopted. Madam Secretary, would you please put the next item up on our screen? Councilmember CdeBaca, would you please go ahead with your comments on 20 2-401, please.
|
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_05092022_22-0401
|
Speaker 0: 12 Eyes Council Bill 20 2-424 has been adopted. Madam Secretary, would you please put the next item up on our screen? Councilmember CdeBaca, would you please go ahead with your comments on 20 2-401, please.
Speaker 3: Again, just a notice on record that you all have an amendment in your inbox to remove the parks, public parks from Bill 22, Dash 0401. This would be more aligned with how other people have implemented bans in city owned spaces. They often identify public facilities, physical buildings, and not necessarily the outdoors. And so this will be on your desk as well for next week.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember CdeBaca. Councilmember Flynn.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. I also look forward to next week. I'll vote yes to advance this to publication, but I remain very skeptical that this bill actually does anything. We've not yet been presented any evidence that it will result in any positive outcome, that there's a problem that needs to be solved by this. And I share Councilwoman Celia Barker's concerns that she's expressed in committee over where this where this bill's weaknesses are and where its unintended consequences might be. So I do look forward to receiving any any data that shows this would actually address a problem, rather than simply be a performative piece of legislation that sends messages, but that results
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance amending the weapons and missiles division of the offenses chapter of the Denver Revised Municipal Code and the parks and recreation chapter of the Denver Revised Municipal Code to prohibit firearms in city-owned or leased buildings and city parks.
Amends Chapters 38 & 39 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code to prohibit concealed carry within city parks and buildings owned by, leased by, or leased to the city. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 4-27-22.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_05092022_22-0307
|
Speaker 8: Hey Denver residents in 2022.
Speaker 0: Hearings tonight 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. Host 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 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 the 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 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 will alternate between in-person and virtual for efficiency by calling in-person participants and then alternating the 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 can reach where you please put Council Bill 20 2-307 on the floor for final passage.
Speaker 4: I move that council bill 20 2-0307 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 2-307 is open. May we please have the staff report?
Speaker 2: Good evening. Council members and members of the public. My name is. It's an evaluation. I'm with CPD before you. Today we have three specific properties, one located on in Door Street and the other one in Gallia Street and then Glencoe Street. All three of them are single unit zone districts and they're applying for a single unit zoned district that allows for an accessory dwelling unit. Two of the properties are in the urban edge neighborhood context and one of them is in the urban neighborhood context. All three properties are located in Council District eight in the North Park Hill neighborhood. Um, as you can see, the three specific properties are single unit dwellings. The properties on Endura and Glencoe are 6000, just above 6000 square feet, and the Dahlia property is just over 8000. Close to 9000 square feet. Like I mentioned, each of these properties are single unit zoned districts that are applying for an accessory dwelling unit, which allows for a maximum height of 24 feet. And the minimum lot size for the urban neighborhood context is 5500 square feet, and the minimum lot size for the urban edge context is 6000 square feet, which. Um, now the zoning, like I mentioned, are two specific zoning districts. The first one, Dahlia, is located in the US, you see, which is a urban single unit city with a 5500 square foot minimum. And the other two properties, Endura and Glencoe, are in the east, which is the urban edge single unit D, which is a 6000, and the X would allow for urban and suburban forms. As you can see here, the indoor property is a single unit, land use. It is a one story structure. You can see it on the top left corner and then some of the single families across the street from it. The same thing with daylight. You can see here, it's a single unit, residential land use and the value property you can see on the top left is a one story structure and you can see similarly one story structures across the street as well. Then here is the Glen Cove property, which is like about 1.5 storeys in height. And you do have a mixture more here about between one and two stories. As you can see, some of the single families across the street is one and two stories. And so this went before planning board on March 16th. It was approved unanimously and it is before you. Today we have three comments, three letters of support, two letters of support, and then one letter of opposition. That letter of opposition pointed specifically on the quality of life. They had some concerns around traffic and parking. All three letters are attached to the staff report. And then there are five review criteria that we analyze that we get from the Denver zoning code, and I will jump through some of these. The first one is consistency with adopted plans. There are three plans that fall under this area which are comprehensive plan 2040, Blueprint, Denver, L.A. and Transportation Plan 2019 and the Park Hill Neighborhood Plan of 2000. There are several strategies specified in the staff report which these zone districts are consistent with, but I would just highlight a few of these under the equitable and affordable inclusive go to strategy a create a greater mix of housing options in every neighborhood for all individuals and families within the strong Atlantic neighborhood. Go one Strategy B Ensure neighborhoods offer a mix of housing types and services for all diverse populations, and then the environment for resilient goal h strategy a promote infill development where infrastructure and services already in place. When we're looking at a blueprint. DENVER The future neighborhood context for the Dahlia property is urban, which is more of a small multi-unit, residential and low intensity mixed use buildings, which are typically embedded in single unit and two unit residential areas. And then the properties for Endura and Glencoe are urban edge future neighborhood contexts, which are predominantly residential, and it tends to act as a transition between the urban and suburban areas. For the future place type it's all three properties are classified as residential low where it's predominately one two unit uses and accessory dwelling units are appropriate and as well as all three streets are classified as local or on designated streets, which are categorized predominantly by residential uses. And all three properties fall under all area, all other areas of the city for their future growth area, which we anticipate to see 10% of new employment and 20% of new housing, new housing in these areas. As well as blueprint has a policy regarding accessory dwelling is found in the in the land use and built form housing policy number four which talks about diversifying housing choice through the expansion of accessory dwelling units throughout all residential areas. Now when we jump into the Park Hill Neighborhood Plan, their specific sections, they talk about maintaining the existing character and the residential character, Park Hill, as well as compatible mix of housing types and densities, as well as action number three, which talks about create and maintain a mix of housing types that are all that are attractive and affordable. Now the staff report, it specifies how criteria two, three and five are consistent. And now for the fourth criteria justifying circumstances, a city adapted plan is highlighted based on what we discussed earlier in Blueprint Denver that talks about allowing accessory dwelling units in all residential areas. Therefore, CPD recommends approval, basing that based that all the findings of the review criteria have met. Staff is available for questions and the applicant is here as well, available for any questions you might have. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you for the staff report this evening. We have three individuals signed up to speak. Our first speaker. Are all three are on line test already. Okay. I'm going to talk to our producers. We don't have tests. Dougherty joining us tonight, so we'll go ahead and move on. David Hagan. David Hagan. Not seeing him there either. We're going to go ahead and move on. Our next speaker is Jesse Paris.
Speaker 7: Yes. Members of council can be heard.
Speaker 0: Yes, go ahead, please.
Speaker 7: Yes. I just want to start first off by saying Sam on you, Denver City Council, Oakland and Chambers, all those people. It's been a decade of this urban campus banner needs to be repealed. Somebody needs to take in this before the next election and repeal this urban camping ban in regards to the rezoning as set out to council the back office down there with the people in regards to this rezoning. Excuse me. My name is just with Tom Perez and I'm represented for Blackstar at the Movement for Self Defense, Positive Message Move Sultan's speech as well as the guilty party of Colorado. The East Denver Residence Council Front Frontline Black knows and I'll be the next mayor of Denver in 2023 and I reside in District eight and Councilman Hardy's this district. I'm in favor of this rezoning tonight. I supported 80 youth when I ran for City Council At-Large in 2019. I continue to support its. We're the city, just like we need to state our faces and other forms of attainable housing all over the city. We have a housing crisis, and if you didn't recognize that someday you will never recognize it. This has been a decade of doom and we can do better. It looks like it's going to take a whole new administration in order for us to do better. So I'm in favor of rezoning me of the criteria, which is consistency with adopted plans, a uniformity of district regulations as far as public health, safety and wellness and means justifying circumstances to say one neighborhood context zone, district purpose and intense song about zoning fight will once again slam on council members like days to let the people speak. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. That concludes our speakers this evening for this hearing. Questions from members of Council on Council Bill 22, Dash 307.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Flynn Thank you, Madam President. Edson Could you address something I'm trying to figure out in the application or in the planning board comments, it includes a comment from someone who lives a couple of blocks away who said, What is it? Park Hill is not designed to have commercial businesses in the middle of a residential neighborhood. I would note that that, of course, there are commercial local commercial business strips in Park Hill. But I'm curious. Was there something about this application that prompted that remark? Is there any thing in the application that I didn't see that I missed that opens up commercial business with these ideas? Maybe they're going to use it for short term rental or. Was anything stated along that line.
Speaker 2: That wasn't specifically stated by the applicant?
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 2: And I believe the individual got confused and maybe it was a short term rental. I did reach out to the individual, but they never responded. Okay. Um, so I was just trying to understand more if it was more of a short term rental concern when they were describing that.
Speaker 1: Thank you. I think then I, I share your your mystification at that remark and why it was made. Thank you. That's all, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Flynn. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 22, Dash 307. And I'm not seeing any. And so I'll go ahead and weigh in. The this rezoning meets all of the appropriate criteria, and I'm happy to support it this evening. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 22, Dash 307, please.
Speaker 5: Black. I see. Tobacco, I. Clark.
Speaker 1: All right.
Speaker 0: Flint.
Speaker 1: All right.
Speaker 5: Hinds. Cashman. Kenny Ortega.
Speaker 0: I swear.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 5: Torres. I. Madam President, I.
Speaker 0: Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results. 1111 I's Council Bill 20 2-307 has passed. Thank you, Edson, for the staff report. Councilmember Kasich, would you please put Council Bill 22, dash three, four, three on the floor for final passage.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 2900 North Eudora Street, 2685 North Dahlia Street and 3025 North Glencoe Street in North Park Hill.
Approves a map amendment to rezone property from U-SU-C to U-SU-C1, located at 2685 North Dahlia Street, and E-SU-DX to E-SU-D1X, located at 2900 North Eudora Street and 3025 North Glencoe Street, in Council District 8. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 3-29-22.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_05092022_22-0343
|
Speaker 0: Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results. 1111 I's Council Bill 20 2-307 has passed. Thank you, Edson, for the staff report. Councilmember Kasich, would you please put Council Bill 22, dash three, four, three on the floor for final passage.
Speaker 4: I move that council bill 20 2-0343 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 2-343 is open now we have the staff report, please.
Speaker 3: Yes, thank you. My name is Libby Adams. I'm with Community Planning and Development, and I'll be presenting the MAP Amendment to allow accessory dwelling units in Villa Park, Barnum and Barnum West. This application is sponsored by Councilmember Torres and the Map Amendment rezoning all single unit residential properties that currently do not allow for use in Villa Park , Barnum and Barnum West to allow for aid to use as it had previously. The application is located in District three, and so the request includes nearly 3000 properties or 439 acres bounded by Sheridan Boulevard, Federal Boulevard and then Alameda to the south and 10th Avenue to the north. And the proposed zoned districts are the same as the current zone districts, except that they allow the accessory dwelling unit use either within the primary structure or in a detached structure. The proposed rezoning area is currently zoned urban edge single unit D and urban edge single unit decks. Both districts are single unit residential districts, allowing the Urban House primary building form with a maximum height of 30 to 35 feet. Additionally, the Eastside District allows a suburban house building form. There's one historic structure in this area located at 666 King Street, so any development proposed on this site would be subject to landmark review. The area is mostly single unit residential land uses with some public quasi public uses scattered throughout and a small handful of two in multi-unit uses. And the proposed rezoning is adjacent to a single unit two unit multi-unit commercial office mixed use public, quasi public and park and open space. Here's some images from within the proposed rezoning with Philip Park on the top, then Barnum and Barnum West. And then here are some images from the surrounding area. And then for public outreach. The District three Council office began outreach in the summer of 2021 and included postcards, fliers, yard signs, meeting with registered neighborhood organizations, a dedicated phone line, virtual office hours, virtual town halls, and in-person town hall, which is pictured here, and then a survey with 140 respondents. And these were both in English. We had bilingual, bilingual meetings as well. And so for the process, the informational notice was sent in the beginning of December and this went to planning board on March 16th where they unanimously recommended approval. And then for public comment, Councilwoman Torres included letters of support from the Community Coalition for Barnham and Villa Park Neighborhood Association with the application. And then during the process, staff received four letters of opposition, mostly citing concerns with increase in traffic, crime and trash. And then staff also received 33 letters in support, citing a desire to add an extra unit, particularly for family members, and to add density to the neighborhood. Additionally, the council office received mostly support for the rezoning from the survey they created. Because this rezoning is legislative, it is only subject to the three review criteria shown here. The first review criterion is consistency with adopted plans, and there are five plans that are applicable to this rezoning. The proposed MAP amendment is consistent with several strategies from Comprehensive Plan 2040, which are outlined in the staff report. So moving to Blueprint Denver, the future of the future neighborhood context is urban edge. And so the proposed zone districts are consistent with this plan direction of predominantly residential areas with single and two unit uses. And then most of the proposed area for the future place type is low residential and these are mostly single and two unit areas where 80 ewes are appropriate. The northern portion located in Villa Park is in the low, medium residential future place type, which is a mix of low to mid scale multi-unit residential options which allow for single unit with 80 ewes. And then there are small portions along corridors that are designated as local and community corridors which I permit primarily for shopping, dining and commercial uses and may also include residential uses. So overall, the proposed districts will expand the allowed residential uses consistent with all three of these future place types. And most of the future street types are local streets and residential collectors, which are mostly characterized by residential uses consistent with the proposed rezoning. And then under the Blueprint Growth Area Strategy, a majority of the area is within are expected to see 10% job growth and 20% housing growth by 2040. And then the areas along shared in Alameda are designated as community centers and corridors and are anticipated to see 20% of new jobs and 25% of new housing by 2040. So the additional 80 use permitted by this proposed rezoning are consistent with the strategy. And then blueprint also includes other specific policy recommendations. So policy for of the land use and built form housing section says they've tested diversify housing choice and through all of our residential areas in the city and then policy 11 of the land use and built form general section provides guidance to implement plan recommendations through larger scale legislative rezoning such as this one and then policy five of the land use and built for general section focuses on the importance of mitigating and voluntary displacement, which I'll discuss in the coming slides. So all large map amendments should be guided by the equity concepts detailed in Blueprint Denver. The Access to Opportunity Score is a composite of the neighborhood equity indexed event developed by Denver's Department of Public Health and Environment. Proximity to high capacity in frequent transit and access to centers and corridors. These neighborhoods have moderate scores in this category, with lower access to health care, grocery stores and transit, and high access to parks in centers and corridors. So the proposed rezoning to allow it to use throughout these three neighborhoods will bring more residents to an area that has access to job services and parks. And then the vulnerability to involuntary displacement score is calculated by the Department of Housing Stability and based on median household income, percentage of renter occupied units and percentage of residents with less than a college degree. And this area scores as more vulnerable, based on two of the metrics median household income and educational attainment. So the proposed MAP amendment will provide opportunities for existing homeowner homeowners to supplement their income, while also increasing housing options in the neighborhood, allowing people with a greater range of incomes to live in the area. And then this equity concept also includes supplemental data that highlights demographic and market changes in the area to give us a better understanding of the areas of vulnerability to involuntary displacement. So all three neighborhoods have a lower percentage of non-Hispanic whites than Denver as a whole, which could make it more vulnerable to displacement . And two of the neighborhoods have seen an increase in the non-Hispanic white population. And while Barnard West has seen a decrease. And then Villa Park Barnum and Barnum was all have lower median household incomes than than the Denver average. And Villa Park has seen incomes increase significantly, which may indicate that some displacement may already be occurring. And then the three neighborhoods have similar percentages and residents who are over the age of 65. But in recent years they have seen an increase greater than the citywide percentage. And then the neighborhoods within the proposed rezoning have all seen a greater increase in median residential property taxes than the citywide average, which again may make these areas more vulnerable to involuntary displacement. And then moving to the housing diversity score. And the housing diversity includes five measures percentage of middle density housing, home size, diversity, ownership versus rental housing costs, and the number of income restricted units. And then the neighborhoods have below average diversity in terms of missing middle housing, housing costs and affordable units. And this map amendment to allow it to use will introduce a new housing type that is typically smaller and at a lower price point than what exists today. Additionally, is constructed through the West Denver Renaissance Collaborative, an organization that helps finance AIDS are required to be income restricted and which could lead to more affordable units in the area. And then lastly, this map shows the mix of jobs in areas of the city with the dominant industry depicted by color. So you can see this area shows a greater percentage of retail jobs in the city as a whole. However, there's not enough data in to classify the mix of jobs in the majority of the area, which is why it's not depicted by color in this map. And then it will have a negligible impact on jobs and that it doesn't allow for any commercial uses. And there are efforts underway in the West and other neighborhoods to help reduce barriers to ADA use, including the West, Denver Renaissance Collaboratives West Denver Single Family Plus Accessory Dwelling Unit Pilot Program. And this program allows moderate and low income homeowners design, finance and build an ADU in nine West Denver neighborhoods, including Villa Park, Barnum and Barnum West. There are also resources to help with the permitting process that CPD has developed in the ADA use and Denver project is currently underway to make it easier to construct drives and make sure they fit within the different types of neighborhood contexts. So then host five year strategic plan was adopted this past fall and contains recommendations that are directly relevant to this MAP amendment. The plan recommends supporting efforts to advance affordable housing strategies and blueprint Denver, such as expanding its use. And then the Villa Park Neighborhood Plan applies to the properties that are north of Sixth Avenue. And so the land use and zoning recommendation strategy, too, recommends discouraging development that is incompatible with the scale and quality of the neighborhood, and adds are a way to introduce general density that will fit within the existing character of the neighborhood . And then the Barnum Barnum West Neighborhood Plan applies to the properties that are south of Sixth Avenue. And this rezoning will meet several of the land use and zoning goals, including maintaining the existing low density residential character, upgrading the quality of the present housing stock, and encouraging the construction of new low density housing. And this map amendment will result in the uniformity of district regulations within the urban and neighborhood context, in it furthers the public health, safety and welfare by expanding housing, diversity and opportunities to help residents at a range of income levels to continue to live in these neighborhoods. So finding that all review criteria have the Met staff recommend City Council approve this legislative proposal? And that concludes my presentation.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Libby, for the staff report. This evening, we have seven individuals signed up to speak. Our first speaker all are joining us virtually via Zoom. Our first speaker is Mara Owen.
Speaker 3: Can you hear me?
Speaker 0: Yes, go ahead, please.
Speaker 6: You mean devastate council? My name is Mark Owen and my address is 1035 Osage and the program manager for the West Immigrant Science Collaborative EDU Pilot Program, which is a program of the work with Habitat for Humanity and the city of Denver to help qualified homeowners design, finance and build affordable EDU on their residential property. So the EU pilot program began 2019. We have had 157 inquiries from West Denver homeowners. Without zoning, these homeowners reached out to our program. Interested in learning about building an affordable adu only to find out that their zoning does not currently allow it. Even if their neighborhood neighbor across the street or a friend in a nearby neighborhood can. Of those who did have zoning, the overwhelming majority of homeowners who have inquired to build an idea are hoping to house family, whether that's housing a grown child who is struggling to live in the neighborhood where they grew up. A parent in retirement, wanting to age in place near family, or a family member with a disability who needs a long term affordable housing option near their support network. In addition to housing families, aides are also a tool homeowners can use to create long term stability and prevent displacement. You can write a homeowner with additional income and flexibility to be resilient in the face of economic instability, such as job loss or sudden medical needs. There are now 42 individual homeowners in Villa Park, Farnham and Barnham West who applied to our program and are unable to participate currently because their zoning does not allow it. Supporting this rezoning would give those homeowners and many others in those neighborhoods access to the same tool and the option that many of their neighborhoods already have. Building an 80 year old house family create long term stability and economic resiliency to stay in place. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Jessica Calderon.
Speaker 6: Hello? Can you hear me?
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 5: Hi. My name is Jessica Calderon and my address is 613 Equipment Street. I am a resident of Villa Park. My history in the neighborhood is that. When I was two years old, my parents moved here from Texas so that we could have additional opportunities. We were from a very small town. Moved to Denver where I had an uncle Emmanuel, who lived on 10th and equipment. And so I spent my first couple of years of my time in Colorado as a two year old in West Denver. I went on to live in other areas of the metro.
Speaker 3: Before finding my way back.
Speaker 5: To West Denver with my husband, where we bought the home we currently live in.
Speaker 3: We spent a lot of time raising our.
Speaker 4: Three.
Speaker 5: Boys there and one one of which has recently passed. And so that is our family home. It is our foundation and and where we are strong together.
Speaker 3: Currently, I have a 25 year old son.
Speaker 5: Who has a child type of grandson.
Speaker 3: He could not buy a house in our neighborhood.
Speaker 5: If he wanted to because he's priced out.
Speaker 3: I have a 19 year old son who is a sophomore at Sea Boulder, and unfortunately, in two years when.
Speaker 5: He graduates, even if he gets a decent paying job, he likely could not buy a home in our neighborhood because he's priced out. I have.
Speaker 3: Aging parents who maybe someday would need to live.
Speaker 5: Near me. And so for those reasons, I would like the zoning change so that we can take this opportunity to build an EDU on our property, so that if our family needs support.
Speaker 3: And they want to be near us and they want to be in the neighborhood where we feel closest as a family, they would have the opportunity to do that. I also.
Speaker 5: If there were.
Speaker 3: Even if it weren't family or it's not needed by.
Speaker 5: Family right now, we could offer it to other people who want to stay in West Denver in a place that they can afford. If they don't want to leave the neighborhood.
Speaker 3: So for that reason, I am asking all of you.
Speaker 5: To consider passing the.
Speaker 3: Zoning for these adus.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Rene Martinez Stone. Go ahead, Renee. You'll just have to unmute. Can you hear me? Yes.
Speaker 6: Okay. Great. Good evening. My name is Rene Martinez Stone. And my camera is not quite. Okay.
Speaker 0: Might want to. Tilted a little bit more. Renee.
Speaker 6: Yeah. My shirt is clean. Yeah. They got anything? Thank you for having public comment tonight. I'm a resident of Denver, and I'm the director of the West Denver Renaissance Collaborative. It is, or one of the new tools that can help current affordable housing needs in Denver. As you've heard tonight, there is a solution that do not require an existing home to be demolished. They utilize existing lots, locks, utilities, and they fit in the character of existing neighborhoods. This is welcomed by residents that are seeing a lot of change within their neighborhoods where affordable homes are being replaced by quite expensive homes. It is provide a way for residents to personally invest and be a part of the housing solution in the neighborhood. And this is very often cited by homeowners who want to build a use. If approved, this legislation, this legislative rezoning, eliminates the first step in a process that is complicated, costly and takes too much value time for homeowners as well as staff. It's the type of regulatory regulatory change that's needed to increase the number of use built in Denver. Overall, there's just not enough. Our pilot program, which Mara introduced to help homeowners navigate the process of building affordable homes. We have 12 debuts in development, and our participants have been in the neighborhood on average 18 years, some over 20, some over 40 years. All of the units are ground level and many have 2 to 3 bedrooms. So their housing family is a family unit. 83% of the participants identify as persons of color, and most have immediate need to house family. They aim to create multigenerational stability and secure a family asset. Just as Jessica described, is the desire to house family, students and school participants, the need accessible unit. And many residents have moved and are now doubled up living in another household because they can't afford. They are essentially homeless, temporarily housed by a friend or neighbor. I want to thank Councilwoman Scores for her leadership and responsive to the community. I want to thank many residents who did not understand their views but welcomed a solution for their neighborhood. And I respectfully ask the council advance this and future policy to help homeowners and renters access the relatively untapped.
Speaker 0: Time we have allotted fight. Speaker Thank you so much. We're going to go ahead and move on to our next speaker. Janice Morris. All right. We're going to go ahead. And I believe Janice is on the phone. And Janice, we'll have to have you go ahead and unmute yourself. It's Star six.
Speaker 6: I did.
Speaker 0: Oh, wonderful. Go ahead, please.
Speaker 6: Good evening, counsel. My name is Janice Morrell. I've lived in the Barnham neighborhood at two, two, two Lowell Boulevard for about 36 years. I bought this house from my aunt and uncle. I would like to be able to pass this house on to and create generational wealth for my kids. But at the same time, be able to if I'm able to build an Adu on my property, not only could I rent it now to my son or even to provide separate space for my daughter to visit. Or allow my in-laws a safe place to live. That would be awesome. This is one tiny step that we're asking you to pass to clear the way so that more of us can utilize our properties. In a better way. Providing for our families, providing for our kids. Maybe even renting to people that are new to us. Our neighborhood, I feel, is inclusive and welcoming. But I think that we also need in Barnum the ability to stay or age in place at the same time keeping the wealth of our homes. We're lucky enough to have bought in this neighborhood and we want to stay. So we're asking you to consider clearing the path, clear the road, so that we can stay in our homes and provide additional income for ourselves and or help support our family. Thank you for listening.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Valerie Kotch. Do we have Valerie with us? Valerie, I believe we're trying to bring you in to the panelists so you'll have to accept the promotion. I'm still seeing you and the attendees. We'll try to get Valerie into the queue. In the meantime, we're going to go ahead and move on to Adam Calderon.
Speaker 2: And Evening City Council. My name is Adam Calderon. I grew up in Villa Park. I attended Cal Elementary Lake Middle School and graduated from Denver West High School. I'm also a proud graduate and alumni of the University of Colorado, Boulder. My home address is 613 Quitman. I would like to see aid use allowed in our neighborhood. I have a I have a mother who is a 38 year employee of the city and county of Denver who lives off of 11 miles. And she's aging gracefully, thank God. But one day it's my hope that we could build an 82 onto our property so that she could come and live with us. It strikes me because a couple of weeks back, my neighbor across the street, Judith, was taken away to a nursing home. She was he she's about nine years old. She specifically wanted to stay in her home, but her family lives too far away.
Speaker 1: I don't want that for far from me.
Speaker 2: I want to be able to provide the opportunity for my mom to stand with her family as she is. She gets older and ages gracefully. I hope that you will find it in your hearts to pass this so that we can continue to grow as a family and and keep our people in place. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. We're going to go ahead and try to get you into the queue, Valerie. So we're going to send you the promotion again for it. Our next speaker is Jesse Paris. Do we have Jesse with us? Okay. The producers are telling me that we seem to not have Jesse with us, so we're going to move on. Did we get Valerie? Into the queue. Okay. We don't have either of them. And so that concludes our speakers questions from members of Council on Council Bill 22, Dash three, four, three. Councilmember Ortega. Thank you, Madam President. I wanted to ask if we could maybe have Renee Martinez Stone back in for just a minute. Yes. We'll go ahead and get her back into the panelists. Rene Martinez Stone. Okay. We've got her great back in the panelists. Go ahead. Humor. Renee, I wanted to ask you about. Whether or not we are seeing. An issue of some of the homes not having enough equity that affords the ability for borrowing against their property to be able to build the affordable adu on the property. And if if that is the case. Have there been discussions with the city about looking at funding to assist? This area of town in this particular these particular boundaries to assist the families in being able to build in aid to you. A lot of the applications we have seen come forward are our folks that may be in different economic. Categories, if you will. And I want to make sure that we create the same opportunity for people that may live in neighborhoods where the housing prices may be lower. And the either the value or the amount of equity that's in the home that could, you know, otherwise be used to help borrow the money to build and add to you. So if you can just kind of help address what efforts are in place or under discussion to try to ensure we're creating that same opportunity for folks in these neighborhoods.
Speaker 6: Okay. Thank you, Councilman Ortega. Briefly, I will respond to participants within our program that we're piloting with the Department of Housing. Stability provides an affordable adu subsidy on any am I. And it reduces the cost of any of you by $30,000. So that goes with a 25 year restriction on who's ending you and how much the rent can be. That's quite means that an incentive for participants within our program. To your second question, the majority of the participants in our program do utilize equity in their homes because we when someone applied to the program, they get a bonus or they've been in the neighborhood a lot of time and so many of them have many years of home equity built up and they're utilizing that. We have seen a few homeowners who refinanced and did not retain those funds to build the yield, and they have a little bit more difficult time financing. We do provide housing counseling, which is available to most anyone in West ever that seeks it, even if they're not within our program to look at their options for stabilizing their situation. And so we observed of the 12 way to use that we have developed, there were 50 homeowners that participated in housing counseling.
Speaker 0: Just want to thank you for your efforts in working with the families in West Denver. I actually grew up in Westwood when I moved here from New Mexico and lived there for a number of years through graduating from West High School and Cowboys. So we had a speaker who was a West graduate earlier in. And so I think this is important work that you have been doing for these neighborhoods, and that's it for my question. So thank you for answering them. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilman Ortega. And thank you, Renee, for answering those questions. We've got Councilmember Flynn.
Speaker 5: You're up next.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. Libby, could you tell us, was there discussion during this process about the rule that says properties with an ADU, one of the units must be occupied by the owner of the property. The reason I ask is I noticed that one of the supportive statements from a member of the public stated that that she wished that that would be taken away so that both units could be rented at some point down the road. Was was there discussion about that rule during the process?
Speaker 3: No, not to my knowledge. But, you know, I'm sure I can go if I see she's aware that she must live on the property to do NATO. But there wasn't specific lease. I didn't have specific discussion. I don't know if Councilman Torres at any of the virtual town hall.
Speaker 1: Madam President, could if Councilwoman Torres has information on that, could she.
Speaker 0: Got right into the queue. Councilman Flynn. So go ahead, please.
Speaker 1: The reason the reason I asked is I'm I am up in the air over the issue of ADOS and how they. Result in long term affordability. Especially when there's this requirement that the owner must live there. The reason being that assessor, the assessors figures show that in the last two years. 240 242, 240 properties in Denver with 80 use on them were sold on in the open real estate market. The median sales price was $980,000. And it seems to me that once you put an ADU on a property, you have substantially escalated the the market price for that, which pretty much limits the the universe of buyers for that. And I'm wondering if that's an aspect that's been examined.
Speaker 5: The. Absolutely. I can talk about the first question because it came up a lot while we were doing community engagement. So a lot of the community. Community meetings. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Okay. I think I can still hear.
Speaker 5: Okay. I think that came up frequently in residents wanting to make sure that that the city was very clear to folks who build to use that they know those rules and further really wanting to make sure that the city's enforcing those. So for, for example, a neighborhood association conversations centered a lot around how does the city enforce those rules? I think the biggest concern tends to be too many of them being used for short term rental. I think the neighborhoods are overwhelmingly interested in long term housing for folks and in particular for keeping residents housed who who currently own homes. Anti displacements are a key factor for that piece. It has been raised and I don't think we've seen a property turnover yet on that kind of price point for selling any to you. We certainly are seeing properties that are getting flipped that current that have the zoning for you to use that are not building them probably to stay within a different kind of price point. But we just haven't seen the turnover yet on how homes that have built them and are now selling them. But it absolutely is still one of those tools for trying to keep residents there who want to stay and giving them either a source of income or a place for additional family to go. So it has been that that largely that kind of source of the conversation for why folks have been supporting this, but still very much with an eye toward long term housing stability. Mm hmm.
Speaker 1: Thank you. You know, there's a lot of things to weigh here, obviously, and we don't have a track record long enough to be to be able to draw a strong conclusion if this rule limits the universe of buyers to those who are wealthy. Enough to afford almost $1,000,000 investment and then live in that property. Is that better or worse than removing the rule and having both units open as rentals to outside investors out of town? Investors. Out of state investors. So it's it's something I think we need we need a lot more data to learn from. Thank you. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilwoman Torres.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Flynn.
Speaker 3: Uh, and we'll.
Speaker 0: Go next to Councilmember said.
Speaker 3: Thank you. I have some of the same tensions around support and opposition to use. I think it's. An incredible opportunity to keep families together, to keep people aging in place. And also, I've seen how it exponentially increases the value of land in a speculators market. And so I am to a little bit curious about if there's a plan or potentially putting into place some more parameters around. Making sure that they're being used for affordable housing and not just becoming an income stream for someone's Airbnb who you can't necessarily prove is there 50% of the time or not? We've seen that challenge with the Short Term Rentals Advisory Committee and people in our neighborhoods, but I don't know if we have a real plan to go back and figure out how to track this information better. Yeah. Thank you for that question. So I will say that because the Western Renaissance Collaborative is in this area, those units do have to be income restricted. And, you know, I don't know the numbers of what's being built under that program versus not. But so that's in place. And that will those who are required to be, like I said, deed restricted. And it's possible to tie all of these that are being resigned to a condition that makes them go through a pilot or a similar program like the West Denver Renaissance Collaborative, just to make sure. I think the challenges that the West Denver Renaissance Club also has income restrictions and so not everyone will be eligible for that program. And so I think I think that would be a challenge to tie it to that program or something similar, at least at this point.
Speaker 0: When we first heard the stories.
Speaker 5: Yeah. So thanks for the questions. And I'd also invite Rene if she had any comment on on those pieces. That's one of the critical for reasons why IWD RC is so valuable in the space, because they do apply a long term deed on that property. And I think that's only triggered because you're accepting funding in order to in order to access that affordability. And and they're deliberately working with families who might otherwise get pushed out because of property taxes or or because family really wants them to move to a larger location. So both of those have been the crux behind DRC. I think one of the things that we can do to support is to actually get a DRC type model elsewhere in the city. I think we've proven that it's very effective. I think we've proven that not just the navigation through the complicated process, but the access to capital in order to help build has been a difference maker that the families that DRC is working with is exactly who we want to make sure that they're able to stay. And and all of that is really working beautifully there. But there is a component that we can't control. We have not, though, seen a flood of 82 permits run for four properties that currently have a to use zoning in West Denver. So it's still a bit of a hurdle for any property owner in West Denver to build in to you.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean, I guess when we started with DRC, we were curious about how to have a parallel program in on the east side of Denver and would love to if anybody is exploring that, we would love to to do that. And I think the land trust is positioned well to do the 99 year leases to ensure that. So I think that would be great because we too, have, you know, contemplated what would it mean for me to pursue a legislative rezoning? Is it putting us more in harm's way because we now have, you know, these million dollar properties for speculators, or does it actually help us to do it? So I think it's a great opportunity and potentially can help us meet the need. I just really, really hope that we can do some intensive tracking and take on some responsibility as the city, make sure even in our rental registry we have a category to identify these to somehow show us in our portfolio where these exist and what kind of people are applying and what support they need so that we can expand the work that we're doing. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember CdeBaca. And I've been asked by the producers to ask folks if they're not speaking into their mikes, to please turn off their mikes, because apparently we need a few adjustments and that might be contributing to the feedback. And so thank you. Not seeing any other questions from members of council. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 20 2-343 Council Pro Tem Torres.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Libby, for shepherding us through this process. This this has been one that was responsive to community and what a lot of folks really wanted to see take place, especially as we were moving through conversations with the West Area plan, where folks were really identifying the limitations of blueprint and what needed to be allowed to get folks through. I think a really complicated and cumbersome process which is rezoning individual properties and just want to think, I think the the real initiator of of this model of thinking, which was Councilwoman Sandoval and really helping us think through what is a neighborhood wide process look like, what kinds of things do we need to consider to make sure that we're hearing from folks that we're giving them an opportunity to find out more information and get questions answered? And then, of course, to the residents who came out to support in DRC, always, I think, when establishing the foundation of empowering residents with information both about land acquisition, about development, about zoning in general, but then really trying to make it part of our civic vocabulary, what an edu is, what purpose it can serve, and how to really make it accessible to families who were absolutely threatened with displacement and having to find somewhere else to go. They have made it as affordable as possible by partnering with Habitat for Humanity, by really being there to walk folks through the entire process. This is one of those efforts that in and of itself does not solve displacement in West Denver, but it absolutely puts a new tool in property owners hands that if they want to stay in Barnham, in Villa Park and in Burnham West, they have a new way to make sure that they can do that and then pass on an asset to their children and family members. So I. Very grateful for everyone who supported this. We started it nearly a year ago to my team and I really do think all of the folks involved and would appreciate a lot of support from my colleagues. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Counsel Pro Tem Torres, and happy to support this this evening. I think at least in my neighborhood and others were following closely the edu conversation. And I want to congratulate you, Counsel Pro-Tem Torres, because when you look at this, it's nearly 3000 parcels, approximately 439 acres. And this is creating a path forward. One of the speakers spoke about adult children living with her, and that is a reality in the city and county of Denver today. And so thank you for your leadership on this. And I am more than happy to support it. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 22, dash three, four, three, please.
Speaker 5: Torres, I. Black I. CdeBaca, I.
Speaker 1: Clark All right.
Speaker 5: Flynn.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 5: Cashman can h. I. Ortega. Sandoval. I swear, I. Madam President, I.
Speaker 0: Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced the results. 11 Eyes. 11 Eyes Council Bill 20 2-343 has passed. Thank you to the members of the community who spoke. And thank you, Libby. We're going to go ahead and move to our final hearing this evening.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for multiple properties in Villa Park, Barnum and Barnum West.
Approves a legislative map amendment to rezone multiple properties from E-SU-D and E-SU-Dx to E-SU-D1 and E-SU-D1x, located in the Villa Park, Barnum, and Barnum West neighborhoods in Council District 3. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 3-29-22.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_05022022_22-0392
|
Speaker 1: Madam Secretary, please put the first item on our screens. And Councilmember Hines, go ahead with your comments on resolution 392.
Speaker 5: I thank you, President Pro Tem. And because I called or I deferred this last week, I want to provide a little context as to why I deferred it. And just on its face, this program checks so many boxes. I have been a huge advocate for multimodal transit and breaking Denver's dependance on cars for a long time. And this provides mass transit options for people who choose not to own cars and for people who cannot afford cars. It provides a more environmentally resilient way to get around our city, including shuttle service bikes and micromobility. What's even better is the solution is all electric. So shifting away from internal combustion engines is another critical step to ensuring we preserve our habitability on our planet. Finally, we'll be fine with climate change. It is our own habitability that we are destroying. What I didn't see in the contract in the in the original language was accessibility. And I believe that our our city should serve all residents, not those who are easy to serve. And I had two concerns. One is the electric shuttle accessible to people with disabilities. And two, is the electric vehicle charging station accessible to people with disabilities. I didn't have answers to the questions like last week, but I've now received responses to both questions. I want to thank Mr. Salisbury and Director Rink of Kazu. I want to also thank the organizing committee, including Ms.. Haines, specifically for your responses and and Ms.. Haines for for specifically mentioning excessive ride in your comments during public comment. So my first question was, is the electric shuttle wheelchair accessible? And I am happy to say that the answer is yes. The Montreal Organizing Committee did say we are deeply committed to pursuing options that improve transportation accessibility through this grant, particularly when it comes to the electric shuttle. We are very interested in pursuing a vehicle option that is wheelchair accessible since many of our community members and program participants are disabled or have mobility needs. Again, as Ms.. Hands had mentioned, excessive ride. As as wonderful a program it is and as liberating it is as it is for people with disabilities. It only has it can only provide so much. So I want to thank the Mandela Organizing Committee for calling that out and making that a value and a priority. The second question that I had was regarding the electric vehicle charging station. And and I want to thank Keyser again. The response was that the. The new parking lot for this building has ADR spaces is required by law, one of which will have access to an EV charging station. I think this is this is also interesting and critical. And and it is it needs the law as it is today. This is something that I think is is important to talk about because we civil rights is about equal access for everyone, including in this case, people with disabilities. With this charging station, it has two, two ports. It's a dual charger. One is in an accessible parking space. About 10 to 12% of Colorado drivers qualify for a disability parking placard or plate. And in this situation or in this configuration, 50% of the spaces are reserved for people with disabilities. That that that isn't in the spirit of of ADA or in the spirit of civil rights. That's nothing that that the organizing committee has any power or purview over. I would say that that we are looking into that as a city to try to figure out how to best provide access for people with disabilities and access for everyone else so that it is all equal access. So, so while I recognize that the commitment that the organizing committee has and, and Kaiser has to, to providing access for everyone, I see this as an opportunity for us to make our, um, our access to ev charging stations even better. And I hope that we can continue to move forward in that direction in the future. Thank you. One more time for answering all my questions and I will be yes. Vote.
Speaker 1: Thank you. That concludes the items to be called out. The 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 Ortega, will you please put the resolutions for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor?
Speaker 3: Madam President, pro tem, I move that the resolutions be adopted and bills on final consideration be placed on final consideration and do pass in a bloc. Vote for the following items. 22. Dash zero three. 92. 22. Ford 13. 22 for 1722 for 2721 1502 22 210. 22 310. 22 three 5722 four 1922 415. 22 420, 22 395. 22 three 9622 402. And that's it.
Speaker 1: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 3: Gilmore. I. I. CdeBaca I.
Speaker 2: Clark All right. Flynn High.
Speaker 4: Herndon, I.
Speaker 5: Hines I. Cashman I.
Speaker 3: Can each. I. Ortega. I. Sandoval. I. Sawyer.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 3: Madam President. Pro tem i.
Speaker 1: Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced the results.
Speaker 3: 13 eyes.
Speaker 1: 13 eyes. The resolutions have been adopted and the bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass. Council will not take a recess on Monday, June 6th. Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 22, Dash 0412 Changing the zoning classification for 4401 South Quebec Street in Hampden South.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Montbello Organizing Committee to provide sustainable transportation services, including electric shuttle, e-bikes and charging station to the Montbello community.
Approves a contract with Montbello Organizing Committee for $828,904 and through 3-31-2025 to provide sustainable transportation services, including electric shuttle, e-bikes, and charging station, to the Montbello community in Council Districts 8 and 11 (CASR 202262111). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 5-16-22. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 4-13-22. Pursuant to Council Rule 3.7, Councilmember Hinds called out this item at the 4-25-22 meeting for a one-week postponement to 5-2-22.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_04252022_22-0457
|
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Hines. See no one else in the queue. We're going to move on. There are no presentations this evening. There are no communications. There are two proclamations being read this evening. Councilmember Ortega, would you please read Proclamation 22 dash for 57, please? Thank you, Madam President, and happy to do so. Proclamation number 22 for 57 Recognizing contributions of employees of the Denver Department of Public Health and Environment and other city agencies to the COVID response. Whereas Denver's public health employees have been on the front line of the COVID 19 pandemic for more than two years. And. WHEREAS, many public health employees have been pulled from their regular jobs and thrust into work associated with the direction with the detection, surgery and prevention, mitigation and alleviation of COVID 19, all the while keeping their other work critical to the public good on track. And. Whereas, our public health employees and other city workers were called on to work many long hours in conducting this work, which has disrupted their personal as well as professional lives. And. Whereas, this work has frequently this work has frequently been put on them in positions, put them in positions that have exposed them or other frontline workers to COVID 19 and its associated symptoms. And. WHEREAS, Public health employees frequently have had to endure abuse by some members of our community while conducting their work with exemplary professionalism. And. WHEREAS, most public health workers. And other civil servants. Entered their fields because of a passion for helping people and therefore have experienced great mental stress because of this pandemic. And. Whereas, city workers from other departments, agencies and offices have joined their public health colleagues in providing services to the people of Denver in response to COVID 19. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Council of the City and County of Denver, that Denver City Council officially recognizes and praises the work of Denver public health workers and employees from other agencies that assisted them with their dedication and efforts during the COVID 19 pandemic. 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 that a copy be transmitted to Bob McDonald, executive director of the Department of Public Health and Environment. Thank you, Councilmember Ortega. Your motion to adopt. I move for the adoption of proclamation number 22 for 57. Thank you. Has been moved and seconded comments by members of Council. Councilmember Ortega. Thank you, Madam President. It's been too long years and our public health employees continue to be engaged in this process in one way or another. I can remember the early days council being on calls with the mayor and our public health director about whether or not we should be asking people in the public to wear face coverings. And then shortly after that, we had the public health orders that were rolled out. And, you know, we saw this wave happen around the world. And our public employees and our public health employees who led that effort were just so stellar in making sure that we had places for people in our communities to go get tested, to go in our communities and especially in our low income communities where they could get their vaccines. We still have a challenge in making sure that people in many of our low income communities still have not yet been vaccinated. And there are some ongoing efforts that many of us are a part of. But if it weren't for the role of our public health agency in taking that lead, I think we would have been a city, you know, struggling to catch up. And and I just wanted to take the opportunity to say a huge thank you from Denver City Council to our public health employees and all the other employees from city agencies that joined in. If we would have tried to list out the names, we'd probably be here all night because there were so many people that worked on this effort across our city and in many, many of our neighborhoods. And your work did not go unnoticed. It's very it was very much appreciated and still is. And I just want to say a big thank you. So thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilmember Ortega, for sponsoring this. And very well-received words, important, important to acknowledge them. Councilmember Kinney.
Speaker 6: Thank you. I also just want to echo the thank you to any of you involved in the health work. And, you know, we had a particular set of folks doing emergency operations center. They were not all health workers. They were department heads and appointees from a variety of walks of life. And they became emergency public health workers of sorts during that pandemic. So I think of you all in that EOC work, along with our Department of Public Health Workers. And I guess the one thing I just wanted to add is that, you know, many of us are here without masks today, but our cases are up. The pandemic is not over. And in fact, many of the state and federal resources for both testing and vaccination are winding down, which means those who are uninsured or don't have regular care are actually going to, again, need our public health workers more than they have, hopefully in the last month or two, since cases waned a little. So we know your journey is not over. And so this support in this thank you isn't just for what you've already done, but even for what we continue in the coming months. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Council member can each and all round out the comments? A sincere, sincere thank you. I've been reflecting a bit more on the early days of the pandemic and the unknown, just the unknown risks, you know, folks being deployed to different locations and jobs that they maybe had never done before but went forward and did that work because it was on behalf of the city and county of Denver and her residents. And really the professionalism, standing up testing, especially in communities of color, vaccinations, testing. Again, when we got some of those surges and the continued work that we really need to do long term because we aren't out of the pandemic yet, we're seeing good signs, but we still got much work to do. And so thank Councilmember Ortega for sponsoring this proclamation. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 5: Ortega, I. Sandoval, I swear.
Speaker 6: I.
Speaker 5: Torres, I. Black All right. CdeBaca, I. Clark Eye for an eye.
Speaker 1: Herndon, I.
Speaker 5: Hi. Cashman Can I. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, I close the voting and announce results.
Speaker 5: 13 Eyes.
Speaker 0: 13 Eyes. Proclamation 22 Dash. 457 has been adopted. Councilmember Ortega We have about 5 minutes for a proclamation acceptance. If you like to welcome whoever is going to accept that up to the podium. Thank you. Bob McDonald was planning to be here, but he had a family emergency. And in catching his hope, I'm saying that right. Williams is here. She is the deputy executive director for the Denver Department of Public Health and Environment. And I know that a number of people in the audience, your colleagues are here and maybe at some point you'll be able to ask them to stand so we can fully acknowledge them as well. But the floor is yours. Thank you.
Speaker 6: Thank you so much again. I am. And to give you Williams, I am one of our deputy executive directors at Denver Public Health and Environment, also known as. And I'm so pleased to be here on behalf of Executive Director Bob McDonald, who was looking forward to accepting the special proclamation on behalf of the entire team. Unfortunately, as Councilmember Ortega mentioned, Bob had to deal with an emergency at home. He would be standing here tonight. First, let me say a heartfelt thank you for this proclamation to Councilmember Ortega and to all of Denver city council members and to all of your teams. You've been right there with us as we navigated the challenges of the past two years. The team came together in a truly amazing way to protect our community during the COVID 19 pandemic. Our staff worked outside of their normal responsibilities, learn new skills, and put the health and wellness of Denver residents above all else. We didn't do it alone, though. We had the support of many city agencies, local partners and of course, city council and the mayor's office. We are grateful for that support and for your acknowledgment today. I want to ask Danica Lee, director of public health investigations for DDP, to come up and just say a few words in closing . Many of you know Danica from her work serving as Bob's deputy public health official during the pandemic. Danica. Thank you so much and thank you so much Council, for recognizing all the efforts of our city staff. The past two years have been the most trying years of my 20 years of service here with the city and county of Denver. We had to transform ourselves practically overnight from public health and environment to COVID response department. And the challenges that it brought were cannot be overstated. I'd like to ask all the members of our team who are here this evening to please stand up. These are just a small number of the people who were instrumental in orchestrating our response and the dedication that especially this group of exempt employees demonstrated. I have no words for the folks that you see here. Before you worked very, very long weeks, 60 hour weeks, 80 hour weeks to get the work done and did their utmost to sit down out that you did their utmost to really preserve some sense of work life balance for our our nonexempt staff. And so certainly all the other agencies in the city that contributed were amazing, the focus on culturally responsive resources in a way that we had never been able to and had the opportunity to deliver before for is something that I'm really proud of and I'm just so thankful that we have such a great department team and and city team. So thank you so much for recognizing us this evening. So that.
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation recognizing the contributions of employees of the Department of Public Health and Environment and other city agencies to the COVID response.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_04252022_22-0366
|
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Hines, and happy to do that. No motion is required. Do any other members of council have any comments? I seen none. Council Resolution 22, Dash 392 has been postponed. Will be back before Council for consideration on Monday, May 2nd. Madam Secretary, please put the next item up on our screens. Thank you. Council Member Flynn, would you please put resolution 366 on the floor for adoption?
Speaker 3: Yes, thank you. I move that council resolution 20 2-0366 be adopted.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Questions or comments by members of Council. Council Member Black.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Madam President. The mayor's office has requested that this measure be voted down and staff will go back through the process for appointments and await feedback from the community.
Speaker 0: All right, thank you, Councilmember Black. And then I'll call on Councilmember CdeBaca next, and then Councilmember Ortega. Go ahead, Councilmember CdeBaca.
Speaker 6: No additional comments. That was going to be my same requests.
Speaker 5: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you, Councilmember Ortega. Sorry about that. Thank you, Madam President. This is a bill that was on our agenda last week, and we were asked to. It was held for a week. And this was for three appointments to the National Western Center Authority Board. I was at the committee meeting where this topic came up. And this really this discussion is not about all three of the appointments. It's primarily around the community appointment. And I think you all remember the last time we had appointments for this authority board come before us. It was when John Saxon from the Globeville neighborhood was being re appointed, and there was discussion about wanting someone else from the community. Senator Lewis was the person who was put into the non-voting person position. She her name was being put forth as the voting member. Some of the people in the community wanted to be involved in the process of determining who should be that voting member. And I don't agree with the move to postpone this and get away from this process. Her name very well may be the name being moved forward, but I understand the community wanting to have further input into who the voting member is. This is a name that came from the community asking for her to be appointed to the non-voting position. So it only makes sense because she's been actively involved that her name moved forward. But unfortunately the community wrote us all a letter asking that this particular name not move forward. So in effect, it holds up the other two names from being able to move forward as well. And I'm not sure what the the process is of waiting until the community process happens before all three are brought back, or if those two will be refiled. And then we wait for the community position. But I'm going to be voting for this tonight and I just don't agree with the direction. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Councilmember Ortega. Councilman Black, we've got to get you in the queue.
Speaker 1: I'll just have.
Speaker 6: A little bit of contact. So the authority board has ruled in a framework agreement regarding who's serving the community voting system, and apparently it was an oversight.
Speaker 0: And we're going to ask you to turn it on. My gosh.
Speaker 6: I'm sorry. I'll say that again. So just a little bit of context. The authority board has unique rules and the framework agreement regarding who serves in the community voting position. So there was an oversight on what was needed for the voting members. So that's why the mayor's office is asked that we vote this down.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Black. And per those instructions and that request. I want to definitely thank Romain Pacheco for the phone call over the weekend to just brief me on what was going on. And I'm sure other members got a call to from her. And so council members, just a reminder to please vote no on this. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Resolution 22, Dash 366.
Speaker 6: Black Male.
Speaker 5: CdeBaca No, Clark, no. Flynn.
Speaker 3: No.
Speaker 1: Herndon, no. Hines No.
Speaker 5: Cashman No. Carnage.
Speaker 6: No.
Speaker 5: Ortega.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 6: Sandoval No. Sawyer No.
Speaker 5: Torres No. Madam President.
Speaker 0: No. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 5: One I 12 nays.
Speaker 0: 12 nays. Resolution 22, Dash 366 has failed. Madam Secretary, please put the next item on our screens for us. Councilmember Flynn, would you please put Bill eight three excuse me. 383 on the floor for final passage?
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving the Mayor’s appointment and reappointments to the National Western Center Authority Board of Directors.
Approves the following Mayoral appointment and reappointments to the National Western Center Authority Board of Directors: appointment of Sandra Ruiz-Parrilla for a term effective immediately and expiring 12-31-2024, or until a successor is duly appointed, and the reappointments of Steven McCarthy and Lucia Guzman for terms effective immediately and expiring on 12-31-2026, or until a successor is duly appointed. The Committee approved filing this resolution by consent on 4-5-2022.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_04252022_22-0383
|
Speaker 0: 12 nays. Resolution 22, Dash 366 has failed. Madam Secretary, please put the next item on our screens for us. Councilmember Flynn, would you please put Bill eight three excuse me. 383 on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 3: Yes, thank you. I move that council bill 20 2-0383 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It's been moved and seconded questions or comments by members of council. Councilmember CdeBaca Yes.
Speaker 6: Just calling.
Speaker 0: This out again on.
Speaker 6: Second reading to go on record as a no vote for this. I do not support this change without first addressing the pay inequities for non appointed members of career service employees throughout the city. So I'm a no on this tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember CdeBaca. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 22, Dash 383.
Speaker 5: CDEBACA No. Clark Well.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 3: Flynn High.
Speaker 1: Herndon High.
Speaker 5: High cashmere. I can eat. I Ortega. I. Sandoval. I swear.
Speaker 6: I.
Speaker 5: Torres. My black eye. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce results.
Speaker 5: 12 eyes when they.
Speaker 0: 12 eyes, bill 20 2-383 has passed. That concludes the items to be called out this evening. All 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 Flynn, would you please put the resolutions for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor?
Speaker 3: Yes, Madam President, 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, all of which are series of 2020 2403404 393 390 44084 5256 390 9405406407368 371, three, 73 and 374.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Flynn, it has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 5: Black. I see tobacco. I talk.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 5: Flynn.
Speaker 3: High.
Speaker 5: Herndon. High Cashman. Kenny Ortega. Sandoval.
Speaker 6: I. Sawyer. I.
Speaker 5: Torres. All right. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close vote and announce results. 13 813 ies. The 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 22, dash 246 changing the zoning classification for 2039 South William Street in University.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance amending the annual salaries of certain appointed charter officers.
Amends Section 18-91 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code to adjust annual salaries for appointed charter officers in accordance with limitations set forth in the Charter and applied retroactively to January 1, 2022. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 4-5-22.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_04252022_22-0246
|
Speaker 0: Tonight, we have three 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. 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 do not leave the meeting. You will be reconnected and will need to turn on your camera. If you have one and a 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 addresses. If you 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 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. Councilmember Flynn, will you please put Council Bill 22, Dash 246 on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 3: Yes, I will. Thank you. I move that council bill 22 dash to 46, 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 2-2 46 is open. May we please have the staff report?
Speaker 7: Good afternoon, members of City Council. My name is Frank Benefield, Senior City Planning. Senior city planner with planning services. And today I'm going to present an overview of the MAP Amendment for 2039 South William Street. Subject property is in Council District six in the university neighborhood. The request is to resume to a district that will allow for any review of the rear of the property or other forms, and new standard standards will remain the same. The property is currently in the urban single unit season district, which is in dislocate in this location, would only allow for the Urban House building for a minimum size of 5500 square feet. And as you can see on the map, the property surrounded by other properties. Also shown us, you see there is a little bit of our age, 2.5, half a block to the east. And you can see some in is three half a block to a cell. The current land use it aside a single unit residential and it is mostly surrounded by other single unit uses. There is some two unit uses to the north and you can see the land use map that the University of Denver campus is only a block and a half a block, east and east Berry Elementary School is three blocks to the west. This light here shows that the subject property is on the bottom right and gives you an idea of the residential character of the neighborhood. Now speaking to the process. Information on notice of the application was sent on December 27th, 2021. Planning Board recommended approval anonymously on February 16, 2022, and to date, staff has received only one letter of opposition from the University Neighbors Neighborhood Association, expressing concerns with the potential increase of number of residents, vehicles and pets. This proposal could bring. The letter refers to this request for a variance and mentions the Board of Adjustments. An email was sent to the R.A. to try and clarify that this is a rezoning process and not a variance. Now moving onto Denver zoning code review criteria, it must be found that the request map amendment is consistent with the five criteria. The first criterion is consistency with the plans. There are two plans applicable to the rezoning Comprehensive Plan 2040 and Blueprint Denver. The subject property is mapped as part of the urban neighborhood context in Denver. And the future places map the signal US designates as a slow residential place. Displaced types have predominantly single and two unit uses, and accessory dwelling units are appropriate. William Street is designated as a local street, which are mostly characterized by residential use. Lupine includes also includes specific policy recommendations. Housing policy for focuses on diversifying housing choice through expansion of accessory dwelling units throughout all residential areas. Stuff also finds that the request, the rezoning meets the next criteria. The rezoning will result in uniformity of district regulations, and it will further the public health, safety and welfare, primarily through the implementation of adopted plans. The justified circumstance for this rezoning of the plan is the approval of the existing U.S. you see some district the city has adopted the comprehensive plan and blueprint Denver, a stated throughout this presentation. The proposed rezoning meets the intent of those plans. Overall, the proposed rezoning is consistent with the urban context residential districts and the U.S. U.S. one school district. Stuff does recommend approval based on finding or review criteria has been met.
Speaker 0: Thank you. We have one individual signed up to speak on this hearing tonight. Jesse Perez.
Speaker 1: Many, many members of council may be hurt.
Speaker 0: Yes, go ahead, please.
Speaker 1: Yes. My name is just Sam Harris, and I represent the Black Star Action Movement for Self-defense. Positive message. The message doesn't change as well as the Unity Party of Colorado. The East Residents East Denver Residents Council for a long black knows and I will be the next mayor of Denver in 2023. I'm in favor of free zone it's my just want to remind all those that are watching now when I was the city council were large 2019. I supported any males in the system growing units. So every time there is an idea or a system going in a rezoning, I'm in favor of it. And that is the case tonight. So I'm in favor of this in March as all five of the criteria of consistency with adopted plans, uniformity with adopted plans for this public health, safety and wellness justify circumstances and consistency with neighborhood context. So just the purpose and it's so that being said on my favorite business tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. That concludes our speakers questions from members of Council on Council Bill 22, Dash 246. Councilmember Flynn.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. Fran, are the owners here? Yes, they are. Could I ask.
Speaker 2: Them to come up? One of them.
Speaker 0: We'll ask that. You go ahead and introduce yourself.
Speaker 6: Elise Pascoe.
Speaker 3: Hi. At least in your written narrative in the application, you stated that you should find it here. Is a perfect candidate. We like to have the property reasons for the existing ADU. There is an existing ADU on the property.
Speaker 6: Correct. Property in.
Speaker 0: July which.
Speaker 3: The former owner had decided to sell rather than try to rezone it. I don't know how long it's been there.
Speaker 6: Looks like it is not is not in habit.
Speaker 3: Thank you. It looks like it's been there a while. So you're attempting the new owner and attempting to bring it into a zoning compliance. But. But you live elsewhere. You live in the observatory park.
Speaker 6: You do? Yes.
Speaker 3: Neighborhood. Is it your intent to move into this house?
Speaker 5: Well.
Speaker 6: We know that we would have to follow all the official aid requirements in order to have that property.
Speaker 3: Okay. I just want to make sure when you said that it could be used for friends or family or a potential rental, that my understanding that if there's an idea on the property that one of the units, either the primary unit or the ADU, must be resided in by the property owner. Okay. You are aware of that? Yes. Thank you. That's all I have. Madam President. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Flynn. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 22, Dash 246 Council Member Cashman Yeah.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. I do think this application meets all the required criteria and I look forward to supporting it. Hope my colleagues will do so.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Cashman. And I do agree that all of the criteria have been met, and I will be supporting that this evening as well. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 22, Dash 246, please.
Speaker 5: Who Cashman. I can reach I Ortega Sandoval I Sawyer I. Torres I. Black I. CdeBaca I.
Speaker 3: Clerk I.
Speaker 5: Flynn.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 2: Herndon, I.
Speaker 5: Hi. Hi. Madam President, I.
Speaker 0: Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 5: 13 Eyes.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 2039 South Williams Street in University.
Approves a map amendment to rezone property from U-SU-C to U-SU-C1 (allows for an accessory dwelling unit), located at 2039 South Williams Street in Council District 6. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 3-1-22.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_04252022_22-0250
|
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced results. 1313 Ies Council Bill 20 2-2 49 has passed. Thank you to the members of the public on that one. We're going to our last hearing this evening. Councilmember Flynn, will you please put council bill 22, dash 250 on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 3: Yes, Madam President. Yes, Madam President. I move the council bill 22 dash to 50, 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 22, Dash 250 is open. May we please tell the staff report?
Speaker 6: Yeah. Thank you. My name is Libby Adams with Community Planning and Development. And I'll be presenting the MAP Amendment at 2154 South Lafayette Street. And I will warn you, this will be a bit repetitive from the first reasoning that we heard tonight. So this is located in Council District six in the university neighborhood, and the applicant is requesting to rezone from Urban Single Unit C to Urban Single Unit C one to allow for an accessory dwelling unit. As stated previously, the property is currently zoned UCC, which allows the Urban House primary building form on a minimum zone size of 5500 square feet. The current land use single unit residential, you can see there's more commercial retail uses along Evans and then the Safe Way, which is directly to the west of this site. This slide shows the existing building form and scale with the subject property on the upper right hand side. A postcard. Neighbors are notifying neighboring property owners within 200 feet of the site was sent out on December 2nd and then on February 16th. Planning board unanimously recommended approval of the rezoning. And then to date, staffers received two public comments one email and one phone call, both in opposition to the request, citing concerns with increased density and then as well as rental properties in the area. And then the applicant also, along with their application, submitted support from three neighboring property owners. The Denver zoning code has five review criteria that must be met in order for a rezoning to be approved. The first criterion is consistency with adopted plans. The proposed rezoning meets several of the strategies and comprehensive plan 2040. It will create a greater mix of housing options in the university neighborhood and promote infill development where those already infrastructure and services. And they're moving to Blueprint Denver. The future neighborhood context is urban. And then Blue Blueprint identifies the future place type as low residential. These are mostly single unit and two unit uses and adus are appropriate. And then South Lafayette Street is a local street which are mostly characterized by residential uses. Then the 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, consistent with the request to allow a slight increase in the housing density on the site. And then lastly, blueprint includes specific policy guidance, land use and built form housing policy for discusses diversifying housing choice through the expansion of Adus throughout all of Denver's residential neighborhoods. Staff also finds the rezoning meets the next two criteria and that it will result in uniformity of district regulations and it will further the public health, safety and welfare by implementing adopted citywide plans and providing a new housing unit that has easy access to healthy, healthy food options with the Safeway close by and educational opportunities. Since Daegu is located very close as well. There's also a justifying circumstance for this rezoning and that the guidance for blueprint and Blueprint Denver, calling for use in all of our residential neighborhoods, warrants a change in zoning. And then lastly, the zone. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the urban neighborhood context, the residential districts and the specific intent of the U.S. one zone district. So finding all five criteria have been met. Staff recommends approval of the proposed rezoning. And that concludes my presentation.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Libby, for the presentation. We have one individual signed up to speak this evening. Jesse Paris.
Speaker 1: Yes. Good evening, members of Council. Ah.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Yes. My name is Cecil disappearance. And I'm represented for Black Star for self defense positive. That encompasses positive change as far as the Unity Party apart is the Residence Council. For a long time. Blood moves and I'll be the next remembered for a group. Day is walking in the streets of the city and. Has clearly got this. I don't know if you can go on and say, well, this was on. It's my people.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. That concludes our speakers questions from members of Council on Council Bill 22, Dash 250. Council Member Flynn.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. Libby a similar question to the other of the first hearing tonight, the structure that's on the back of that property. I wasn't able to visit it myself, but I saw on on Google. Photo view. I hate to call it satellite view. It's not a satellite, but it looks like there's a. What looks like a residential portion on the front of the garage. I'm just curious, is that already an ad to you that's non-conforming or is that strictly just a garage at this point?
Speaker 6: Not to my knowledge, but I believe the applicant is on the line for Jennings if he's able to comment on that.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Is the applicant available?
Speaker 0: Yes. Or get them moved over.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 1: I let me know if you can hear me.
Speaker 3: Ty. I don't know if you heard the question. I'm just wondering. I only saw the aerial view, but it looked like there was possibly a living space already at the E at the west end of that garage. Is that already an aid to you or are you going to rebuild and and just construct a brand new way ? Do you.
Speaker 1: So the previous owner had built a greenhouse. It looks it looks like a residence, but it's just like a greenhouse attached to the garage. Thank you. That's the idea. And our original intention was just to be able to do something with the garage and do on top of it.
Speaker 3: Excellent. Thank you so much. I appreciate your being here.
Speaker 0: Yeah. All right. Thank you. And thank you, Councilmember Flynn. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 22, Dash 250. Council Member Cashman.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Thank you very much, Madam President. I think Libby probably could have saved us about 8 minutes by just pointing at Fran and saying what she said. This does, I believe, meet all the criteria for the rezoning requested and I'll be in support, urge my colleagues to do the same.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Cashman. And I agree it has met all of the criteria and we'll be supporting it this evening as well. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 22, Dash 250, please.
Speaker 5: Cashman. Hi, Kenny Ortega. Sandoval. I. Sawyer. I. Torres. I. Black. I see the i. Clark.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 5: Flynn.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 4: Herndon, i.
Speaker 5: Okay. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 5: 13 Eyes.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 2154 South Lafayette Street in University.
Approves a map amendment to rezone property from U-SU-C to U-SU-C1 (allows for an accessory dwelling unit), located at 2154 South Lafayette Street in Council District 6. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 3-1-22.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_04182022_22-0440
|
Speaker 1: . You can compost it and so appreciate the work on the proclamation and we're going to go ahead and move on then in the agenda. Councilmember Cashman, would you please read Proclamation 20 to Dash 440 for us?
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. I'm really excited to read Proclamation 22 does zero for 40, honoring the University of Denver Pioneers hockey team for their ninth national championship victory. And my proclamation won't be as long as Councilman Black will be equally as important and heartfelt. And before I read that, we're going to play a short video from the recent chapters.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 3: That.
Speaker 0: And here we go.
Speaker 5: The final college hockey game of the season is underway. It's so important for both of these teams. They can score. They can defend. On the borderline here. They come back strong on the pocket to keep that up. He carried behind the net.
Speaker 0: Lucky, though, that big step Father Jerry got to get.
Speaker 5: Fire in front of the fire. They're tough game. Denver's got their swagger at this time.
Speaker 0: He takes the lead.
Speaker 5: What made Rizzo Mazur Rizzo, Minnesota state his absolute stop.
Speaker 0: Next year will break their tie with North Dakota tied Michigan.
Speaker 5: 39. That's going to turn the countdown is on question time while the staff. Graduation from two University of Denver camp demonstrates the drill. I'm. All right.
Speaker 3: Good luck.
Speaker 2: All right. If you missed that game, it was definitely one for the ages. So let me read the proclamation again honoring the University of Denver Pioneers hockey team for their ninth national championship victory. Whereas the University of Denver was founded in 1864 as Colorado's seminary and is the oldest independent private university in the Rocky Mountain region. The school changed its name. The University of Denver in 1880 moved from its original downtown location to its familiar 125 acre campus at Evans Avenue and South University Boulevard shortly thereafter. And. Whereas, in 1949, the Du Arena, a former World War Two surplus drill hall from Idaho, was reassembled in Denver with the addition of an ice plant giving the university the ability to properly field an ice hockey team for the first time. The team hit the ice for their first game in December of that year, losing to the University of Saskatchewan. Wait for it 17 to nothing. Denver would lose its first nine games before recording the school's first victory against Wyoming on January 27 of 1950. And. Whereas, over the past 72 years under coaches Vern Turner, Neill, Sally Murray Armstrong, Marshall Johnston, Ralph Backstrom, Frank Sheraton, George Gwozdecky, Jim Montgomery and David Carle. The Mighty Dew Pioneers have developed a nationally renowned hockey program, assembling a combined record of 1499 wins 988 losses and 170 ties, winning 15 regular season conference championships and 17 conference playoff championships. And. Whereas, about 75 pioneers have gone on to play in the National Hockey League, including such well-known names as Keith Magnuson, Kevin Dineen, Matt Karl , who was the 2006 HOBEY Baker winner as NCAA Player of the Year, Paul Stastny and Will Butcher 2017 HOBEY Baker Award winner and where as going into this year's NCAA tournament, the players had won Frozen four national championship titles in 1958, 1960, 1961, 1968, 1969, 2004, 2005 and 2017, leaving them one behind University of Michigan, who led with nine titles. And. Whereas, the 2000 to number four ranked pioneers won tournament games against University of Mass, Lowell 3 to 2 and Minnesota Duluth 221 before defeating the previously no. I will repeat the previously number one ranked University of Michigan 322 in overtime to advance to the championship final. And. Whereas, The Pioneers made a strong Minnesota State team who led one zero through two periods until D2 exploded in the third, with five players scoring five unanswered goals for an historic 5 to 1 victory, giving the PIOs their ninth title, putting them in a tie with Michigan for most NCAA championship wins, and making coach David Karl the fourth youngest coach to win a Frozen four title. And. Whereas, the University of Denver has sent yet another player into the NHL as forward Bobby Brink, a 2022 Hubie Baker finalist who led the nation this year in points and assists, signed with the Philadelphia Fliers just a few days after the Frozen four victory. Now, therefore, let it be proclaimed by the Council of the City and County of Denver, Section one, that the Council of the City of Denver City and County of Denver congratulates the University of Denver Pioneers hockey team on their ninth national championship and declares today, April 18, 2022, to be University of Denver Pioneers Hockey Day in the city and county of Denver in section two that the clerk of the city and County of Denver shall attest and affixed to seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation and copies be transmitted to David Carr. David Karl, coach of the Mighty, Mighty University of Denver Pioneers. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Cashman. And I'd like to also welcome Councilman Herndon to the meeting this evening. Councilmember Cashman, your motion to adopt?
Speaker 2: Yes, ma'am. I move that proclamation. $22 0440 be adopted.
Speaker 1: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded comments by members of Council. Councilmember Cashman.
Speaker 2: Yeah, thank you again, Madam President. It is truly an honor to represent the University of Denver on Denver City Council. You know, in my my years as a journalist, I not only followed the university, but their hockey program. And while with any long established program, there have been some ups and downs along the way. This is truly year after year after year. Top of the Heap nationally recognized program. And you know, where people spend so much time paying attention to our professional sports teams, to those that do carry on muscle. But, you know, to look at athletes that are there for the love of the sport, I'm sure some hope to advance to the pros along the way. None none of the guys that you saw on the ice in the picture earlier are making $27 million a year. If they are, I think you're violating some NCAA rules, aren't you? And so I think the level of hockey that they put forth year after year is it's worth the price of admission if you haven't been to a do you game. I advise you to get over to the campus. You will feel that your money is well spent. So I just want to congratulate I know we have a couple of players here and the entire do you team, the coaching staff, the athletic department for once again bringing home the trophy to Denver and giving us just one more reason to be proud that the university holds the the name of the city and county of Denver in its name. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Cashman. And I don't think you're going to have any problem with this proclamation passing unanimously. Madam Secretary, Roll Call Cashman.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 3: I. Ortega.
Speaker 6: Sandoval.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 6: Sawyer.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 6: Torres. I. Black.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 6: CdeBaca.
Speaker 3: I. Clark.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 5: I.
Speaker 3: Herndon. I hate.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 6: Madam President.
Speaker 1: I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announced the results.
Speaker 6: 13 Eyes.
Speaker 1: 13 Eyes. Proclamation 20 2-440 has been adopted. Councilman Cashman, we've got 5 minutes for the proclamation, acceptance. And so we'll let you invite up who's going to do that?
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. I'd just like to note that that proclamation would be a shut out you. Very nice. I know we have a contingent from due. I hope someone will come up and make a few comments. Just come up to the mic, guys, and introduce yourself, if you would. We have a couple of jacks here. I'm Jack Caruso. I'm detective on first and foremost. We obviously thank you guys for having us today. It's been a pretty crazy week or so and obviously filled with excitement and a lot of fun. We're just more than pleased to be here and thank you, guys. Yeah. I just wish you were honored and grateful for your guys's proclamation for us. And it's been a great week, and we're super excited to celebrate if you guys. Thank you very much. And I hope you never underestimate how much it means to us as individuals and to the city as a whole. That level of accomplishment, it shines a light on everybody and it means a whole lot. Thanks for your hard work. Absolutely. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. You betcha.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Yeah. Well, thank you so much and congratulations again. And to note proclamation 20 2-441 has been placed on consent this evening, as Councilmember Sawyer had mentioned in the announcements. Madam Secretary, would you please read the bills for introduction?
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation honoring the University of Denver Pioneers Hockey team for their 9th National Championship Victory.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_04182022_22-0421
|
Speaker 1: No items have been called out under Pendine. No items have been called out. Madam Secretary, if you would, please put the first item up on our screens. And I'm thinking we might need to move.
Speaker 3: Nope.
Speaker 1: We've got him coming right back in. We've got resolution four, two, one on the floor. Councilmember Cashman, we know you're headed back to your seat, but I know that you wanted to make a comment on resolution for two one this evening, sir.
Speaker 2: Thank you for your patience, Madam President. Yeah. We had this bill come before us last week. County court brought a bill forward to extend a contract for collections that's within to grow. That's been in place for a little bit. And to reinstate collections on amounts $300 and under that had been put on hold due to some programing issues. This council decided that it wasn't ready to reinstate the 300 and below provision, with some concerns that the collection of fines be equitably undertaken and not unfair to any certain groups. So the Court all of us received a letter from Kristen Wood, court executive this past week, bringing this matter back with simply an extension of collections over that limit and promising to participate in an equity assessment and working with our partners at the Office of Financial Empowerment and Protection to be sure that if it is decided that they would like to move forward in the future, that there will be more information which we might base our decision. So I agreed to direct file this, and I'm comfortable with a two year extension of the existing contract with no additional provisions.
Speaker 7: All right.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Cashman. And we're going to go ahead and move on then. Madam Secretary, would you please put the next item on our screen and we're going to go to Council Member State Abarca. If you go ahead with your comments on Resolution 375, please.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Third Amendatory Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Integral Recoveries, Inc. to amend provisions and extend the term.
Amends a contract with Integral Recoveries, Inc. to add two (2) years for a new end date of 2-1-2024 to continue collecting restitution, delinquent fines, costs, and fees for Denver County Court. No change to contract amount. (COURT-202262767). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 5-9-22. Councilmember Kashmann approved direct filing this item on 4-14-22.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_04182022_22-0375
|
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Cashman. And we're going to go ahead and move on then. Madam Secretary, would you please put the next item on our screen and we're going to go to Council Member State Abarca. If you go ahead with your comments on Resolution 375, please.
Speaker 8: And and is it possible to just lump these two together? Three, seven, five and three seven, six? There? Yes.
Speaker 1: Okay. Several comments. Yes.
Speaker 8: Catalina. Just a couple of questions I had asked in an email about if the new expansion plans for Frontier took into consideration the ACL lawsuit, that alleged or settlement that was won because Frontier was not providing lactation opportunities, lactation rooms to their pilots and flight attendants. And you said in the email that we don't have to build for Frontier, but you said Frontier was trying to build special units. Can you Tom, can you explain a little bit more how they're addressing the settlement and how will be kept up to date on how the plans evolve to make sure that they meet those requirements ? Sure.
Speaker 6: Carolina Flores, manager.
Speaker 8: Of legislative affairs at an.
Speaker 6: International airport. Thank you for those great questions. Dunn is not in charge of compliance on behalf of the airlines. However, I did note in my email that Frontier will be building out two nursing spaces for nursing mothers and their space in addition to the seven public facing areas that are available to anyone.
Speaker 8: So is Dan aware of the details in that case? I think that the issue in that case was that flight attendants and pilots who are between flights don't have enough time. Our airport is huge. They don't have enough time to get to the lactation rooms that exist and get back to their flights. Is then actually taking a look at how we create facilities that don't create that problem.
Speaker 6: That is a great question. And I.
Speaker 8: Will bring up our senior vice.
Speaker 6: President, of course, expansion. Awesome.
Speaker 8: I just want to make sure that we're very, very attentive to that, because as we try to diversify the workforce, we want to make sure that we're being considerate in that way of different needs. So thank you.
Speaker 2: Good evening. Stu Williams, senior vice president of airport expansion at Denver International Airport. Councilwoman Diaz, answer your question, especially as we've gone through the expansion phase. We have worked to get lactation rooms or nursing rooms closer to where their operational space would be. So in the case of Frontier, specifically, as it will be voted on later and what we've displayed to council, we're building a significant back, a house space for their operation. And nursing lactation rooms are actually within the area of all their other backhouse space and only minutes from their gates.
Speaker 8: Awesome. Thank you very much.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Stu, for the answer in Carolina. And we're going to go ahead and move on. Thank you, Councilmember CdeBaca, for those questions. Madam Secretary, if you would, put the next item on our screens. Councilmember Sandoval, would you please put resolutions three seven, seven through 380 on the floor for adoption?
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Frontier Airlines, Inc. concerning a use and lease agreement which includes the preferential leasehold of 14 gates at Denver International Airport.
Approves a use and lease agreement with Frontier Airlines, Inc. for rates and charges and for 10 years for preferential leasehold of 14 gates at Denver International Airport in Council District 11 (202055453). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 5-9-22. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 4-6-22.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_04182022_22-0377
|
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Stu, for the answer in Carolina. And we're going to go ahead and move on. Thank you, Councilmember CdeBaca, for those questions. Madam Secretary, if you would, put the next item on our screens. Councilmember Sandoval, would you please put resolutions three seven, seven through 380 on the floor for adoption?
Speaker 4: I move that resolutions 377, 378, 379 and 380 be adopted in the block.
Speaker 1: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded questions or comments by members of Council. Council Member. Sawyer.
Speaker 7: Thanks, Senate President. As I mentioned in committee, I'm not comfortable moving these contracts forward. I've got two concerns. The first is that once again, the airport is asking us to vote without all the information they told us in December. They'd be back in January to provide their CP program information, and they didn't. Now they're saying it will be in May, in two weeks. I hope it is. But without that information, I'm not comfortable voting yes. Additionally, I have a couple of concerns about these contracts because they are extensions to contracts that are already in existence. I certainly understand the time crunch at an airport like them in getting this work done, but I also don't think it's appropriate that we're looking at contracts. Two of these five are over $1,000,000,000 at this point. For us not to send those back out to bid is just not acceptable. I don't I don't see why Dems should have to get around the contracts bid process than the RFP process that's set forth by our city policies and ordinances. I believe that one is actually Executive Order eight, but I'm not 100% sure. But I do think it's important that these contracts go out to bid, that we are keeping an eye on our contractors and that we're getting the best value for our residents. And I can't say in these contracts that we are. So I'm going to be a no tonight and also going to be a no on 381. I know it's been called out separately for a different issue, but that is also included in these contracts. Thanks, Madam President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Sawyer. Councilmember Kinney.
Speaker 7: Thank you very much. I have really agonized over this same issue that Councilman Sawyer mentioned, which is the lack of competitive bids for this particular set of contracts, as well as the prior one that we did, the Great Hall. I actually do understand and agree that Executive Order eight includes an exception for special circumstances. And I do think that that there are circumstances involved in these contracts. And, you know, I'll give you an example of where I myself have faced a decision like this. When I was at the Union Station Project Authority many years ago, we had a contractor on site doing pre-development work for the bus station and the rail lines that are now around Union Station. And we had anticipated a long, long developed federal loan that got delayed. And we had a choice to make about paying a contractor to stay deployed on the site in spite of the fact that we didn't have the money to finish the project and, you know, sending them home, sending the massive crane and all of this, you know, specialized equipment that they had brought to the site home and then rebidding and restarting the project when the federal loan came through. And I remember sitting in that seat and thinking, you know, this is crazy, too, you know? But you start to learn about the cost of taking work down and redeploying it. And so I, as a member of that board, made the hard decision to keep the team deployed rather than stopping, rebidding, restarting and voted for that process. Understanding it wasn't an ideal situation. You know, I think that the lesson needs to be, though, that those circumstances have to be really rare. And I think that, you know, the Great Hall case was very rare. We had a very strange, you know, situation with the termination of a contractor. We had serious security upgrades that frankly needed to be made. It was an it was it was a much easier case than this one. And so I have spent a lot of time, you know, really contemplating. I spent time today with Phil Washington talking about what public competitive contracting brings and what scrutiny this decision had in terms of the performance of the contractor, in terms of raising the risks. You know, I wasn't in those rooms. You know, I was in the room when I when I voted on that Union Station situation that I described. And I could see the costs and I could see each of. You know, contractor performance metrics are being weighed. I don't have that ability here, but I did get pretty satisfactory answers as to the type of scrutiny that this project went through. And I will say this, we are the third busiest airport, and I do believe the facility needs to continue to expand to accommodate that. We perhaps didn't expect to be in this position quite as quickly as we were. But I do have to say, the importance of the project, the scrutiny that it took with, frankly, a contracting method that I'm not totally comfortable with, it was much closer to the line for me. This one was I share all that, you know, to say that I am going to be supporting the bill today based on a set of practices and procedures that I understand have been put in place in the airport. In terms of the CEO individually signing off on any contract extensions, individually reviewing contract extensions to make sure that it wasn't just that we didn't have ourselves organized in time to put something out to bid. It doesn't count as a special circumstance if you use it over and over again. Every city project is urgent and every city project takes time to bid and every city project gets more expensive while materials costs or labor costs go up. So none of those things are unique. What is unique here is the opportunity to save millions without redeployment and some of the urgency of the growth of the airport and being able to meet that demand on a short timeline. Those those were some things that were a little bit prompted by the pandemic recovery with domestic travel recovering more quickly than international. Those are some things that are unique enough that I have come to the decision that I was supporting this today. But the culture of our airport has to demonstrate its commitment to competitive bidding. And it's not enough to say that we're competitively bidding subcontracts. Primes make a lot of money. Primes control schedule. They control the sequencing of work. They control the selection of subs. They matter. So don't bring another of these extensions, you know, to special circumstances in a row is pretty extraordinary. I won't believe you if it happens again. And I hope the those who come after me won't either. You have to be committed to competitive bidding and you need to plan ahead for it. So you should be thinking now, right in your capital improvement plan, about what projects you want to be putting out for procurement today to bring to this council in three or six months. You know, it's a long process plan ahead. That's the message. So thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember King Beach Kimmich. Madam Secretary, roll call on resolutions 22, dash 37737837, nine and three eight. Please.
Speaker 6: SAWYER. No.
Speaker 3: Torres I. Black eye.
Speaker 6: CdeBaca. No. Clark.
Speaker 5: I. Flynn High.
Speaker 3: Herndon High. High. High.
Speaker 2: Cashman High.
Speaker 6: Kenny Ortega.
Speaker 4: Sandoval, i.
Speaker 6: Madam President.
Speaker 1: I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce results.
Speaker 6: Two names.
Speaker 1: 11 eyes. 11 Eyes. Resolutions 377 through 380 have been adopted. Madam Secretary, please put the next item up on our screens for us this evening. Councilmember Sandoval, would you please put resolution 381 on the floor for adoption?
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Second Amendment between the City and County of Denver and WSP USA, Inc. concerning additional professional services associated with the Concourse Expansion Program at Denver International Airport.
Amends a contract with WSP USA, Inc. to add $27,000,000 for a new contract total of $87,000,000 and 2.5 years for a new end date of 12-31-2024 for additional professional services associated with the Concourse Expansion Program as well as controls & quality assurance work at Denver International Airport in Council District 11 (202262566). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 5-9-22. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 4-6-22.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_04182022_22-0381
|
Speaker 1: 11 eyes. 11 Eyes. Resolutions 377 through 380 have been adopted. Madam Secretary, please put the next item up on our screens for us this evening. Councilmember Sandoval, would you please put resolution 381 on the floor for adoption?
Speaker 4: I move that resolution 381 be adopted.
Speaker 1: Thank you. And we have it moved and seconded questions or comments by members of council. I am going to make the first comment. I've called this out because I am going to abstain on this tonight. My brothers, my brother in law excuse me, brother in law is construction company Gilmore. Construction is a sub on this particular contract and so I will be abstaining this evening. Councilmember Sawyer, did you have any additional comments to make?
Speaker 7: Thanks, Madam President. I made my comments earlier. This is one of the the previous block, but because you had called it out to abstain, it is just being voted on separately. So I'll be a no on this one as well. Thank you.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you. Madam Secretary, roll call on resolution 22, dash 381, please. Oh, I'm sorry. We will go ahead and pause. Councilmember Ortega.
Speaker 3: We're.
Speaker 1: And right before he made that statement, sir, I saw that. I just want to add that I was in Councilman Sawyer's shoes a number of years ago before we started receiving reports from primarily three of our department's public works, which is now known as the Department of Transportation, Infrastructure and Parks and Recreation and Denver International Airport, known as Den. We first got reports from Public Works on all their uncalled contracts because we started seeing waves of them coming through where, you know, some of them had very high ticket prices and that was the only time we would see those contracts. They would have many bids after that, and we weren't seeing any data on how they were being used, how many were being used, which ones were not being used at all. So. Those reports really have helped significantly. Parks and Rec then followed and we got the first report from then this week on their uncalled contracts. And I think if council members have concerns about data that we're not getting, we should express that. But. That has helped tremendously in terms of making sure that we know how those are being used. And there's that tracking system. Any of those that are using women in minority businesses, we get that additional data from our Office of Contract Compliance, now known as the SBA. There's all these acronyms for our agencies. It's hard to keep keep track because the names change from time to time. But we are now getting the data. And I just have to say that Phil Washington and his team have been doing an incredible job with being very transparent about the projects or being that are being brought before us for approval, as well as answering all the financial questions, which was one of the missing pieces when we had the Great Hall brought before us, when some of us got the contract on the Great Hall, the financials were not part of that. How do you make a decision when the heart of the deal are the financials and you don't get to see that? That hasn't been the case with these projects that are being brought forward. The expansion of the gates are very important to the growth of the airport. I just flew in on Saturday on a flight that had to wait and sort of fly over a little further north of the airport because the gate wasn't ready. And these gate expansions are very critical to being able to get the planes to the gates on time so that people can be, you know, move through the airport. And I also appreciate the work and the discussion that we had at our last meeting about just how all the assets are being tracked. And we will be getting a complete report on that. There's an updated management system that is being used to ensure that we're tracking which of those actually have warranties on them. So we're not paying for work that is still warranted and we're taking advantage of of those things when we have any of those assets that break down . So I just am saying all of this didn't say that with the previous bills that I will be supporting this tonight because I think we have a leader that is being very thorough and attentive to the expectations that we have and wanting to see more information before we're making decisions about what we're voting on. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilmember Ortega, and see no other speakers in the queue. Madam Secretary, roll call on Resolution 22, dash 381, please.
Speaker 3: BLACK Hi. CDEBACA No.
Speaker 2: All right.
Speaker 6: Flynn.
Speaker 2: Hi.
Speaker 3: Herndon. Hi. Hi.
Speaker 6: Cashman.
Speaker 2: Hi.
Speaker 6: I. Ortega. I. Sandoval.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 6: Sawyer.
Speaker 7: No.
Speaker 6: Torres. Madam President.
Speaker 1: Epstein. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 6: One abstention. Two nays. Ten Eyes.
Speaker 1: Ten Eyes. Resolution 22, dash 381 has been adopted. Madam Secretary, would you please put the next item up on our screens? Councilmember Sandoval, would you please put resolution three, six, six on the floor for adoption?
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Second Amendment between the City and County of Denver and Turner-Flatiron Joint Venture concerning additional construction services associated with the Concourse Expansion Program at Denver International Airport.
Amends a contract with Turner-Flatiron Joint Venture to add $185,000,000 for a new contract total of $1,125,000,000 and 2 years for a new end date of 12-31-2024 for additional construction services associated with the Concourse Expansion Program at Denver International Airport in Council District 11 (202262567). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 5-9-22. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 4-6-22.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_04182022_22-0366
|
Speaker 1: Ten Eyes. Resolution 22, dash 381 has been adopted. Madam Secretary, would you please put the next item up on our screens? Councilmember Sandoval, would you please put resolution three, six, six on the floor for adoption?
Speaker 4: I move that consideration of resolution 366 be postponed to April 25th, 2022.
Speaker 1: Just a moment where I just need you to.
Speaker 4: Please remove that resolution, be adopted.
Speaker 3: All right.
Speaker 1: Very good. Thank you. When we've got it, we'll get it. It's been moved and seconded. We've got that. Councilmember CdeBaca, your motion to postpone.
Speaker 8: I moved that. Hold on. You guys skipped ahead. I move that a 20 2-3 66 be postponed until next Monday.
Speaker 1: Okay. Would you like to give any reasoning or.
Speaker 8: Their sound on it? Yeah. There's some confusion in community and with the mayor's office about one of the appointees. And we just want to get some clarification before we move forward with this one.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you. And my scripted moved as well. And so we've got it. It's been moved and seconded. We've got council members that Ibaka gave the reasoning behind that. Are there any questions or comments by members of council? Not seen any additional. Madam Secretary, roll call on the postponement of Resolution 22, Dash 366 to next Monday, April 25th, 2022.
Speaker 3: CDEBACA Hi.
Speaker 5: Clark All right. Flynn i.
Speaker 6: Herndon Hines.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 6: Cashman I. Kenny Ortega I. Sandoval, I.
Speaker 3: Sawyer I. Torres I. Black I.
Speaker 6: Madam President.
Speaker 1: I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce results.
Speaker 6: 13 Eyes.
Speaker 1: 13 Eyes. Resolution 20 2-366 has been postponed and will be back in front of council on Monday, April 25th. Madam Secretary, if you would, put the next item up on our screens. Councilmember Sandoval, would you please put Bill 383 on the floor for publishing?
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving the Mayor’s appointment and reappointments to the National Western Center Authority Board of Directors.
Approves the following Mayoral appointment and reappointments to the National Western Center Authority Board of Directors: appointment of Sandra Ruiz-Parrilla for a term effective immediately and expiring 12-31-2024, or until a successor is duly appointed, and the reappointments of Steven McCarthy and Lucia Guzman for terms effective immediately and expiring on 12-31-2026, or until a successor is duly appointed. The Committee approved filing this resolution by consent on 4-5-2022.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_04182022_22-0383
|
Speaker 1: 13 Eyes. Resolution 20 2-366 has been postponed and will be back in front of council on Monday, April 25th. Madam Secretary, if you would, put the next item up on our screens. Councilmember Sandoval, would you please put Bill 383 on the floor for publishing?
Speaker 4: I move that council bill 383 be ordered published.
Speaker 1: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded questions or comments by members of council.
Speaker 8: Councilmember CdeBaca Yes, I called this out tonight. These are the salary increases for our mayoral appointees because we discovered that this is not required at this time. I think it's inappropriate to do, especially since it will be retroactive at the tail end of this mayor's term. I think we should allow the next mayor to come in and make some decisions around pay equity throughout the entire city organization before we give increases that in some places are over 20% increases. When we have employees in the city and county of Denver who can't afford to pay rent and also don't qualify for city benefits. We've got major, major structural issues that I think are making it challenging to fill many of our vacancies in the city. And so we should be looking at this more holistically. And so I'm a no on this tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember CdeBaca. Council members will.
Speaker 7: Hear things when I'm president. I think that Councilwoman CdeBaca makes some really good points, and it's something to consider. Absolutely as we look at this contract. However, I also appreciate the testimony that we heard at committee, you know, regarding this situation where we have executive directors who are making less than their than their staff. You know, we want to make sure that whoever the next mayor is, they're set up for success. They are going to have to go through a council approval process for all of their cabinet appointees. And the things that we can do to help set that mayor up for success include equal or median, I guess, pay for for their executive directors. Like I said, it's not okay that we have a situation where some of our executive directors are making less than their staff members because their their salaries are set by ordinance. So this is always an uncomfortable conversation to have, but I think it is an important conversation to have. And I will be supporting it and I. Thanks.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember Steuer, Councilmember Sandoval.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. I also agree that these are really important points that are brought up and talking about anyone's salary and having to vote on it is an uncomfortable position for myself. I also want to acknowledge that some of when I was learning about this contract and this ordinance, I did not realize that the appointees listed here did not receive a merit increase every year. So although our everyone in the city and county in Denver receives a merit increase, these appointees have been at the same rate this entire time. So someone from I'd say the executive director of Parks and Rec has been making the same entire exact salary for over six years without a merit increase. And that does not feel equitable to me. That does not feel fair. And that was something that I gave to consideration as I was thinking about this proposal. And I also did had the conversation, as with the mayor's office, about could the next mayor come in and we do this? Could the next mayor come in? We have a general election coming up and we'd have a new mayor in July of 23. And could they come and bring a proposal, an ordinance and undo this proposal? Yes, they could do it. Has that happened in the history of Denver? Yes, it has. We did have a mayor that came in and actually reset all of the salaries of our appointees there, the mayor's appointees. And I think we have been playing catch up since then. So I gave this contract and this ordinance a lot of thought since I got received my briefing. And although it makes me very uncomfortable to have to talk about other people and have to vote on other people's salary. I will be supporting it this evening because once again, these executive directors have not received a salary increase. And at the same time, when I asked if they had to participate in the furloughs that everyone else had to participate in. Yes, they did participate in the furloughs. So they participated in the furloughs. And most people got the merit increase in 2021 and they did not. So this is again, I'm going to say it for the record, an uncomfortable conversation to have appeared to be talking about. But given that I did give it consideration, I will be supporting it this evening. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember Sandoval. Councilmember Cashman.
Speaker 2: Yeah, thank you, Madam President. I looked at this carefully as well. And these posts are the leaders of our departments of the big city government. And we're, as with all big cities, in a position right now where we've got some real challenges that we face and we need the best people possible that we can get into these positions. These salary increases do not put these people at the top of the heap compared to other cities. It puts them in the mid-range compared to other cities. And the if you look at the total, I added it up earlier this week and forgot to bring my numbers in with me. But if you look at all the dollars that we're talking about, while in some cases the percentage increases are substantial in in face of the leadership that we're asking for and the comparatively low dollars that this bill increases, the total salaries, it's minimal. And I'm glad to support this. I'd actually wish we could get our department heads rather than aim for 50%. I'd like to look at 60% and 70% of average. Like I say, I want the best people possible leading the city. And, you know, sometimes it helps to show people a little love dollar wise. So that's where I am on this. I will certainly support it.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Cashman. Councilmember Herndon.
Speaker 2: Think about the president. You know, I was just asked the question, what were you doing in 2006? Most of us can't remember because it was that long ago these positions in front of us, with the exception of excise and license, because marijuana was added to their job description. So you could say 2017 for that individual, that's when they last got a salary increase. And if it was not management. People would be up and like, how could this be possible? But for some strange reason, because they're part of the executive team or the C-suite, it's a it should be questionable. And that's absurd. It's absolutely absurd. People should be compensated for the work that they do. We're the third busiest airport in the world, and our compensation for our CEO is paltry. And so for the next mayor, this is actually doing them a favor because we're upping the hours they can choose to keep the people on or they can look to hire new people. And it will be a challenge to hire new people if we keep our compensations at the levels that they are for the responsibility that they have. I said this at committee and I second Councilman Cashman. I wish this didn't take them to the midpoint. They should be paid. They should be compensated higher. But I'm happy to support this and I hope my colleagues do as well. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember Herndon Council Pro-Tem Torres.
Speaker 7: Thank you so much. I'll also be supporting tonight. I think our executive leadership, in addition to the past two years of what we've all experienced, have done a tremendous job. We may disagree on a lot of different individual policies, but overall the work that is loaded upon them is pretty heavy.
Speaker 3: And I do.
Speaker 7: Agree. Councilwoman Sandoval mentioned we have had mayors in the past and coming who have asked their starting cabinet to take pay cuts. That was at a time of recession. We may be looking at that again in a couple of years.
Speaker 6: Who knows what it really looks like?
Speaker 1: But we should be able to attract key folks.
Speaker 7: To these positions for what Denver needs and where it's going. I will say that cumulatively, in terms of.
Speaker 3: Actual.
Speaker 7: Raises, city employees earned an average of 18% since 2016. The average here is at about 16%. So it's not far off from what our employee.
Speaker 1: Structure.
Speaker 7: Also received in that period of time. So I will be supporting tonight.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you. Council Pro-Tem Torres. Councilmember CdeBaca, we have you back up in the queue. Is it okay if I go to Councilmember Ortega? All right. Go ahead, please. Councilmember Ortega. Thank you, Madam President. I just wanted to add, I won't repeat what my colleagues have already said. This is being covered by the budgets of the various agencies. So this is not requiring a separate supplemental budget appropriation to cover the cost of these salaries. So I will be supporting it tonight as well for all the reasons that have been expressed earlier. Thank you, Councilmember Ortega. Council members say the Baca thank you.
Speaker 8: I just want to thank my colleagues for their comments and also point out for the public that it was a choice of our mayor not to give merit increases annually that could have been done annually. It's a strange time to do that, given what we've just been through and what we're facing. Additionally, employees within the city who do receive merit increases do so based on their performance. That is not the case with our appointees. There is no evaluation process, no evaluation system, and often no recourse for staff in an agency when there is poor leadership or when there are things within the agency that they don't approve of. So it is a little bit different when we're talking about appointees and merit increases versus regular employees and merit increases. Additionally, when we talk about employees rights in the city and the pay inequity that's happening right here in all of our agencies, we explicitly prohibit our employees from collectively bargaining. And so I challenge my colleagues, if you truly do believe people should be paid what they are worth, to recognize that we have to then allow our employees throughout the city, not just a couple of select agencies who are some of the highest, who are led by some of the highest paid appointees on this list to collectively bargain. Everybody should have that right. And so still a no on this. And I hope that my colleagues think about the potential for creating equity in pay across our city agencies. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember CdeBaca. Councilmember Hines.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council President A couple of things that my colleagues have already said about the third busiest airport in the world. It's crazy that our CEO is getting paid 40% less than than industry average. And we've had pay raises for most employees. And most employees have had several pay raises since 2016, but not these positions. Two things that haven't been covered so far are a point we just had in our budget and policy conversation this afternoon, an update on our the strength of our city in 2021. And and the appointees that we had, the leadership of the various agencies saved more money than we were expecting in 2021. And so I would say that the appointees directly did a better job in in being frugal with our our funds in 2021. But also in the same presentation, we learned that we, we collected more sales tax than for. And our income was greater than expected in 2021. So I recognize that 2020 was a tough year for everyone. But but we we found in this afternoon's presentation that 2021 was better than expected. And that's in part because of the leadership of our city and creating our recovery stronger than the state and national average. Thank you. Council President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Hines. And not seeing anybody else in the queue there. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 22, Dash 383, please.
Speaker 8: CDEBACA No.
Speaker 6: Clarke.
Speaker 5: All right.
Speaker 6: Flynn.
Speaker 5: I.
Speaker 3: Herndon, I. Hi. All right. Cashman Can each I.
Speaker 1: Ortega Excuse me, I.
Speaker 6: Sandoval.
Speaker 4: Hi.
Speaker 6: Sawyer.
Speaker 3: I. Torres, i. Black eye.
Speaker 6: Madam President.
Speaker 1: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 6: When they. 12 Eyes.
Speaker 1: 12 Eyes. Resolution 22, dash 383 has been ordered published. That concludes the items to be called out this evening. All bills for introduction are ordered published. Councilmembers remember this is a consent or block vote and you will need to vote I. Otherwise, this is your last chance to call out an item for a separate vote. Councilmember Sandoval, 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 on final consideration be placed upon final consideration, and do pass in a block for the following items. Zip. 44142138348349350. 351375376382360361364372433365367434320.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Sandoval. And we've got that moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, roll call black.
Speaker 3: I CdeBaca. I, Clark. All right.
Speaker 6: Flynn. Herndon.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 6: Hi. Cashman.
Speaker 3: Hi, Kenny. I.
Speaker 6: Ortega. Sandoval. I swear, i. Torres. I. Madam President.
Speaker 1: I. Madam Secretary, to close the voting and announce results.
Speaker 6: 13 eyes.
Speaker 1: 13 eyes. The proclamations and 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 20 2-168 changing the zoning classification for 4116 to Cater Street in Sunnyside required public hearing on Council Bill 20 2-169 Changing
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance amending the annual salaries of certain appointed charter officers.
Amends Section 18-91 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code to adjust annual salaries for appointed charter officers in accordance with limitations set forth in the Charter and applied retroactively to January 1, 2022. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 4-5-22.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_04182022_22-0169
|
Speaker 1: I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced results. 13 Eyes. 13 Eyes Council Bill 20 2-168 has passed. Moving along. Councilmember Sandoval, will you please put council bill 22, dash 169 on the floor for final passage.
Speaker 4: I move that council bill? 169 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 1: Thank you. And we've got it moved and seconded the required public hearing on Council Bill 20 2-169 is open and we have Fran with us again for the staff report.
Speaker 6: Afternoon slump in the Philippines city planner with planning services. And today, I'm going to present an overview of the MAP Amendment for 2841 North Kearny Street. The subject property is located in District eight, represented by Councilman Christopher Herndon. In the North Hill neighborhood. The request is to rezone to a district that will allow for an AEW while all other forms a new standard would remain the same. This property is currently in the urban single unit de Aix en district, which is which in this location would only allow for a suburban house and an urban house . Building forms a minimum sample size of 6000 square feet. And as you can see on the map, the properties around it to the north, east and south. Other properties that are also shown is the X well to the west. We can see there is a whole block of grade 2.5. The current land use of the site is single unit residential and it is mostly surrounded by other single unit uses, but it has some multi-unit uses to the west. You can see here the land use map. There is also a school have a way half a block to a north. In this slide, we can see that the subject property is on the image on the bottom. Right. And it gives us an idea of the residential character of the neighborhood. Now speaking to a process. Information on notice of the application was sent on December nine, 2021, and this item was recommended for approval on Consent Agenda Planning Board on February 2nd, 2022. To date has not received any letters of support or opposition from the public or from any of the originals. Now moving on to the rezoning criteria, 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 applicable to his rezoning. We have comprehensive plan 2040 Blueprint, Denver and the Park Hill Neighborhood Plan. The first gratuitous consistency of the rezoning is consistent with several of the strategies and comprehensive plan 2040. And my 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 already in place. Now Blue in Denver says that this subject properties mapped as part of the urban edge neighborhood context. And if you do place this map designates the subject property as law residential place type place types have predominantly single and unit uses and accessory dwelling units are appropriate. Kearny Street is designated as a local street. The growth area in Denver is all other areas of the city. And this area anticipated to see a 10% employment growth and a 20% housing growth by 2040. Blueprint also includes a policy recommendations. Housing policy number four focuses on diversifying housing choice, the expansion of accessory dwelling units throughout all residential areas. The third plan that is applicable to his property is the Park Hill Neighborhood Plan that was adopted in 2000. The plan is silent on residential rezoning specifically. However, the proposed rezoning is consistent with the land use zoning rule and the land use and signing action. Recommendation number three stated in pages 32 and 33 of the plan. The proposed you would maintain the existing integrity of North Hill and increase the mix of housing options in the neighborhood , which is comprised of single unit, two unit and multi-unit dwellings, thereby consistent with the small area plan. Stuff also finds that the requested signing 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 implementation of adopted plans. The justified circumstance for this rezoning is clear. Since the approval of the existing ESU Dixon District, the city has adopted a comprehensive plan 2040 and Blueprint Denver. I stated throughout this presentation the proposed rezoning to ESU de one X meets the intent of both of these plans. Lastly, the proposed zoning is consistent with the urban edge neighborhood context residential district and the ESU. D1 takes on district purpose and intent. With that stuff. Requirements, approval based on finding or review material has been met.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Fran, for this great staff report. We've got one individual signed up to speak this evening, Jesse Paris. And Jesse, I've seen you in the queue. Oh, there you go. Are you unmuted? Go ahead, please.
Speaker 2: Yeah. My name is Justin with Sam Harris, and I represent for Blackstone a movement for self defense, positive action for social change, as well as the Unity Party of Colorado, the East Denver Residents Council on Black News. And I'll be the next mayor of Denver in 2023 and I reside in councilman Herndon's district of dissipates. I'm in favor of this rezoning tonight's a support to use. I would love to see any use in every single district in the city, all 11 of them. And this one I support as well. So please pass this. I'm pretty sure my councilman would agree this is a no brainer. It meets all five of the criteria of this just to see what adopted plans, uniformity of district regulations for this. Public health, safety and wellness just needs justifying circumstances just to see where neighborhood context zone district purpose in its sense. So please pass this to my. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. That concludes our speakers for this hearing. Questions from members of Council on Council Bill 22, DASH 169. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 22. Dash 169. Councilmember Herndon.
Speaker 2: Hey, Madam President, I do I do agree with Jesse that the criteria has been clearly met, and I look forward to voting yes. And I hope my colleagues do the same. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. And do agree with that assessment as well. I'll be happy to support this rezoning this evening. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 22, DASH 169, please.
Speaker 6: Herndon.
Speaker 5: All right.
Speaker 6: Hines Excuse me. Cashman.
Speaker 3: Can each.
Speaker 6: Ortega. Sandoval.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 6: Sawyer.
Speaker 3: I. Torres, I. Black. I.
Speaker 6: See tobacco.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 6: Clark.
Speaker 2: All right.
Speaker 6: Flynn.
Speaker 5: All right.
Speaker 6: Madam President.
Speaker 1: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 6: 13 Eyes.
Speaker 1: 13 Eyes Council Bill 20 2-169 has passed. Moving on. Councilmember Sandoval, will you please put Council Bill 22, dash three, four, four on the floor for final passage?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 2841 North Kearney Street in North Park Hill.
Approves a map amendment to rezone property from E-SU-Dx to E-SU-D1x (allows for an accessory dwelling unit), located at 2841 North Kearney Street in Council District 8. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 2-15-22.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_04112022_22-0209
|
Speaker 0: Speakers must stay on the topic of the hearing and must direct their comments to the council members. Please refrain from profane or obscene speech. Direct your comments to council as a whole, and please refrain from individual or personal attacks. Councilmember Cashman, will you please put Council Bill 22, Dash 209 on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 3: Yes, Madam President, I move the council bill 22 does 0209 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 2-209 is open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam Council President. And thank you. Good evening, counsel. My name is Valerie Ararat, senior city planner with CPD. I will be presenting an ADU case for the subject property located at three, four, five, five North Birch Street. The subject property is in Council District eight with Councilmember Herndon. And is located in the Northeast Park Hill neighborhood. The subject property is currently 7880 square feet, with a zone lot with of approximately 60 feet. The request is for urban edge single unit d1x to allow for a detached adu in the rear of the lot. The site and the surrounding properties to the east, west and south are all ESU decks, allowing for both suburban and urban houses for primary building forums with a minimum zone of 6000 square feet. To the north, the zoning is classified. OCP, which is an open space district intended to protect and promote open space in parks not otherwise owned, operated or leased by the city. Bruce Randolph Avenues, just south of the BLOCK and Colorado Boulevard, is seven blocks west of the site. The site is single unit residential surrounded by single and two unit existing residential land uses in the neighborhood to the west along Colorado Boulevard. Existing uses include commercial retail, public quasi public office and mixed uses to the north and south are classified parks. Open space. For existing building firm in scale the subject properties on the north side of the block with alley access located adjacent to 35th Avenue. There is an existing primary single unit structure and a detached garage accessory structure currently located on the lot. The bottom photo shows the existing alley in the rear and the top photo is the single unit residents to the east of the property. In terms of process. The MAP amendment went to planning board on Wednesday, February 2nd, where the item was recommended approval on the consent agenda. The rezoning was moved forward to final hearing of city council by the Land Use Transportation Infrastructure Committee on Consent on February 15 and is being heard today. In terms of public outreach. To date, staff has not received written input from any RINO's that were sent notice and there was also no public comment on this. The Denver zoning code has five review criteria. The first is consistency with adopted plans, starting with 2040. Staff found the rezoning to be consistent with several strategies shown in the plan 2040. Starting with equitable, affordable and inclusive goals. And I found the rezoning to be consistent with goal two strategy a create a greater mix of housing options in every neighborhood for all individuals and families that can be found on page 28. In speaking to the climate and environmentally resilient vision elements, staff found this rezoning to be consistent with goal eight strategy a promote infill development where infrastructure and services are already in place. Getting into the blueprint. Denver Blueprint. Denver maps this area as urban edge context and residential low, which consists of predominantly a single unit and two unit uses on smaller lots and allows for its use to be thoughtfully and appropriately integrated where compatible. Additionally, blueprint Denver Guidance provides support through policy for diversity, housing, diversity, housing, housing choice through an expansion of accessory dwelling units throughout all residential areas and strategy a city wide approach to enable ADU uses preferred until a holistic approach is in place. Individual rezonings to enable ADA use in all residential areas, especially where proximate to transit are appropriate. Unless there's a neighborhood plan supporting a to use rezoning should be small an area in order to minimize impact to the surrounding residential areas. This location also includes the Park Hill Neighborhood Plan of 2000, which provides support through land using zoning goal on page 30 to maintain the existing integrity of the residential character of Park Hill. Assure that continued growth and development in Park Hill results in a balanced and compatible mix of housing types and densities. For the second piece Land Using Zoning Action Recommendation three reads Create and maintain a mix of housing types and sizes that are attractive and affordable to a diversity of ages. Incomes, household types, sizes. Cultural and ethnic backgrounds. Getting into criteria. Two and three staff found that this rezoning is consistent with adopted plans. The proposed rezoning will result in uniform application of zoned district building form, use and design regulations, and it will further public health, safety and welfare. Staff on the proposed. The proposed rezoning is justified through a city adopted plan. And finally, the context zone, district purpose and intent of ESU D1 X are all appropriate for this particular location, giving the route given the surrounding area, the adopted time guidance, and the location of the site. And last, given the finding that all review criteria have been met, CPD Recommends City Council Approve Application 2020 19-00226 Based on finding our review criteria have been met. Just to note that approval of a rezoning is not approval of a proposed specific development project. Thank you. And I'm happy to take questions.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Val. We have one individual signed up to speak this evening. And for council members that might be looking for the PowerPoint and the staff report. Our ledge staff just got those uploaded. So thank you for the heads up, Councilman Flynn. And we're going to go to our first speaker, our only speaker for this hearing, Jessie Parris.
Speaker 1: May I be her?
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Speaker. No.
Speaker 0: Yes, go ahead, please, Jessie.
Speaker 1: Now. Some may be hurt.
Speaker 0: Yes, we can hear you. Okay, Jesse. If the producers want to go ahead and let Jesse know, he can be heard.
Speaker 1: To.
Speaker 0: We can hear you just fine, Jesse.
Speaker 1: We heard council.
Speaker 0: Yes. Go ahead, Jesse. We can hear you. We can hear you. Jesse. I'm showing. That you're. Mike is unmuted. And it looks like it just muted again. But we can hear you. Okay. Okay. We'll try to give it another moment here.
Speaker 1: First.
Speaker 0: Go ahead, please, Jesse.
Speaker 1: Yes. Good evening. Members of council. May I be heard? Thank you. Yes. When I was just a missing person present for Blackstone, maximum for self defense, positive action to manifest positive change as well as the Unity Party of Colorado, the East Denver Residents Council, Frontline Black News and I will be the next mayor of Denver in 2023 . I am actually under further consideration in favor of this rezoning tonight of this of 3455, North First Street. I just had a few questions. Who is the occupant? What is the demographics of that person? Does this is happening in a rapidly gentrifying neighborhood of Northeast PA to which I am a native of and. Is a bill to my humble supporters to know who is going to be dwelling here. So if you could please answer that question. I would really appreciate it otherwise. I am in favor of this rezoning. Please pass this my remarks as all five of the criteria so I'm certain it will be a year on it. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And that concludes our speakers questions from members of Council on Council Bill 22, Dash 209. All right. Doesn't seem that we have any questions from members of council. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 22, Dash 209 Council Member Herndon.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. I am in support of this. I believe that the, uh, it is.
Speaker 3: A no brainer on this.
Speaker 1: One. I would urge my colleagues to do. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Councilmember Herndon and I concur. It meets all of the criteria and we'll be voting in favor of it as well. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 22, Dash 209, please.
Speaker 5: Herndon High Cashman Can Change. Sandoval, I.
Speaker 2: Sawyer, I.
Speaker 5: Torres. I. CdeBaca. Clarke.
Speaker 6: I.
Speaker 5: Flynn.
Speaker 6: I.
Speaker 5: Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results. Tonight's Ten Eyes Council Bill 20 2-209 has passed. Thank you for being here tonight, Val, and our one public speaker as well. Our pre adjournment announcement on Monday, April 18. The Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 20 2-344 designating 3435 Albion Street as a structure for preservation. On Monday, May 9th, Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 22, Dash 307 Changing the zoning classification for 2900 North Dora Street 2685 North Dalia and a required public hearing on Council Bill 20
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 3455 North Birch Street in Northeast Park Hill.
Approves a map amendment to rezone property from E-SU-Dx to E-SU-D1x (allows for an accessory dwelling unit), located at 3455 N. Birch Street in Council District 8. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 2-22-22.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_04042022_22-0278
|
Speaker 1: No items have been called out under bills for final consideration. No items have been called out under pending. No items have been called out. Madam Secretary, please. But the first item on our screens. Councilmember Black, please put Resolution 278 on the floor for adoption.
Speaker 4: I move that resolution 20 2-0278 be adopted.
Speaker 1: It has been moved and seconded questions or comments by members of council. I do have my own comments first. And soon there's no one else in the queue. I will go ahead and ask those. Kristen Wood from different courts. I know you're here to answer questions. If you'd like to respond to these points afterwards, feel free. Okay. So this particular bill to 78 was proposing to begin a process of sending debts owed under $300 in Denver court to collections agent that we currently use into role forgive me, integral recoveries. I appreciate Ms. word your responsiveness to all of the questions and I asked a lot after the last meeting, but I remain concerned about how the contract would perpetuate or exacerbate poverty in Denver nationally. Fines and fees disproportionately burden low income people and people of color and make it harder for low income folks to afford basic services and goods. But I think there's still an opportunity before creating a new category of collections referral for us to ensure we have a full picture of who's impacted and what the consequences can be, and if there are more innovative and just ways of addressing fees and fines owned. My areas of concern were that there hadn't been an equity assessment done to identify, benefit and burden scenarios that I didn't know based on the responses. How many cases or what proportion are actually referred to integral for collections? And although fees can be waived for those who are found indigent, it's an onerous process that not everyone had the resources to know how to navigate. As an FBI, the Office of Financial Empowerment in the City is currently applying to join a cohort for cities and counties for Find and Fee Justice Leadership Network. Denver would join nine other jurisdictions in advancing fee and find policy reform, including Seattle, Sacramento, Philadelphia and Dallas. Given this, I think it would be a prime opportunity to allow the Court's time in the Office of Financial Empowerment to come together and address unanswered questions and create a more robust proposal. So I will be voting no this evening. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 5: You, Madam Chair. No.
Speaker 2: I didn't want to be in.
Speaker 1: You. Is your mike on, Councilwoman?
Speaker 6: Can you hear me now? Yes. Okay, that's better. Sorry.
Speaker 1: Can you repeat your question?
Speaker 6: Yes. My question was whether or not this is one of the contracts that came through the Crime Prevention and Control Commission.
Speaker 4: Not that I'm aware of. It's been the court.
Speaker 6: Can you pull the mic down, please, and introduce yourself?
Speaker 4: Kristin Wood, Court Administrator for Denver County Court. And to my knowledge, this contract since my time as court administrator, which is February of 2020, has come through twice before council and it was on the courts, whether it was originally part of the CP. CC we've had this contract since 2009. To my knowledge it did not, but I could confirm that if needed.
Speaker 6: Okay. I just as as a seated member of that body, I don't remember this one coming through and just wanted to clarify if it is CPUC funded or if it comes out of the general fund for the courts.
Speaker 4: There is no associated funding with this contract. The city does not pay anything on the front end for this contract.
Speaker 6: So it's revenue generated from the referrals? Correct. Okay. Got it. Okay. Thank you. I don't have any further questions.
Speaker 1: Thank you. And we've got Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 4: Thank you. I read all of the answers that you sent over, so thank you. And then, councilman. Torres an email not too long ago, but. If this bill fails, what does that mean for in its managing the courts? Sure. In its current form, we are expanding the scope to include collections under $300, but it also extends the term of the contract for collections in its entirety. So if this bill fails, it would terminate all collection efforts across the board, even for amounts.
Speaker 1: Mr. Bailey.
Speaker 4: $300. And so if that were the case, I would inquire as to whether or not it would be reasonable to proceed with an amended contract to exclude that expansion or if it was reflective of a failure on collections in its entirety. And Councilwoman Torres mentioned this. Cities and counties, fines and fees, workgroup or something. Are you aware of that? The Office of Financial? Yeah. I am not aware of that office. I did correspond with Councilwoman Torres after she sent the email and stated that we would be happy to participate in any study with respect to data that would assist them in their in their assessment with respect to impact. With respect to court customers and how that office could potentially benefit them. We are also happy to provide resource referrals and are you aware of other cities that are eliminating these kinds of fines? I know that there are ongoing studies with respect to fees and fines the state courts in Colorado currently use. I believe there's three different vendors for delinquent accounts where fees and fines are owed with respect to our assessment as a court. It's all defined in statute and ordinance. So any efforts with respect to a study or perhaps reducing or eliminating certain fees and costs, I'm not a part of that are aware of that currently. So if it was the desire of City Council or the Office of Financial Empowerment to eliminate these fines would require changing state statute as well as as part of it. As Denver County Court is a hybrid model of state cases and municipal cases. And so with respect to any type of amendment to what is currently defined, an ordinance would not impact state fees and fines on those types of offenses. And so just to clarify, this bill would continue the contract of collecting fees and fines over 300 and then add the additional task of collecting under $300. That's correct. And so, Councilwoman Torres, is your issue with the fines that are less than $300 or all fines?
Speaker 1: I would say all fines, but I think the original issue was with those under 300 initially as a new category that we would be sending to collections.
Speaker 4: And so is your desire to completely stop collections while the Office of Financial Empowerment participates in this program and then go on to change state statute?
Speaker 1: Well, no, not state statute. I think the Leadership Network for the Office of Financial Empowerment, those cities don't just outright eliminate fees and fines. They assess which ones could potentially be unnecessary, overly burdensome. They do an assessment. It's basically what they do. So it isn't a proposal to eliminate everything, but it is a proposal to involve them in a conversation to have about what an appropriate evolution of sending fees and fines to collections could or should look like.
Speaker 4: And I'm sorry I have so many questions, but a lot of the information I just got a couple hours ago, but. So all of the money that's collected goes into the general fund that doesn't fund the courts, is that correct? All the the fight, the fines, as Councilwoman Torres pointed out, are punitive in nature for the offense. So some of the the cases that are brought before the court, the only type of punitive outcome they would be, jailable offenses or probationary eligible offenses would be a fine. Other types of surcharges or cost generally go back to the general form or are dispersed out to other agencies for programs, for instance, the drug offender surcharge, a portion of those those costs go back to awareness, education, treatment and are targeted in that in that regard. Okay. I have one final question. Councilman Torres in an email said that people are prevented from renewing their driver's license if they don't pay the fees. I didn't think that was true. Is that true at present time? The there are no driver's licenses that are suspended for nonpayment. There was an outstanding judgment warrant fee that was previously ordered by the court, which, if left unpaid, the DMV could administratively suspend a driver's license. That was since repeal of last legislative session in the in the state. Okay. So that is not that's not an issue. So what if someone owed $147? What you said was the average. What if they never pay the. They're usually purged from the system with respect to collection efforts. Honestly, they're not reported to a credit bureau, and they're certainly not going to be they're not going to receive a higher punitive sentence than that. Fine. With respect to previously going back ten, 15 years, they used to jail people on failure to comply and warrants. And that obviously is not something that is going to serve either a punishment or a rehabilitation effort in any regard. And it doesn't harm someone's credit if we do not report to the credit bureaus. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Madam President. Pro tem. This is to extend the contract with integral for two years, correct? For an end date of February one, 2024, so that this contract end February one of 2022. Are we out of contract?
Speaker 4: You're correct.
Speaker 7: So are they not doing collections?
Speaker 4: They're currently doing collections.
Speaker 7: So if we vote this down does not mean all of a sudden collection stop.
Speaker 4: That means we would have to go back to take over. Right. Draw that. Those efforts. Yes.
Speaker 7: Right. And so would you guess from since they've continued. That we'd had some time to work out, that they'll continue to collect because they make money. And we will then address you will then address a new contract provision to keep them going for some length of time.
Speaker 4: I guess I think that's the important thing of understanding, whether it's a $300 threshold or collections in its entirety. If it if we were revamping the contract simply to extend the terms, if that was something palatable, then we could certainly do that. Are the reason for expanding it is because we've always collected on delinquent accounts and didn't have a definitive threshold in which we did it right. It was a programing effort in 2020 that we undertook to revamp our collections process with integral.
Speaker 7: So in the past. They collected all dollar amounts. Correct. Only since 2020 was the three. Were the 300 and below left out.
Speaker 4: Correct.
Speaker 7: Okay. Thank you. Welcome.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you. I'd like to welcome Councilmember Herndon to the meeting. Councilwoman Sawyer.
Speaker 3: Thanks, Madam President. Pro tem. Thank you for that information. Just a quick clarifying question and I apologize. I read through the email that you sent, but I don't recall seeing this in there. How was the $300 threshold arrived at?
Speaker 4: So in in city ordinance, there is a flat rate that is assessed depending on the amount owed on the case, $300 and less is a percentage of the balance of what is owed, which took extensive programing efforts by our I.T. department and integral in the interface that we use. And so we decided to hold off on doing that in an effort to revamp our collections process, which we originally revamped it as part of a budget reduction process because the city used to advance an allocation for us to pay integral, to do the collections, to then recover it and recoup it once the costs were paid.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 3: So if we are no longer jailing people who are not paying this fine and we're currently not collecting on anything under $300, have we done any sort of I know that there wasn't any sort of impact analysis done, but are we sure that that $300 threshold, let's say the conversation was on the table, that we were considering no fines at all or some sort of different level of fines, recognizing that there is a an impact to particularly, you know, a lower income or no income group of people when it comes to those fines. Have we? Are we sure $300 is the right number? Have we studied kind of the specifics around that at all?
Speaker 4: Yeah, but the the court, in all honesty, has not done a study with respect to fines and costs. Our role is simply to assess them based on the offense and what's defined in statute in the ordinance. So an equity study of those cases that owe 300 or less has not been evaluated.
Speaker 3: Okay. And so that is something that potentially maybe this is a question for Council President Pro Tem Torres is something that potentially the Office of Financial Empowerment could then do to provide more information on whether that $300 threshold is the right way to go. Okay, great. Thank you. Thanks for your thanks for your interest.
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman. So your Councilmember Black, your backup. Okay. I'll go to Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Brian, for your time. Christian. First of all, could you pull the mike down a little closer? Yeah. Okay. Thank you. In your response to the questions from last week, there were two things I want to make sure I understand. Unpaid fines and fees from court judgments are you said, are not reported to credit rating agencies, credit bureaus.
Speaker 4: They are not.
Speaker 2: That is true. That is true. So the fact that someone in this category would be subject to collection by integral would not become part of their their credit record.
Speaker 4: Correct.
Speaker 2: And then the other thing that I was trying to clarify was about driver's license. Correct. And you said that Colorado statutes were changed so that fines and unpaid fines and fees no longer result in an inability to renew your license. Or is that not true? They won't suspend the license. But can you renew a driver's license if you have unpaid court costs and fees?
Speaker 4: Not that I'm aware of. No, sir. It was only on outstanding. If you owed an outstanding judgment warrant fee with the DMV, that is what allowed them to administratively suspend a license and what they require payment of in order to renew it. Those are no longer assessed cases.
Speaker 2: So you can renew a driver's license if you owe, even if you are. On the list here being pursued by integral to pay court fees. Some find you can still renew your license.
Speaker 4: From the date the legislation passed when that legislation became effective. Yes. Four cases that occurred prior to that date. No.
Speaker 2: Right. Okay. And what was that? What was the year? What was the session?
Speaker 4: It was last year. Legislative session.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 5: You're welcome.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 6: I think I'm on. Yes. Okay. So I just want to kind of probe a little further into this. You made mention about the state courts and in the role that the courts have in being able to impose a fine. How does that differ from this contract?
Speaker 4: It doesn't.
Speaker 6: Okay. So that's.
Speaker 4: Any any cases that are within county court's jurisdiction, which could include a felony case that has been pled down, a misdemeanor case, which is a state level misdemeanor or a municipal.
Speaker 6: Okay. So I want to ask first of all, what is the annual amount generally that is collected that comes back to the city?
Speaker 4: Uh, I can run that information for you. I can tell you in traffic. It is generally around $13 million. Okay for criminal cases with respect to fines, fees and costs, the fines, I would have to run a query to find out the annual average amount on those cases.
Speaker 6: So if we did not pass this tonight, any of the people that are in the process of. Gathering together the amount of money they owe on their fees, what what happens to them versus new people that come to the door from the time. If if this doesn't go forward.
Speaker 4: So we have collections investigators on staff who work with individuals. I think when you look at fines and fees and costs that are imposed overall. Part of that is also restitution. Right.
Speaker 6: I'm going to ask you about that.
Speaker 4: That part of that is restitution. The fines, fees and costs. If an individual is found indigent at the time of sentencing, those fines, fees and costs are or can be waived based upon a finding of indigency. Our collection staff work with individuals to establish a payment plan so that someone can make a good faith monthly payment. Even if that is a very nominal amount. It's only when they're in noncompliance do those cases get referred to collections. And I believe that is after 90 days when an account is no longer responsive to our collections department that works with the courts. We have three collections staff that that currently work with individuals who have open accounts with the court.
Speaker 6: And help me understand, is this the only collection contract the courts have or are there others right now?
Speaker 4: Denver County Court only has this one collections contract.
Speaker 6: Okay, so if this fails to pass, then all fees that are collected from restitution to traffic fees, etc., etc. all would just come to a halt. Is that correct?
Speaker 4: With integral recoveries? Yes.
Speaker 6: Okay. Well, since they're the only one collecting.
Speaker 4: We do have three internal staff that work with individuals, but not on delinquent accounts.
Speaker 6: So those collections will still continue with staff, but not with this contract.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 6: So what's the percentage difference between what staff generates versus what? This company generates in terms of the outreach to the folks that meet that 90 day collection.
Speaker 4: And I would have to get the information for internal or internal collection staff. I have the information provided to you by integral recoveries. I think they have over the period of of five years, I think 149,000 cases that have been referred to them with an amount of, I believe it was somewhere around $12 million. With respect to our current ongoing with those that are at our engaging and and meeting their established monthly payment plan, I can certainly query that information for you.
Speaker 6: Okay. Madam President, pro tem, I'm a little concerned about if council votes this down tonight, not having sort of an interim plan. I think it is important that the Office of Financial Empowerment can look at this and help us, and I would hope that it's looking at all our fines and fees. I have a list going back to I want to say 2011, looking at all the fees that we've collected over time. But I would hope that it's not solely limited to the courts so that we have a way to look at over time which fees or fines have continued to increase and are they disproportionately impacting various segments of our community? And I think that could then inform how we then move forward with this particular contract. What I don't know is if the two years is a one year contract with a one year renewal. Is that how it's written?
Speaker 4: We're asking for a two year contract so that we can continue our programing efforts to expand to this under $300 amount, which will take some ramp up time.
Speaker 6: Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Madam President. Pro tem.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 4: Thank you. So I did have the same question as Councilwoman Ortiz about what percentage is delinquent versus those that are paid on time. And you were also talking about restitution. So that's restitution to victims of crime, correct? Is that correct? And the other penalties you mentioned that they were there were penalties instead of someone going to jail. They are part of the original sentencing disposition on a case, and those vary by the offense level. Some do qualify for probation. Some might face a period of time in jail. Other individuals, the only punitive like a traffic ticket, would be a fine and court costs. That would not be a jailable offense or a probation eligible offense. That is, several municipal municipal offenses also include those where a cost is the actual punitive outcome for disposition in the case. All right. And Councilwoman Torres, I guess this question is for you. If if this bill either passes or fails. Is your intent to work toward and I think you already said this I was clarifying not to totally eliminate fines and, you know, restitution to victims, but to assess people's ability to pay.
Speaker 1: Yeah, absolutely. Thank you for that question. And I think what's important to note is that this is happening around the country where municipalities are assessing what's the status and why are we assessing particular fines and fees. We just have the courts in front of us today, and that's why I think your fines and fees are before us . But the Office of Financial Empowerment would be doing this as a citywide assessment.
Speaker 4: And so but if a judge is determining what a penalty is, what gets what?
Speaker 1: I get where you're going. This would not supersede judicial recommendations. Fees for restitution. This may be just looking at what are we charging as the city for administrative process. I couldn't tell you for sure because they're not part of the cohort yet. And I think that's part of the difficulty here, is that what we're asking about and what's being proposed isn't quite matching up or fully understanding one another. And that's why I feel like this component of the 300 and under proportion just isn't ready for approval.
Speaker 4: Okay. Thank you. I think whether it passes or not, I think. You and the Office of Financial Empowerment and Others Council woman are taking me to this too. Are interested in really taking a look at fines. And their appropriateness, whether this passes or not?
Speaker 5: Yeah, absolutely. Okay.
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember Hines.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. Pro tem, I I'm wrestling with something that Councilmember Ortega mentioned. I think Councilmember Black mentioned it as well, just about the, um, the extension and whether yet, you know, whether we could do a contract extension. I mean, I guess what I'm thinking we can only deal with what's presented to us and, and the courts are presenting to us a contract extension for something that's already expired. So in some ways, we're. We're we're working with something that is already doesn't have a contingency. So I recognize it's not ideal to not have contingency. We're kind of where we are now with no contingency either way. So tonight we can either vote yes or no. We can't amend it. So at this point, I am I agree with Councilmember Torres. I will vote no. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Hines. Councilwoman CdeBaca. Your mike, please. Can you hear me?
Speaker 4: Thank you. Not a question, but just a comment for my colleagues. If you recall the Reimagining Policing Report under strategy two, which was minimizing unnecessary interaction of law enforcement and the criminal legal system.
Speaker 1: With the community.
Speaker 4: This is one of the strategies that was.
Speaker 1: Called out as a.
Speaker 4: Recommendation from community to partake in this process.
Speaker 5: That Councilwoman Torres is talking about.
Speaker 4: And to make sure that we're absolutely not pursuing people for.
Speaker 5: Fines.
Speaker 4: Especially below.
Speaker 5: The $300.
Speaker 1: So just putting that on record and it is in.
Speaker 4: Alignment with many of the conversations that have happened in the PCC as well. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. No other members in the queue. Ms.. Woods I would just say that Councilman Hines, I think, hit on a point that I had been struggling with, that we're already operating past the due date of the current contract, which means I think this should have probably come to us much sooner so that we could have a dialog in committee about what might be appropriate to do now versus wait until some other conversations with other city partners could be available. Unfortunately, I still don't think this contract is ready for approval. I don't think we lose in asking you to come back with maybe a perforated proposal for contract which separates out the under 300 versus what's currently being assessed. But I don't feel I have the confidence that we know the full impact of what the under 300 given how many individuals are tied up in that particular proportion of fines and fees to approve this. If it does pass, I would like to get your commitment that you'll still work with the Office of Financial Empowerment before any of those cases are referred to integral recoveries. I know you have you do work with them as it is. And if they get past that 90 days delinquent that those get held and not sent over. So I think we're really trying to get in the middle of what could potentially be a really negative impact for residents that we may not necessarily need. So I would just ask you for that. If it does not pass, I would then like to see if the courts would offer a separate separated contract for the two sections.
Speaker 4: I appreciate.
Speaker 1: That. Okay. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 6: I just had one quick question for actually two questions. One. One for the. CORDES How how quickly and I know this involves multiple agencies. Could you turn around if this vote is voted down tonight, how quickly could you turn around an extension with an amendment that would address the $300 threshold? And then if this goes down and we're looking at an extended time frame, I just was going to ask a guy from the mayor's office what would get cut, because we're talking about a sizable impact to either the courts or the general fund if some of that money ends up coming to the general fund as well. I don't know. This is something that you guys have thought about, Skye, but I just wanted to ask that question. So first of all, what would be that turnaround time? If this went down tonight and you all could amend, amend and extend the current contract knowing that you're continuing to function under the existing contract, even though it's expired?
Speaker 4: Sure, that would be my office. Obviously amending the language and removing that expanded section of that contract. And then it would go to the city attorney's office for review and approval, and then we would file a new resolution with council.
Speaker 6: Any idea on timing? That's what I'm trying to get.
Speaker 4: Clarification. I would say. But.
Speaker 1: And if you can introduce yourself, please.
Speaker 2: Good evening, Steve. John, Denver City Attorney's Office.
Speaker 7: Approximately 6 to 8.
Speaker 2: Weeks. So. So if this.
Speaker 6: Goes.
Speaker 1: Mr. Bailey, you've been asked not to have outbursts. You can leave if you're going to continue. Thank you.
Speaker 6: So if it's 6 to 8 weeks, that means for the interim, this company could not continue to collect anything set. Correct.
Speaker 7: You're out of contract right now.
Speaker 6: Okay. But they have been collecting even though they're out.
Speaker 4: We have not told them to cease. Okay. We would be obligated to do so if this sort of thing.
Speaker 6: Yeah. If this went down. So we'd be looking at, you know, at least two months before this would come back. And so those are collections that I think the city has counted on in some of these agency funds that we would be losing out on. I think the the policy discussion is an important one. But we also want to make sure that we have the ability to collect, you know, some of these key fees, restitution fees are always part of a court order. Right. It's part of what is being mandated when somebody finally gets their day in court and it's part of their, you know, what they're expected to do to be in compliance. And if this completely negates all of those and there's an expectation that the victim is supposed to be getting something, and now we've just said, nope, that's not happening anymore. I think we're sending a mixed message here. And I'm a little concerned that we're trying to do this without really having something else in place that ensures that we can do that. And if we can do, you know, a contract amendment, an extension that allows the time for this work to happen with the Office of Financial Empowerment, I think that then gives us a clear picture of moving forward into the future with not just our courts, but many of our other agencies that charge fines and fees. And then I think part of that big picture is what is the financial impact to the rest of the city's general fund? You know, we're in great times where we're enjoying the benefit of some federal dollars that we have not had in our coffers. But that's that's not going to last forever. And that's not always been the case in terms of how we are able to conduct business. So I think that all needs to be part of a big picture that we look at moving forward as fines and fees are reviewed across the city. Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much. Councilman Hines. I'm sorry. Cashman.
Speaker 7: Thank you. Sorry, colleague. I'm. So trying to clarify that $300. Figure. Was it simply? Pulled out of the air by programmers saying, we have this much time, we can only get to this level. Was was there any philosophical element of that discussion? Why that number? Because this is my first thought was that this is a new element we're adding. But what I'm hearing is it's not. It was done for years and years at that 300 and under level. And because of the programing involved in the new system, you just couldn't get the work done in time.
Speaker 4: I guess it was it was really during the budget reduction process in 2020 where the ah budgets were to be reduced by a certain percentage. And as we looked at ways in which we could reduce our budget when 10% of it is only operating, we looked at our existing integral contract which required an upfront about a $600,000 a year allocation from the general fund in order to pay integral to do the collections, work on the front end for the general fund to recoup it on the back end. And so that was a decision we made in a in a way that we could revert some money back very, very quickly. So to do that, we really had to re-engineer our entire collections process, which meant a lot of programing because we would no longer be receiving these dollars and depositing them. It would be integral doing that. And so that required a lot of programing. And as you look at the asset recovery fee that is allowed by ordinance, they are flat rate fees for amounts owed up until that $300 amount is a flat rate fee underneath that $300 amount, it is a percentage calculation which required much more time of our programmers to program for all of our current cases. Sure. And so we decided to hold off on that so we could meet our budget reductions in 2020.
Speaker 7: Okay. A couple of things. When we get contracts like this that have expired. It really stretches our ability to do our job to give important topics the consideration that they deserve. I think the points that Councilmember Torres brings up are extremely valid. That should be looked at. I'm enthusiastic about the study that that's been talked about to see really how all this plays out and what a number would be since it appears 300 was an accidental number. But the thing that I'm kind of mystified by and when you said you would feel obligated to tell them to cease collections , I can't imagine why when it wouldn't be in the best interests of the city and county of Denver and this body. I'm not wanting to put words in my colleague's mouth, but what I'm hearing is that those who are considering voting no on this would like to see a bill. Continuing as integral has been previously doing collecting above $300.
Speaker 4: I understand and I completely appreciate that and have no problem drafting an amendment amendment mandatory language to exclude the expansion of the scope and only request to extend the term if that is how council felt. I do feel if I had a final if if this bill failed, it would be a formal failure. And that is where I would feel obligated to contact integral recovery services collections. I'm happy, though, to submit a new bill that excludes that expansion request.
Speaker 7: I would make it clear I want to make it clear that I would think that would be a terrible decision. It would not be what I think anyone on this body would want. I won't see any, say anyone. But as far as I'm concerned, I don't think that's a wise move. But you're in your position and I'm in mine. Thank you. I appreciate all your answers.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Cashman, Councilman Hines.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council president pro tem. I just for quartz. Just so you know, we have I have personally talked about safety multiple times, bringing expired contracts before us. So this just happens to be a court's contract. But I want to I want you to know that that I'm trying to be consistent and and I've mentioned to safety that and that I also feel uncomfortable working with contracts that have already expired. And some of those, to Councilmember Ortega's point, have had financial impacts. But but I think it's important that we that we notice that that this is something that that the body has voted down multiple times in the past, expired contracts that have financial impacts . So thank you, Council President Pro Tem.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Hines. Seeing no one else in the queue. Madam Secretary, roll call on resolution 22, dash 278 black.
Speaker 5: I see tobacco?
Speaker 4: No.
Speaker 2: Clark, I.
Speaker 5: Think.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 5: Herndon High? No. Cashman? No. Ortega.
Speaker 6: I.
Speaker 5: SAWYER. No. Torres No. Sorry, Madam President. You have five eyes and five knees.
Speaker 1: Five Eyes Resolution 22 dash to 78 has failed. Madam Secretary, please put the next item on our screens. Mr. Bailey, you can leave Page.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Third Amendatory Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Integral Recoveries, Inc. to amend provisions, extend the term, and to expand the scope of collections.
Amends a contract with Integral Recoveries, Inc. to add two years for a new end date of 2-1-2024 and expands the scope of collections to include cases owing less than $300.00. No change to contract amount (COURT-202261912). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 4-18-22. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 3-15-22. Pursuant to Council Rule 3.7, Councilmember Torres called this item out at the 3-29-22 meeting for a one-week postponement to 4-4-22.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_04042022_22-0322
|
Speaker 1: Five Eyes Resolution 22 dash to 78 has failed. Madam Secretary, please put the next item on our screens. Mr. Bailey, you can leave Page.
Speaker 2: Even more capable. Oh, I hope that's okay.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Sorry about that. Councilmember Black, please put resolutions 322 and 323 on the floor for adoption.
Speaker 4: I move the resolutions 322 and 323 be adopted in a bloc.
Speaker 1: It has been moved and seconded. Questions or comments by members of Council. Council Member Sawyer.
Speaker 3: Thanks, Madam President. Pro Tem. More on coal contracts coming through without any reporting on the back end. For us to see where that money is going or how it's being utilized. So I'll be a no thanks.
Speaker 1: Thank you. No other members in the queue. Madam Secretary, roll call and resolutions 22, dash three, two, two and 22. Dash three, two, three.
Speaker 5: Sawyer. No black. I see tobacco.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 2: Clark II.
Speaker 5: Flint.
Speaker 2: All right.
Speaker 5: Herndon. High Cashman.
Speaker 2: Ortega, i.
Speaker 5: Madam President, I.
Speaker 1: Hi nice eight guys and I think you know nice resolutions 20 2-3, two, two and 22. Dash three, two, three have been adopted. That concludes the items to be called out. All bills for introduction are ordered published. Council members. Remember, this is a consent or block vote and you will need to vote I. Otherwise, this is your last chance to code an item for a separate vote. Uh, Madam Secretary, would you please close the voting? Councilmember Black, would you please put the resolutions for adoption and the bills on final consideration for floor passage on the floor
Speaker 4: . I move that resolutions be adopted in bills on final, final consideration, be placed upon final consideration, and do pass in a block for the following items. 326. 327. 329. 143. 301302303. Three. 16. 317. Three. 18. 189 308. 309 311 312 313. 314 325 389 285 388 three 9293. And that's it.
Speaker 1: It has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, Roll Call.
Speaker 3: Black Eye.
Speaker 5: CdeBaca High.
Speaker 2: Clerk. All right.
Speaker 5: Flynn All right.
Speaker 2: Herndon High. High.
Speaker 5: Cashmere. Ortega I swear. Madam President.
Speaker 1: I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced the results.
Speaker 5: Tonight.
Speaker 1: Tonight, 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 21, Dash 1528, changing the zoning classification for 3435 North Albion Street in Northeast Park Hill and a required public hearing on Council Bill 22, Dash 0147 Changing the zoning classification
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Amendatory Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Pinyon Environmental, Inc. to provide on-call environmental consulting services.
Amends an on-call contract with Pinyon Environmental, Inc. by adding $1 million for a new contract total of $2 million for additional anticipated needs related to environmental site assessment, brownfields redevelopment, leaking underground storage tank removal and other environmental services, citywide. No change to contract duration (ENHL-202056463). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 4-25-22. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 3-23-22.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_04042022_21-1528
|
Speaker 2: Unknown 111111111.
Speaker 1: When I make a decision on 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. 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 flash will 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 in your microphone, you'll see your time counting down at the bottom of the screen. Once you finished speaking, you'll be you will change back to participant mode and see the screen flash one more time. All speakers will begin their remarks by telling council their name and cities of residence and if they feel comfortable doing so. Their Home Address. If you've signed up to answer questions, only state your name and note that you're available for questions of council speakers. We'll have 3 minutes. There's no yielding of time. If translation is needed, you'll be given an additional 3 minutes for your comments to be interpreted. Speakers must stay on the topic of the hearing. Must direct their 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. Councilmember Black, will you please put Council Bill 20 1-1528 on the floor for passage?
Speaker 4: I move that council bill one 5 to 8 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 1: It has been moved and seconded the required public hearing for Council Bill 20 1-152. It is open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 2: Great. Thank you, Councilwoman Torres. Good evening. Members of Council Jason Morrison, senior city planner with Community Planning and Development ten. I'll be presenting the proposed resource rezoning at 3435 North Albion Street, where the request is from an old code PD 530 92mx2x. The proposed rezoning is located in Council District eight, which is Councilman Herndon's district. It's in the Northeast Park Park Hill neighborhood. The proposed rezoning is intended to facilitate redevelopment of the site and the preservation of existing 133 year old Victorian single unit structure on the property. Under a separate landmark designation application, the structure is in the process of being designated as a contributing historic structure. The property owner is requesting the rezoning to provide additional residential units for the neighborhood while also preserving this important piece of Northeast Park Hill, the proposed zone district BMX tracks, which is urban edge neighborhood mixed use up to two stories. Minimum maximum height is intended to provide safe, active and history and scale diverse areas in established residential neighborhoods. It allows for a mix of uses in a variety of building forms, including townhouse general and shopfront primary building forms. And the X indicates that allowed uses in building forms are more limited and TMX to zoned district. For example, drive thru services and drive to restaurants are not allowed in this proposed zone district. The current zoning of the subject site is 5539, which is a custom zoned district out of the former Chapter 59 zoning code. The PUD allows for the expansion of a restaurant use on the subject property. Maximum building heights within the PWD are two stories or 38 feet. Surrounding zoning an area includes a mix of commercial, multi-unit and single unit zoned districts. The existing land use on the site is a mixed use, surrounded by mostly multi-unit, commercial, single unit and open space. This slide shows the existing context surrounding the subject site with the proposed rezoning on the top left. The Matthew Moon application was unanimously recommended for approval by planning, board and before by committee. All public notice requirements have been met since the staff report was published. We have received one letter of support from Northeast Park, Parkhill, R.A. 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 applicable plans to this rezoning that's current plan 2040 Blueprint, Denver and the Parkfield Neighborhood Plan. This rezoning is consistent with several of the strategies and comprehensive plan and they are detailed in the staff report. When looking at blueprint, the future neighborhood context is urban edge. Within this context, small multi-unit, residential and commercial areas are embedded in one and two unit residential areas. Therefore, staff finds that the proposed rezoning is appropriate and consistent with the urban edge. Neighborhood Context Plan direction. Blueprint further identifies the future place as areas low medium residential, which typically provides a mix of low to mid scale multi-unit options where limited mixed use can be found along collector streets. Buildings are generally up to three stories or less and high. 35th Avenue is a collector street, and the maximum building height of the BMX two zone district is appropriate and consistent with this plan guidance. The subject property is located within the all other areas of the city growth area. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the growth strategy that is mapped in this area. Blueprint also has policy language around resuming properties out of the former. Chapter 59 Zoning Code and out of custom zoning such as the sites plan specific condition on the subject property today. Therefore, staff find that this proposed rezoning is consistent with Blueprint Denver when looking at the Parkfield Neighborhood Plan. Parkfield Neighborhood Plan was adopted by Denver City Council in 2000 and applies to the subject site. Staff finds that the proposed annex to Access Zone District helps maintain and enhance the small scale neighborhood character as cited in the Park Hill Neighborhood Plan. The scale of any future redevelopment provide an important transition between the prevailing neighborhood pattern of single and two units at the East and the higher density activity along Colorado Boulevard to the West. Staff also finds that the requested zoning 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 through improved design standards. Additionally, the proposed Zone District will help facilitate housing density near a mix of uses and transit amenities such as Car Boulevard and the 40th and called Colorado Rail Station . This rezoning would bring this property from former Chapter 59 zoning into the Denver zoning code, and such a change is listed in the zoning code as an appropriate, justifying circumstance. Lastly, staff finds that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the zone district purpose and intent of the to exist on district. And based on the review criteria, staff recommends approval of the application and I'm available for any questions.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Sorry. I'm following a script. It's not as easy as it sounds. We have two individuals signed up to speak this evening. Jesse Paris. Is our first and he is joining us online. Jesse, I see you're in the panel, if you can unmute.
Speaker 2: Be heard.
Speaker 1: Yes, go ahead.
Speaker 2: My name is Jessica Sampras and I'm representing for Blackstone Movement for Self Defense, Positive Action for Social Change, as well as the United Party of Colorado, the council in Front, Black Nose. And I will be the next mayor of Denver in 2023 and I file today. I am in favor of this zoning sometimes. I just had a few questions. What is going to be here? It was it was presently a restaurant, a band, a restaurant. What is exactly going to be here? Is it going to be condominiums? Is it going to be mixed use? Have mixed mixed use developments, housing as well as commercial? If it's going to be housing, what is the army level going to be for housing? And has there been a parking study done? And this is directly adjacent to the across the street from the Parkville Golf Course. And we know all the upheaval that we had last year because the golf course with the easement. So if someone could please answer my questions, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Our next speaker is Michael Flowers.
Speaker 2: Hi. My name is Michael Flowers. I'm here representing Historic Denver, which is located at 1420 North Logan Street in Capitol Hill. I'm the director of Preservation Action at that organization. We are 51123 nonprofit dedicated to ensuring Denver's unique identity, cultural landmarks and historic places are thoughtfully maintained, actively used and relevant for all generations. Last year, our organization turned 50, and to celebrate, we asked the Denver community to help us identify the next 50 places that we should develop a preservation action report. The 1889 Robinson House in Park Hill, which sits on this lot, was nominated by the community and one of the 50 chosen. This brought our full attention to the home, which was actually threatened with demolition at the time. We worked closely with current owner Steve Davis, who bought the house and saved it from that threat is also in the process of landmarking. The House landmark designation, which was initiated in tandem with this rezoning effort, will come before the Council in the next couple of weeks. Not only does he plan to rehabilitate the Storch House, but he's also plans to build additional housing units on the north side of the lot. This rezoning TMX to X will help with that effort. Historic Denver fully supports this rezoning proposal. This is a perfect example of how historic preservation and new development can work together when a park to US oldest homes is being saved and new housing units are being planned as part of the same project. I consider this project a win win, and I hope you all do to.
Speaker 1: Thank you. That concludes our speakers questions for members of Council and Council. Bill 20 1-1528.
Speaker 3: Councilwoman Sawyer thinks that I'm President Pro-Tem just curious about the transition rate. So if the earmarks to X will allow for certain building farms, I'm glad that they chose the ex so that there's no drive thrus or businesses, but there are potential small businesses that could be built there with this zoning. So just curious about kind of how that transition would work between, you know, a historic home that is super exciting, that this is one of the 50 projects that have been identified by historic Denver, but just want to make sure that there's a thoughtful transition there to the neighborhood. So a little bit curious kind of what that looks like.
Speaker 2: Sure. Great question. So with this particular zoned district, that transition really comes with kind of that maximum height. So that two story so surrounding zoning in that area is already indexed to X. So this is kind of nestled within that. But when you look along Carter Boulevard, you see higher intensity use as you see higher intensity in terms of building height as well. And so this will kind of taper down as you go east to that one into two unit housing. So it's kind of just a gradual transition from west to east.
Speaker 3: Okay, great. Thank you. Thanks for the present.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Flynn.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Madam President, pro tem Jason, the. The request to district seems really appropriate because the rest of the block is is the same. But when I look at the lot itself and the location of the building, which is proposed for preservation, I'm wondering what building forms can actually fit on the north side if they do the lot split. And I saw on the staff report that there was some mention of, you know, the lot splitting isn't a guarantee because there had to be consideration of the proper setbacks, etc.. What what is envisioned to be able to build on that north side of the property if it is split off? What? How many units could be built there? Any. Do we have any idea? Sure. Great question. So I'm certainly not an architect, but from the conversation I've heard and we'll back up for a minute. So the the proposals are the allowed building forms are townhouse shopfront in general. And I'm sorry to interrupt, but there are townhouses just to the east of it. Correct. But they are larger than would fit on. On a split lot here. Yeah. Correct. So it's my understanding the owner is proposing anywhere from 3 to 5, so there's not a high number at all. I do know that they are on the call tonight, if you'd like to ask them. But that's my understanding, based on conversations that I've heard. So. Looking anywhere from 3 to 5 like townhouse now. Okay. Thank you. Kara, can I ask you a question? Karen from the Landmark Office. Can you tell us at what stage is the process in the application for landmarking or designating this Robinson House as a landmark?
Speaker 4: It went to Rudy.
Speaker 5: Last week, is going to Meer.
Speaker 4: Council tomorrow and will be for before you guys on April 18th, I believe it was unanimously.
Speaker 3: Recommended by the LPC.
Speaker 2: Mm hmm. Okay.
Speaker 0: Did did the staff look at all.
Speaker 2: At the impact of whatever the proposed boundaries are? And I haven't seen the file on it yet, so I'm I'm not prejudging it at all. But did you consider the impact of where that large split would occur and the intrusion on the integrity of the Robinson House itself?
Speaker 4: We did we had some pretty lengthy conversations with myself and Michael Flowers and.
Speaker 5: Steve Davis as we.
Speaker 4: Talked about, like what could allow for density to be built on the site while also preserving the historic structure. So the boundary for the landmark is intentionally designed to give it.
Speaker 5: About 5 to 8.
Speaker 6: Feet of.
Speaker 4: Distance before you would get to any sort.
Speaker 2: Of like I'm sorry to say that again.
Speaker 4: There's about 5 to 8 feet from the edge of the building. That's part of the landmark boundary.
Speaker 6: So.
Speaker 4: That Steve can build.
Speaker 1: Without.
Speaker 5: Having part of it. Just going through landmark.
Speaker 4: Design review so that there's a little bit of a buffer between the new construction and the old construction.
Speaker 5: Without having to go through landmark design review for five feet of a building or five feet of a garage. We don't we.
Speaker 4: Don't we try not to get into that position.
Speaker 2: So 5 to 8 feet on the north side. Yes. And then obviously, the whatever is built on that north split lot would have its own rear setback that it would have to. So you'd have. Okay. Thank you. I'm just trying to visualize the impact on that building. So I know the goal is to preserve that building. Thank you. I thank you, Madam President, for them.
Speaker 1: Thank you. No more council members in the queue. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 21, dash 1528.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Herndon I'm present as this is in district eight very familiar of walk the site. I went to that restaurant when it was open however long ago it was. I think the criteria has been clear and met and I will be supporting this and I ask my colleagues to do the same. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. No other members in queue. Madam Secretary, roll call unaccountable 20 1-1528.
Speaker 2: Herndon, i.
Speaker 5: Cashman. Ortega.
Speaker 4: Sawyer I.
Speaker 5: Black. I. See tobacco.
Speaker 2: Clark, I. Flynn, I.
Speaker 5: Madam President.
Speaker 1: I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced the results tonight. Tonight is Council Bill 21. Just one 5 to 8 has passed. Councilmember Black. Will you please put Council Bill 20 2-0147 on the floor for passage. Final passage.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 3435 North Albion Street in Northeast Park Hill.
Approves a map amendment to rezone property from PUD 539 to E-MX-2x (planned development to urban edge, mixed-use), located at 3435 North Albion Street in Council District 8. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 2-1-22.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_04042022_22-0147
|
Speaker 1: I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced the results tonight. Tonight is Council Bill 21. Just one 5 to 8 has passed. Councilmember Black. Will you please put Council Bill 20 2-0147 on the floor for passage. Final passage.
Speaker 4: I will move that council bill 0147 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 1: It has been moved and seconded the required public hearing for Council Bill 20 2-0147 is open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 2: Um. Good evening. My name is Kenny Vanya and I'm with CPD before you. Today we have 2875 Albion Street and the request is from Usb-C to Usb-C one from a single unit. Two Single unit with Adu. So it is located in Council District eight in the North Park Hill neighborhood, and as the request is a single unit dwelling, the site is approximately just underneath 6000 square feet. And what is requested is an accessory dwelling unit with a minimum lot size of 5500 square feet. As you can see, the existing zoning is us. You see, it's surrounded by us. You see to the north, south and the east and to the west you can see Main Street and mixed use up to three stories as well as Eastside one which is allows for accessory dwelling in every single unit. There you can see the subject property in the top left. That's the property on the left primary. Most of the structures are one story in height. Single unit on Albion Street. And this went before the planning board. On February 2nd. It was approved unanimously and is before you tonight. So far we have received one letter of support from the Greater Park Hill community, Arnelle, and as well as three letters of support from the public which are attached to the staff report. And there are several review review criteria that are analyzed that we look from the Denver zoning code. The first one is Kansas City with adopted plans. And we're looking at specifically three plans, which is comprehensive plan 2040 Blueprint Denver, a language transportation plan of 2019 and the Park Hill Neighborhood Plan of 2000. There are several strategies and goals that are consistent with this specific rezoning that are specified in the staff report. And I would jump into Blueprint Denver. So Blueprint Denver classifies this area as urban, which is the neighborhood context as classifies it as predominantly residential. And homes are typically low scale single and two unit residential with some small scale multi-unit residential. When you're looking at the future place type classification, it is classified as residential low, which is predominantly single and two unit uses and accessory dwelling units are appropriate. Albion Street is a local street which is categorized as residential uses. And when we look at the growth area strategy, it's classified as all other areas of the city where we anticipate 10% of new employment and 20% of new housing here. Likewise in blueprint under the line you built form housing policy number four it states diversity of housing choice to the expansion of addus use throughout all residential areas. When we jump into the Park Hill neighborhood plan under the land use zoning section, it does mention on page 32 about maintaining the existing integrity of the residential character park here and ensuring the continued growth of development in Park Slope results in a balancing compatible mix of housing types as well as action number and Ozone three, which is create and maintain a mix of housing types that are attractive and affordable. And under review criteria two, two, three, two, three and five. It is consistent as found in the staff report and under the fourth criteria which is justifying circumstances, is based off a city adapted plan as blueprint calls for allowing accessory dwelling units in all residential areas. Therefore, CPD recommends the approval based on all the findings of the review criteria. Having met staff is available for any questions that you might have. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. We have one individual signed up to speak this evening, Jessie Paris joining us online. Jessie, go ahead and unmute your mic and go ahead.
Speaker 2: He has being a member of the council. When I was just a short person, I'm a presenter for Blackstar, for self defense, positive action, social change, as well as the new party of Colorado, the Residents Council and Frontline Black News. I will be the next day. This is foreign aid, correct? So I'm in favor of this travel and for movement throughout one building as it related to city council. Um. Well, it's going to be intimidating. Uh, well, there are a lot of questions I have.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Jesse. I think we got your question. That concludes our speakers questions for members of Council and Council 20 2-147 No members in Q. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council and Council. Bill 20 2-147. Councilmember Herndon Thank.
Speaker 2: You, Madam President of the District eight show tonight. I think the criteria has been clear. I hope my colleagues support that. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam Secretary. Roll call on Council Bill 22 220 2-147.
Speaker 2: Herndon, I. Hi, I'm.
Speaker 5: Cashman. Ortega Sawyer. I'm black. I see the Barca clerk.
Speaker 2: Hi.
Speaker 5: Flynn.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 5: Madam President.
Speaker 1: I. Madam Secretary, to close the voting and announce the results tonight. Tonight is Council Bill 20 2-147 has passed there being no further business before this body. The meeting is adjourned.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 2875 North Albion Street in North Park Hill.
Approves a map amendment to rezone property from U-SU-C to U-SU-C1 (allows for an accessory dwelling unit), located at 2875 North Albion Street in Council District 8. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 2-15-22.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_03292022_22-0338
|
Speaker 0: Wonderful. Thank you so much. And thank you, Councilmember Sandoval, for bringing attention to this really important topic. And I'm glad we're closing out March, making sure that we're showing our support and advocacy. Thank you. Next up, we have Councilmember Flynn. Would you please read Proclamation 20 to Dash 338 for us?
Speaker 5: Yes. Thank you, Madam President. The proclamation number 22, dash 0338. In support of the Ukrainian people and condemning the Russian war on Ukraine. Whereas Ukraine declared its independence from the Soviet Union on August 24, 1991 and was recognized by the United States as a sovereign nation on December 25, 1991. And. Whereas, in 2014, the Russian Federation invaded and annexing Crimea and invaded part of Donbas areas of sovereign Ukraine. And. WHEREAS, the United Nations General Assembly formally recognizes the territorial integrity of Ukraine, including Crimea, Luhansk and Donetsk. And. WHEREAS, under orders from Vladimir Putin. Russia began amassing troops and military equipment near Ukraine's borders in 2021. And on February 24, 2022, Russia launched a full scale war on Ukraine, resulting in widespread civilian suffering. And loss of life. And. WHEREAS, the General Assembly of the United Nations on February 28 condemned the Russian aggression against Ukraine by a vote of 141 to 5, with 35 nations abstaining. And. Whereas, Russia continues to attack Ukraine, committing war crimes through targeting of civilians, creating a humanitarian crisis by forcing 10 million Ukrainians to leave their homes. And. WHEREAS, the Russian government is engaged in large scale media censorship. And a propaganda campaign campaign to obfuscate the invasion of Ukraine and the subsequent Russian battlefield losses. And whereas, Russia continues to attack civilian targets, including including daycare centers, facilities, prisons, hospitals, apartment buildings and a shopping center. And. WHEREAS, more than 100,000 people remain at risk in the besieged city of Mariupol, where food and water remain scarce. And. WHEREAS, Russian troops have abducted and killed international journalists in violation of the Geneva Convention. And. Whereas, municipal mayors and city leaders are being targeted and kidnaped by Russian troops, further terrorizing communities, interfering with basic services and undermining democracy and even the most basic local levels. And. Whereas, Russia has attacked civilian protesters in Kherson and zappers gear. And. Whereas, according to the United Nations, 1104 civilians have been killed with another 1754 injured as of this past weekend. And more than 4 million Ukrainians have been forced to flee as refugees to other countries. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Council of the City and County of Denver. Section one. The Denver City Council supports the independence of the Ukrainian people and the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine. Section two. The Denver City Council condemns the unilateral invasion of the sovereign state of Ukraine by Russia at the direction of Vladimir Putin. Section three. The Denver City Council recognizes the plight of Ukrainian refugees and supports the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Refugee relief organizations and all countries welcoming the influx of refugees. Section four that the Clerk of the city and County of Denver shall attest and affixed to seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation and transmitted to Oksana makarova. Ukraine's Ambassador to the United States. Ukrainian National Women's League of America. Branch number 38 in Denver. And Martina. Marina Dubravka of the Ukrainians of Colorado.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Flynn, your motion to adopt this evening.
Speaker 5: I move the proclamation 20 2-0338 be adopted.
Speaker 0: Thank you. We've got it moved and seconded comments by members of council. Councilmember Flynn.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam President. In times like this. When the attention of the world and the anxiety of people all over the world is focused on the humanitarian crisis in Eastern Europe caused by a war of choice. It prompts us all. Or it should. To reflect on our interconnectedness. With everyone in the world. We come from all over the world. My wife, Harriet, is a second generation American. Her mom's parents were born and her mom's grandparents were born in Finland, but her dad's parents both were born her her dad, grandpa, her grandparents I'm sorry, her dad's parents both were born in what was at the time around the turn of the century, the late 1800s was the Principality of Galicia. Which is now part of it is in western Ukraine. And part of it is in eastern Poland. It is exactly ground zero. Where much of this fighting is taking place. And she is said to be several times. Watching the news over the last month. That is, without doubt, some of her relatives. Our refugees right now. Some of her blood relations. Some may have been killed. Peace. According to the great Irish playwright George Bernard Shaw, peace is not only better than war. But infinitely more arduous. We are all at a distance here, at least at a loss. As to what we can do. In this crisis. Abraham Lincoln once predicted in a famous speech. That quote, the world will little note nor long remember what we say here. He was famously wrong, of course, when he said that at Gettysburg during another war. But I am certain that he is correct when he says that about what we're saying here this evening. I am fairly certain that President Putin of Russia will never even hear of the words that we are voting on tonight. I have no illusion about that. However, it was back in the early sixties that MIT mathematician Edward Lorenz developed the chaos theory, popularly known as the Butterfly Effect, which says that even the gentlest fluttering of a butterfly swings in China. Could eventually contribute to a convergence of events that result in a tornado in the Midwest of the United States. So with that in mind, I ask the 13 butterflies up here to flutter our wings. And express outrage. And what is happening in Ukraine. And to urge others to join in and do what they can in the cause of peace. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Flynn, Councilmember Black.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Councilman Flynn, for writing that proclamation and for your really beautiful remarks that you just read. It does matter that we're all here standing up with Ukraine. I agree with you about the butterfly effect. People all over our country want to stand in solidarity with Ukraine and it does matter. President Zelensky last week gave a speech and he implored people across the world to stand against this war coming in, come in the name of peace, come with Ukrainian symbols to support Ukraine, to support freedom, to support life. Come to your squares, to your streets. Make yourselves visible. And her heard. The world must stop this war. So on Sunday, most councilmen join me in hosting a Ukrainian solidarity event at Baby R Park. A special thank you to council members Gilmore, Ortega, Cashman, Flynn and Clark for joining us there. We had Ukrainians in Colorado there and a number of other organizations. It was a very, very special event filled with prayer and solidarity. And it was held at Baby R Park, which is in my district. It is a very special park. It's a memorial of the Nazi massacre of 200,000 Jews and Ukrainians who were murdered at the Babi Yar Ravine in Kiev, Ukraine, during World War Two. The park honors the victims of that massacre, but it also sends a message to all of us that we cannot stand by and remain silent and allow these crimes against humanity to happen, these crimes against our Ukrainian brothers and sisters. So that is why we are here with our butterfly wings, hoping that, you know, that we stand with you. And if there's anything we can do, we will. And we do have our Ukrainians of Colorado representatives here today, and they do have weekly events and fundraising opportunities and volunteering opportunities. And I'm going to ask all council members to share those on their social media networks so we can get more support for them. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Black, Councilmember Hines.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Council President. I recognize Councilmember Flynn's point about how President Putin might not care about what we do. It is important for us to make a statement. And and I think it is important for my constituents to feel very strongly about this, rightfully so. So while he may not know of our proclamation, I believe, as the butterfly effect, I also believe it is important for us to be intentional in our values. And I see that we're doing that today. I also want to point out that the United Nations 141 of the United Nations member states, 141 countries, voted to denounce Russia for its invasion. And there has not been that much unity in the United Nations over something that might theoretically be controversial in quite some time. I also want to mention that the governor Polis has has said that Colorado will welcome the Ukrainian refugees, and I certainly think that Denver will do its part as well. So I want to thank the governor for for that statement and his continued statements denouncing Russia and supporting Ukraine. And. Thank you. Council president.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Hines and I want to thank Councilmember Flynn for bringing this proclamation forward, to think of allowing us to weigh in and add some items to it. And then Councilmember Black for your organization and wonderful hosting on Sunday of a very solemn and important event for us to never forget what has happened previously and then recognize what is happening and how history is repeating itself, unfortunately, in different ways. And so thank you for all of your work on that and happy to support it this evening. Madam Secretary, roll call can each.
Speaker 2: I. Sawyer. I. Flynn.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Herndon High Cashman. Ortega, I. Sandoval.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 2: Torres I. Work. I. CdeBaca. I. Clerk.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 2: 13 Eyes.
Speaker 0: 13 Eyes Proclamation 20 2-3 38 has been adopted. Council Member Flynn We have 5 minutes for the proclamation. Acceptance of you. Go ahead and introduce the folks that will accept it this evening.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam President. We have here in the chamber tonight Marina Dubravka of the Ukrainians of Colorado. And she is and I invite her to bring up I think I see Mark Dillon back there and come up to the microphone and you have 5 minutes for remarks.
Speaker 7: It's so nice to see familiar faces. I would like to start with. Great gratitude to Congresswoman Sandra Bullock and Congressman Kevin Flynn to for inviting us here. And. Making this this proclamation. That's. It's very it's very emotional. And I know that. Putin may not hear this proclamation, but butterfly effect will go through the Internet waves, and I'm pretty sure it will reach him at some point. If not, then Ukrainian soldiers will remind him every time, every day, every second, what the freedom means and democracy and fighting for that. That in the 21st century, on the middle of the Europe, civilized nations are facing right now huge wave of refugees from Ukraine and. The genocide. In the middle of the Europe in Mariupol on. Donbass area. Kiev area. Just you name it. It's endless. And that is. The most heartbreaking. The pain inside. Does not go away. Does not go away. And that's been. Over a month. Oh. So every one of us. Dealt with. Saving our families there and. France unique? Sure. Johanna. She's our president of. National. American League of Ukrainian Women. Yes, she actually her relative was in Mariupol and he was able to escape. I would like, you know, to share that experience. Hi. Yeah, I'm I'm actually the president of the Ukrainian National Women's League here in Denver. And my relative in Mariupol was a distant cousin, like a third cousin, but he happened to be a priest, a parish priest in Mariupol. So he stayed even when there were opportunities to leave because he felt committed to his congregation. But ah, he also had his two of his children with him and somehow, ultimately, after 12 days of being locked up with no water, electricity or food, they somehow managed to get out through one of the green corridors. And I honestly don't know if he's actually made it to Western Ukraine, where he is originally from. But I also do want to thank everyone for passing this proclamation. And I appreciate your energy and time that you put into this. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Madam President of the Council and members of the Council, I can really add to what a council man, a Flynn and council member, Black Ops said, as well as my colleagues, that we would prefer not to be standing here today. We would prefer to. Be leading much more ordinary lives. We would prefer that there was no need for a proclamation of this nature. We would prefer that there not have been 10 million displaced people in the center of Europe. We would prefer that. 4 million refugees had not had to cross into other countries for safety, including 2 million children. We would prefer all these things, but that was not our choice. Things were done. Things were done to people. People we have a connection to. We. Power with the deepest respect to this Council for taking the action and expressing the sentiments that I think stand not only for the people here assembled, but for many, many Denver rights, many Coloradans. About 20,000 are of Ukrainian heritage. Many, many more have traveled to Ukraine, have relatives in Ukraine. Have taught work that in Ukraine. It is a country. Not that much larger than Colorado, about the size of Texas. It is a country that has cherished democracy for 30 years and now has to defend it. If we stand with them, we are confident that they will be able to do so. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. And we appreciate you being here. And please know that we do understand that fragile democracy and that that's why it's so important that we uphold democracies throughout the world and support and that our love and support and prayers. But beyond that, the philanthropic and the donations of medical equipment, money that can go to help. And so, as Councilmember Black had alluded to, we'll make sure that each one of our council offices share that information out so that we make sure and maximize getting that help and support. And so please know that we're with you. We're in solidarity with you. And thank you for being here this evening.
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation in support of the Ukrainian people and condemning the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_03292022_22-0278
|
Speaker 0: Thank you. Now I'll do a recap under resolutions. Councilmember Torres has called out Resolution 278 for a vote under bills for introduction. No items have been called out 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 up on our screens for us. Thank you. Council Member State Abarca, will you please put resolution 278 on the floor for adoption?
Speaker 2: Yes, I move that resolution 20 2-0278 be adopted.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded questions or comments by members of Council Councilmember Torres.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. I call this out with a bunch of questions. In reading the contract amendment language and I did, we have somebody from Denver County Court. Great. Couple of questions for you.
Speaker 0: And we'll ask you when you come up. Please make sure and speak into the mic and introduce yourself for the public record.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Kristin Wood, I'm the court administrator for Denver County Court.
Speaker 2: I thank you for being here. So I didn't get a chance to fight this when it was coming through finger. And if what I'm understanding is correct, correct me if I'm wrong. This is putting into place a collections system for fees or fines under $300 in Denver County Court.
Speaker 4: Correct. We've had a collection systems in place for several years since I believe 2011. During the budget cuts, the budget shortfalls, we re-engineered our collections process entirely. And we have been collecting on amounts that have been owed that are delinquent to the city and county of Denver. Over that $300, it was going to take extensive programing hours to program a collections capability where we interface with that provider for under $300. So this amendment is requesting that expansion to that amount that's under $300.
Speaker 2: And was the amount over 300. What was in the collection fee matrix, 30% of the referred amount. That's the the the fee for the service.
Speaker 4: For the under 300.
Speaker 2: Now over what we currently provide.
Speaker 4: Currently. Let me pull up the contract. It's a structured amount. It's a flat rate amount for those that are under that. That $100 amount for those that are over 25%, that goes to Integral, which is the company that provides the collections process. 5% is reverted back to the city and county of Denver. So it's a 30% total amount.
Speaker 7: Okay.
Speaker 2: So why was the decision made to start to capture this piece?
Speaker 4: With the $300 to under $300, the under $300 represents approximately 90% of the fees that are owed to the city and county of Denver by way of costs and finds that are assessed as a result of either a traffic infraction or a criminal or municipal sentence. And so, generally speaking, 90% of those of those costs, the balance remaining that are referred, are approximately 90%.
Speaker 2: And what happens now to those if they're not referred to a collection, we.
Speaker 4: Have collections investigators that work with individuals and they establish a payment plan, and that is an ongoing process. As long as those individuals remain in compliance, we continue to work with them in that payment plan when it's 90 days or more delinquent, and we cannot continue to work with that individual or their refusing to work with us , we will work for them. Out to collections.
Speaker 2: What percentage go beyond 90 days?
Speaker 4: I can get that information for you with respect to the amount that is over, that $300, the number I can give you the amount that has been referred for 20 for the entire year of 2021, that is over that 300 amount. We've referred $2.7 million to collections. The amount that this entity has collected for us is $2.3 million.
Speaker 2: And for for those who owe less than 300, is there an average of what is owed or is it is it run that spectrum?
Speaker 4: I think it runs the spectrum. I'm happy to provide that information. We would run a script to get you that information from our database.
Speaker 2: Okay. I have a lot of questions to give you an opportunity to respond to those rather than a vote tonight. I'd actually like to postpone this to next week, and I can send you the the questions that that I've got and then bring this back through next week for for discussion, if.
Speaker 4: That's not a problem.
Speaker 2: That's all right. Okay. The the the final question that I have is, was any equity study or assessment done to see if this would be a disproportionate impact to low income residents? No.
Speaker 4: There wasn't. We can certainly factor in some information with respect to the individuals that are owing that are referred to collections. And I can provide some demographic information for you if you'd like to send me those parameters on what you're looking for. We're happy to include that in the query.
Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. Council President. I can't remember if there's something formal for me to do.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I'm going to thank you, Kristen, for being here. And thank you, counsel pro Tem Torres, for the questions. And. Madam Secretary, do you want us to do anything additional? I know since we invoke 3.7, it can just be held over. But we have a motion on the floor.
Speaker 2: Yes. If we can just have Councilmember CdeBaca withdraw the motion, we can go ahead and let Councilmember Torres invoke Council Roll 3.7 and postpone that for one week. Okay. I move to withdraw resolution 22, dash 0278.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilmember CdeBaca. We're good, Madam Secretary. All right. Wonderful. We'll see you back here next week. After Council Pro-Tem Torres's questions are answered. Councilmember Hines, I've got you in the queue, and you might have additional questions for our representative, so go ahead, please.
Speaker 1: Thank you, council president. And thank you, Council Pro-Tem Torres for your calling this out. Would the court please in responding, will you respond to the full body? I'm I'm interested in the answers to the questions as well. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Very good. All right. Thank you. Will that make sure and request the court send that information over to the entire council once they've gathered it? All right. We have no further action on to 78. It will be back on the agenda next week. That concludes the items to be called out this evening. All the calls for introduction are ordered published. Council members, please remember this is a consent or block vote and you will need to vote I. Otherwise, this is your last chance to call out an item for a separate vote.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Third Amendatory Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Integral Recoveries, Inc. to amend provisions, extend the term, and to expand the scope of collections.
Amends a contract with Integral Recoveries, Inc. to add two years for a new end date of 2-1-2024 and expands the scope of collections to include cases owing less than $300.00. No change to contract amount (COURT-202261912). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 4-18-22. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 3-15-22. Pursuant to Council Rule 3.7, Councilmember Torres called this item out at the 3-29-22 meeting for a one-week postponement to 4-4-22.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_03292022_22-0299
|
Speaker 0: Good evening. Tonight we have one public hearing for those who are participating in person when called upon. Please come to the podium. On the presentation monitor, you will see your time counting down for those who are participating virtually when called upon. Please wait until our meeting. Host 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 connected 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 finish 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've signed up to answer questions only, please 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. Speakers must stay on the topic of the hearing. 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 members say to Barker, Will you please put Council Bill 20 to dash to 99 on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 2: I move that council bill 22 dash to 99 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 2-2 99 is open and we have Council Member Sandoval who chaired the working group. She'll do the presentation this evening.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President and colleagues. I just wanted to give a presentation for the public hearing before we hear from the community. I had the honor and privilege of chairing this process, and I had two amazing colleagues helping me along the way. I would like to acknowledge Councilman Herndon and Councilwoman Black for your dedication and all the time that you put into this process. And I'd also like to thank Emily Lapel from our central staff. So next slide, please. So this slide is really tiny because we ended up doing a lot in a very short amount of time. The first thing that happened was in March of 21, the council president assigned the Redistricting Working Group, which was made up of myself, Councilman Herndon and Councilwoman Black. We started working and figuring out the process. We met with Dr. Theobald from UCC US, who is a redistricting specialist. She gave us guidance and helped us along the way. We came up with the idea for a meeting in a box and community engagement strategies and data collection. We created a media plan website and outreach tools. We recruited staff. We had two interns along the way to help us analyze all of the information that we got in July of 21 City Council. We elected new leadership, and at that time, I officially became the chair of the Redistricting Working Group. We went to think of to give an update. We started our community outreach process, which is define your Denver and what define your Denver meant for residents was we asked them what they thought their communities of interest were. Once and then in August, the clerk referred a ballot measure to change the ballot reform, which ultimately changed our election. We purchased the map dated software and part of the aptitude software that was so important it was able to give a direct translation. It was not Google translation. It was actually translated into your native language, the entire website, which was very important for us as the small working group. It also had, for the first time ever, a public portal so that the public part could participate in map drawing. Last time, ten years ago, we had two licenses. We had one and both of them were here on the fourth floor. So if you wanted to create a map, you had to figure out and come down to the fourth floor of the city and county building and use our software. And so with the purchase of map data, we were able to have a public facing portal. We started working on the resolution and principles of procedure. And at that time, I met with each council office to gain your feedback on what your council district, what you thought of your council district, things that were challenges, things that were benefits and burdens. We filed our resolution for principles and procedures, and then finally we received a data received data from the Census Bureau in September. And normally, this data usually comes out in the spring. And once again, this data did not come out until September. In October, we adopted our rules and procedures, the year resolution. We had internal meetings with GIS to go over our map to to our represent a bill where we talked about our communities of interest. We worked with CSU students on the maps of the communities of interest. We were able to train city council and staff on our redistricting software. We completed our defined year Denver process, which was communities of interest and opened up the map attitude. So we had a demo on our website. Then in the December of 21 this are clear can read Carter did repressing Diem and came up with their new precincts, which are the base of all of our work that we have to do for City Council in January through the end of January, from January 1st through the end of February into January. The public was able to submit and draw their own maps. And then from February, City Council submitted their maps that we debated all in February. We had public meetings. We had public vetting of the proposed maps. We had many debates. In March, the committee we approved to to move forward. And on first reading, we have the map here in front of us. And today, the day after Cesar Chavez Day, we are here for a public hearing to adopt our final map. Next slide, please. We had some unique challenges this time around when it came to redistricting. We had a COVID 19 pandemic. We had the surge of Akron. We had, for the first time ever in Colorado history, we had a state independent redistricting commission. We had delayed census information. And we had a ballot initiative in November of last year which changed our municipal elections from May to April. Next slide, please. Although we had a lot of challenges in 2021, we were able to do a lot of work. We hosted a mapping drive. We received 154 maps. We hired a facilitator for the first time in Denver history. We had a facilitator working on providing input for the public meetings and round the public meetings. We created outreach materials for each council office to work with. We worked with the Office of Social Equity and Innovation. We had two weeks of training for City Council, and we also provided training for the first time ever on magnitude software for the public. Next slide, please. Some of the highlights from 2021 were the resolution where we increased the number of public hearings. We required language, language access. We incorporated language surrounding communities of interest, which had never happened before. We were able to have the aptitude redistricting training. We were able to have represented Borg, which is the anti gerrymandering software, which was the base for a lot of our maps. We received 154 maps and it was the first municipality in the country to use represent Apple in official capacity at this level. Thanks to Dr. Theobald and her suggestion on using that software, we created a social media meeting, media and a meeting in a box which was translated into two different languages for councils to use. Next slide, please. The redistricting timeline for this year, which is only three months. We had the public create maps. City Council created their maps. We vetted those maps with a facilitator. We had guys created Dashboard with equity data layers for the first time ever in redistricting history in Denver. We had two virtual meetings, four in person, so a total of six meetings, which was more than the last time ten years ago. We received weekly updates from our facilitator about the meetings or the public meetings that were held. That never happened before in the history of redistricting. We deliberated on our maps and ultimately we are here today. One last thing we will do in April is central staff will work with our communications person in Central to come up with a final report which will go into the city archives. When we started digging into this ten years ago. When Emily and I took on this adventure in 2020, in the midst of a pandemic and started doing research, the note keeping and the record keeping of our council is not very robust, and that is something that I hope to change with this process, that we leave better tools for those who come after us in ten years. Some of the highlights from 2022. Next slide, please. We had, as I mentioned, the six meetings. We had three over 389 participants. We represented 54 neighborhoods. We had a community report for the first time ever that was put in the record highlighting what happened at the community meetings. We had a dashboard that was able to talk about equity and incorporated information from Denver Human Services. And to date, we have received 269 public comments from Denver residents. Next slide. I just wanted to remind the public and my colleagues that these are the rules that are set per charter. Draw 11 council districts. Have them be as equal in population as possible. Must contain contiguous territories. Must be compact. Compact as possible. Must contain whole election precincts, and must be approved by this evening. March 29, 2022. Other considerations that we had to take. Next slide, please. Other considerations that we had to take into consideration is the deviation. So each council district must have as much as the equal population of the 11 council districts. The one with the largest population and the one with the smallest cannot have any 10% larger. Race and ethnicity should be taken into consideration, and district lines must follow obvious geographic boundaries to the greatest extent possible. What else we took into consideration in our resolution is that we would respect collegial and statistical neighborhood boundaries to the greatest extent possible. And we heard that often throughout our meetings is how important it was to keep our neighborhood boundaries hold, that we would preserve logical communities of interest and the core existing constituencies traditionally represented to the greatest extent possible. And we would do our best not to have to incumbents in the same council district. Next slide. And this slide is Map D draft two, which will have our public hearing this evening. And I would just like to thank the public for your patience as we went through this process in the middle of a pandemic, where oftentimes we did we had to pivot at the last minute, as many, all of us have, and thank the leadership of City Council for giving me this opportunity to create new tools and a different experience for the residents of Denver when it came to the redistricting process. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Sandoval. For the staff report. For the report, we have six individuals signed up to speak this evening. All of them are joining us virtually. And our first speaker is Shannon Hoffman.
Speaker 2: Hello. Can I be heard? Yes. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Good evening, members of council. My name is Shannon Hoffman and I live in District ten. Thank you for directing me to speak tonight instead of last week. That was a very helpful phone call from the city manager's office directing me to speak here. Thank you for rebooting the zoom last week before I still attempted to make comment and essentially silencing me. Thank you for this entire redistricting process and the changes described in the presentation. Thank you for doing what not only I would describe, but other community members have described as a low bar for engaging community members in this process . And thank you for telling community members who did take the time to engage in this complicated process that they were, quote, signed on to a letter they didn't read or understand that when they came to a community meeting, they were, quote, trying to disrupt the process and that if we supported one particular map that was more equitable than others, we were, quote, spewing propaganda of one councilmember. Thank you for coming into the community input process with six votes already supporting one map. Thank you for supporting a map which the person who drew it didn't even show to committee the day it was thoroughly reviewed. And no supporters of the map used one data layer to indicate why they supported it. Thank you for.
Speaker 2: Voting to approve tonight.
Speaker 4: A map that will create seven districts with more than 50% white people. Two more districts with 45% white people. And a city that was the first in the country for displacing Latinos. Thank you for approving a map that will put districts three, eight, nine, ten and 11 all at or above the 65,000 person threshold. When we know census undercounting occurred last year and we know we are being overdeveloped with luxury units in a rapidly growing housing crisis. Thank you for prioritizing yourselves and your reelections over our community voice and our community needs. Thank you for all of this, because the fire that is raging in my chest and my belly after this experience is growing. So thank you for that. My community members and I are ready for the community to lead this process. We want an independent redistricting commission with the democratized power to make decisions about these maps. And we want more than that. We want co governance with the people who cannot pay 1600 dollars a month for rent, with the people who sleep outside, with the people who can't breathe there outside.
Speaker 2: With the people who can't.
Speaker 4: Get to their hourly wage job on time because of our transit system. So, community, I hope you are ready to fight because these seats are ours. This money is ours, this map is ours. And thank you so much for this process.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Darryl Watson.
Speaker 1: When it's not. Yes, President, the devil can say all. Gilmore Miembros del Kinsale. Darryl Watson Soy Owen Resident ID Adrian Tanyas Steal the street all the way back up inside they came a bolo is de central mango e crazy in as easily as we heard is my spaniel annoys me when I'm wrong. I mean my presentation is going to be in what I refer to as Spanglish. A little English and a little Spanish. Durante El Proceso de recherche three Tashjian la palabra marlene seh or traders two one people was used Paradis CRU beer honorable in the Emperor's Day Stoke on sale it doesn't matter. The insult was made to face to face a car rally by tweet or retweet. Words have impact. That term was despicable. It was shameful. It's no shame because this city rightfully honors Cesar Chavez yesterday and throughout this week. Korea competition to win on the way by palabra hero Gina. I have known each of the members of council malign with that insult challenging their leadership during redistricting, put community first and demonstrated respect for the process. Let me share why they are heroines, not only for their people, but for this city. One of our heroines has focused her life to fighting for the rights of the immigrants, indigenous people and other marginalized communities. The other has spent her time elevating the voice of youth in MONDELLO in Toda La Ciudad or the Arena stepped up during COVID pandemic to expedite care for her community. Saving the lives and protecting the health of many. She also successfully led this redistricting process during a global pandemic. No less Fenomeno de Nuestro de my hero, Lina Patriota, three decades ago. Encourage us to imagine a great city, a great city, not because of our buildings on Weber, Equipo de Baseball or Nueva Aeropuerto. Our focus was always about the people. That has been our focus during the redistricting process. She knew then, and it is important to remember now that people are what makes Denver a great city. She has committed her life to this work. That's Las personas in Denver. I personally thank each of you for your example and your life of service to the other members of Council. Congratulations for leading a successful redistricting process. The voices of the silent majority often gone heard in these public hearings. On behalf of them, I thank you for your service and your leadership. I encourage Council to vote yes on map draft two, which is gracious. Everyone has notice.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Jesse Paris.
Speaker 1: Oh, yes. Good evening. Members of council may be heard. Yes. Yes. My name is Justin the song pair some represent for Blackstar action moment for self-defense positive I come chains as well as the Unity Party of Colorado, the East Denver Residence Council and Frontline Black News. And I'll be the next hour of Denver in 2023. I'm against the redistricting map that was chosen to be published tonight. I attended a meeting on February 23rd at Emanuel High School, where about 60 people were in attendance. And the consensus of that meeting was Matt E Amanda Sandoval's math majority of the people that were there were in unison with that map. And to see today that the Council has voted against that map and opted for map D is very disingenuous to the process, the climate. She did all kinds of outreach with communities. The communities voice is not being heard. Like I said, I attended a meeting on the 23rd. The consensus of that meeting was map. It was had the least deviation from the previous map or our current map since 2015. And to see that you are voting for D is, like I said, is very disingenuous to the process. So I'm against map B because this is not the meeting in your high school was Map E and now you're choosing to go with B. So as Shannon Hoffman alluded to, this whole council needs to be replaced. This whole mayor needs to be replaced. Really, this whole system needs to be replaced and replaced with a system of justice. This process was not just the voices of the people are being silenced. The same people actually clamor. Being marginalized and disenfranchized in every area of society are once again being marginalized and disenfranchized in this process. So thank you for allowing me the time to speak. Please vote against Matt. The vote no on Matt. That is not what the community wanted. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Christina Xie.
Speaker 4: All right. Can you guys hear me? Yes. All right. Well, thanks for letting me speak this week on the process, since you had first and second last week specifically asking me not to speak on this process, even though the process was still going on last week. So a good portion of council is back, the same that from the start. Without providing any real transparency for the public. What was the purpose of the community input meetings? If you're going to ignore the questions and comments completely brought up during the meetings was not an active participant towards the beginning of the process because really shouldn't be our job to make sure council is still working for the people. The only reason why I started looking to them is because someone from the mayor's office made his opinion very loud and clear at a meeting that but not with basis and maybe not fact, but someone from the mayor's office was there just to shut down one map and then put maybe E or F was highly suspicious and made want to look into nothing more. And if you've heard the same verbiage, supporting methods, because that was the only that was full transparency was provided for a council member providing a 40 minute video breaking down layer by layer. Why then? That was not the way it was. It seems like the mayor's office actually had some plans at the public meetings to a conversation. So why are you supporting this? Not that the mayor's office has been pushing. You've not provided transparency to the public on the map you're voting on tonight. So again, I ask equity for whom are you protecting majority minority districts? Are maps complying with the Voting Rights Act. Why did the request to include community voting data in the public report get shot down by a council member with? Well, I don't know what that's going to do. I could get data shows, community input, which should be taken into consideration. Picking a map that will affect all of us for the next decade is supposed to serve the people. Stop degrading and deflecting defined. Gerrymandering is not the same thing as showing us how your math prevent gerrymandering and to say Denver voters. Voters are color blind and insinuate racism is not an issue in Denver. It is extremely dangerous for others. It's a privilege to think that way. But for people of color, we know that reckless rhetoric leads to senseless murders. Why aren't you taking community input into consideration of making these decisions? Why are you protecting this community? Why aren't you protecting the tax payers who claim to care about your actions? Do not align with your words. You claim to care about saving taxpayer dollars and then go and increase the deficit budget. I've already told you over and over again they don't protect us when we terrorize and traumatize us and you somehow decide it from community input of police brutality to increase their budget. We want to talk about Ukraine. Why don't you focus on what needs to be done in this city? I mean, focus on the civilians being targeted in Denver by DPD and now we're paying these large settlements and counting as the terrorizes local communities. Any solutions for that or are you just lip service for the mayor's office? Why has nothing improved in the last few years? Your Band-Aid solutions do nothing to protect this community. Does it matter what I say? You guys are going to vote the way you showed up. You would vote from the start in favor of the mayor's office. Outside of the personal gain from your position, I just want to know, is the city something you're proud of? Are you proud of the homeless crisis created by the city you want to talk about humanitarian crisis, look at your own city. Are you proud of that? You're continuously. Some of our city corporations are displacing people. Thank you.
Speaker 0: That's the thing. We have a lot of treat. Speaker Our next speaker is David Hagan.
Speaker 1: Oh, thanks. Wait, no, I'm not going to. Thank you, counsel. Not going to thank you for bringing me up here tonight. I'm not going to thank you for being here tonight because I don't want to be here. I'm not going to thank the people that have spoken about the people tonight. I'm going to go ahead and thank Candace Owens, the one that went before Jesse Perez. I think. I think that was his name, Candace Owens. Let's go over how this whole thing has gone tonight. We talked about data and September rules in October. We spoke to guys. We did this. We were the communities of interest. God, we are good. We are for the people of Denver. My God. Listen to me. I am going to speak highly about myself. We went to community interest. We define. We define your Denver. We went by these precincts. We went through these public maps. And then in February, we went through these council maps, public meetings, public vetting. And then a day after Cesar Chavez Day, I think I about threw up when I heard that. Unbelievable that this is the that we're looking at. I think that everybody's spoken about the fact that this is not the map we should be looking at. This is not equitable. This is not this is not the way that Denver should be looking for the next ten years. This is the way that we whitewash Denver and continue to gerrymander to produce a map of Denver that is not of the people. This is a map for that view. This is a map for the the wealthy. This is a map for whoever it is that's pulling your strings. This is not a map for the people. I had something put together to say, but I mean, I just didn't really feel it necessary. Like like like was said prior to. To me, it doesn't matter what I say. It doesn't matter what anybody else says. You all just figured you get one person to come up here and and and jerk us all off, and then we'd be stand behind your map. Now, the truth is, the proof is in the pudding. I think this how they say it. I like what Shannon's. I will actually talk about Shannon for a second. She spoke about a fire in her belly. That fire is not only in her belly, it is elsewhere. There may only be a few people up here tonight, but there are many, many more that are going to come and take every one of your asses out of those seats, because this is not representing Denver. This is not for the people. This is not for anything other than whoever it is that pulls your strings. And I don't know why y'all are the mayor's minions, but you are. You do whatever he says you like. The wonderful person said before me. How much? 14 million. That's just the start. We're at the beginning and it's just 14 million. That's what your redistricting map is going to do. We're going to do more money to those asshats and 14 million to this group. And there's a 50 person lawsuit coming out of that, right? 50 people. That was only, what, 11 or 12? 14 million.
Speaker 0: That's the time where they're.
Speaker 1: Going to take that. Want to try?
Speaker 0: Our next speaker is Katie Blakey.
Speaker 2: Council members. My name is Katie Blakey and I live in District ten. I wanted to start by thanking the council members who put some sort of effort into creating a strong map. So to those of you who considered equity, population growth, census undercounts. Communities of interest. Community feedback. Thank you. I don't like math. There are a lot of reasons, but most personal to me is that it breaks up my home. A defined community of interest. Capitol Hill. Now I know that many maps broke off Capitol Hill. Well, I wasn't thrilled about it. I recognized that with some maps. This meant they would allow marginalized voters in Denver to retain some sort of power and would distribute future growth more equitably. I'm okay with my neighborhood being split if it serves some sort of greater good. The greater good does not include the reelection schemes of incumbents. I'm particularly disappointed in those who broke up my neighborhood because math is hard or because we live in the real world, not Narnia, or because they just didn't want to put in the effort to listen to their community and make an equitable map. Decisions like these should be made for the benefit of the residents of Denver, not for politicians who don't even know the names of the neighborhoods surrounding their area. This process has been painful. Understand that council is working with some difficult circumstances and I don't want to dwell too much because to be quite honest, this whole process has been really distressing and exhausting. So thank you to the few council members who really engaged. Thank you so much to the community members. Most council members ignored who showed up throughout the whole process and worked a whole lot harder than most council members to come up with the massive benefits done right. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. That concludes our speakers this evening. Questions for members of Council on Council Bill 22, Dash 299. Seen no questions. Councilmember Ortega, do you have a question or do you have a comment?
Speaker 4: It's actually a.
Speaker 0: Comment, but. Okay. Clarification from the city. Okay. Can we if it's a a comment, I want to make sure we stand for clarification or clarification. Okay. We'll disregard then mean gaveling out and closing the public hearing. Go ahead, Councilmember Ortega, with your. I apologize. I think I was. That's okay. At the same time, you know, if that's okay, I thought I gave it enough beats, but no, that's that's totally fine. So please go ahead with your. So I want to ask the city attorney to just clarify the process of redistricting and the role that the mayor's office plays in the process, because this has historically been a city council led process under our charter. And so I wanted to just get your sort of confirmation or clarification of that.
Speaker 1: Sure. Councilman Ortega Archibong, a Legislative Council councilman under Charter 3.1.2. Redistricting in Salt Lake City Council.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. All right. Now the president. Councilmember Ortega, appreciate that clarification. Now the public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 22, Dash 299. Councilmember Ortega. Thank you, Madam President. I just wanted to first acknowledge that we did have, in fact, a very open and transparent process. It started as early as we were able to begin with without having had the benefit of the census data, which is what is critical, as well as the new precincts that have to be done based on the the new districts that are done at the state level. And so the fact that the federal government did not produce the census data as early as they normally do, it created an expedited process. And I do want to thank Councilwoman Sandoval, as well as Councilwoman Black and Councilman Herndon, who were the the three the committee that that move the process forward to all of us. I did work on a map. I had posted it, but I never shared it as a map that I submitted. I guess it was shared on the on the map tattooed site, but it was not submitted for consideration because I did have conversations with my colleagues whose districts would be impacted, and there were concerns about why they would not support it. So I did not take it further to try to count the votes among other members whose districts were not being impacted with the changes I was proposing. So I chose not to submit it. So I think in in the background, there were lots of us looking at different ways to try to bring a map forward that created the balance of representation so that it was equalized, as we're basically mandated to do, and also taking into account that these boundaries will be in place for the next, you know, 10 to 12 years, because by the time we get the next census data, it's typically two years after the, you know, the ten year cycle of when this process happens. So I will be supporting the map that came forward. It did change from the very beginning that it was introduced. I shared my thoughts with. One of the members who was a catalyst in bringing that forward. That individual actually helped me shape the map that I worked on and ended up posting. But at the end of the day, it comes down to do we have the votes to move a map forward that adheres to all of our rules and guidelines? And this map, in fact, does that. So I will be supporting it tonight. Thank you, Councilmember Ortega. Councilmember Herndon.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. I want to go back to August of 2011. So we were barely four weeks into my first term. And and I remember Council President Nevitt coming up to me and saying, hey, I would like for you to be on redistricting. And I'm like, Great. What exactly does that entail? Four weeks into my council term and we were six new council members, four district council members, along with council members Ortega and Kennedy, each at large. And we put together a map, that one I'm very proud of, because for the 2015 and 2019 elections, that was the city council map that got us the council that we have before us, which is Councilman Flynn, who talked about probably the most diverse and representative council we've had. But the work that we did a decade ago, compared to the work that we just did in the past few months, doesn't even compete or compare. And I appreciate Councilwoman Sandoval just highlighting some of those ways we were ensuring that community was going to be first and foremost during this process from and finding and reaching out to a redistricting expert to touch on community several different ways and paper through mailing, through virtual, through representative all the different ways we could in the middle of a pandemic. No and no less. With virtual meetings and person meetings. And so I'm so proud of this process. And so Catwoman Sandoval, Councilwoman Black, Emily Lapel. We cannot tell you. Thank you enough for the work that they did, because on the small group, I saw all the effort that they put in and how much they cared for this process, and you cannot thank them enough. So just a process in itself. I want to tell them thank you because they're not going to hear it enough for all the work that they put into it. And I'm proud of the map that we have before us. And yes, it is a map of their sponsor. But there were other maps that I didn't support that had they gotten the majority of votes, I believe would have been effective maps as well. I do believe that Map D is the best are the ones we had before us. No map is perfect. We have requirements through populations separating neighborhoods. But to my colleagues who did this, to the community that did this, thank you as well. And I. I hope that my colleagues support met in person to take them on present.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Herndon. Councilmember Sandoval.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. I just wanted to talk on map D and say that in this map in Council District one, we lose the West Colfax neighborhood. And I heard from the Jewish community not long ago. My office is working on a cultural district, cultural and landmark district for the Jewish Orthodox Jewish community in West Colfax. And they had were nervous about representation. And I remember ten years ago that they were also worried about representation because West Colfax was going to be split. Now it's going to be made whole again. And so for those residents who are watching in West Colfax, I still have the honor and privilege of representing you in this next year, up until July of 23. And it has been an honor to work with those communities. And at the same time, it has also been an honor to work with counsel, mentors, that cultural and landmark district for our residents in the Jewish community who have been in the West Colfax neighborhood for 150 years, and just want to say thank you for all of the feedback on all of the maps and all of the processing. I think one thing that I've learned through the entire process is there's a lot of passion involved in this, and it's because it's home is where your heart is, and when your heart is in something, you will elicit a lot of passion and feelings and emotion. And so I know that I personally have a lot of passion and feelings, and I know the North Side and Denver is where my home is and where I'm raising my kids. And so it's been an honor and privilege to be part of this process. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Sandoval. Councilmember Flynn.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam President. I want to thank Councilman Herndon for raising the point that I believe I raised in committee when the maps were all before us in the committee the whole few weeks back. The map that was approved after the 2010 census and put into play for the 2015 election gave the voters of Denver the ability , as you see up here on the dais. To elect their representatives who almost precisely reflect the demographics of Denver. It's remarkable. And it's my expectation that map D while no map is perfect. We necessarily have to split some neighborhoods because of where the population numbers fall and where the precinct lines fall. But while no map is perfect, it's my expectation that Map D will produce the same way that the map of 2011 for the 2015 election produced. A council that looks like this city. And with that, I will vote for my party. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Flynn, and see no other council members in the queue. I'll go ahead and round out the comments before we do our roll call vote. I would like to really sincerely thank all of the community members who participated in the redistricting process. We had more participation by community members than ever before in the history of our great city, and we knew that this was going to be a very difficult process and one that everyone wasn't going to be happy with. The Final Map. Councilwoman Sandoval, Councilman Herndon and Councilman Black, along with Emily Lapel from our legislative staff, have been stellar in their coordination, in their leadership and ensuring that we had a good process that followed all of the requirements that we had to make sure we checked the boxes on. And as already stated, that this is the first time in Denver's history that city council use technology. And we expanded the community outreach during this process to ensure that we heard from our community and we started this back with the community in October of last year. And I know that this council did the work, that we followed the process. And it's indicated indicative that when Councilman Herndon and I had a combined office hours on the 18th of this month, we didn't have anybody show up. And that is indicative to me that community members understood our process. They understood the requirements that we had to make sure that we met for the redistricting maps and that they understood the difficult work that we had to do. And then again tonight, we had six speakers for this one map. We could have easily had 50, 75 to 100 community members. We it's a required hearing. We would stay here and listen as long as it takes to make it through all of the speakers. And we have done that. And so I know that we have followed the process, we have done the work and I am happy to support D this evening. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 22, Dash 299, please.
Speaker 2: Can each. I. Sawyer. I black. I see tobacco. No. Clark.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Flinn.
Speaker 1: I. Herndon. I. Hinds.
Speaker 2: Cashman. Ortega, i.
Speaker 3: Sandoval, i.
Speaker 2: Torres, I. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 2: One 812 Eyes.
Speaker 0: 12 Eyes Council Bill 20 2-299 has passed our pre adjournment announcement on Monday, April 25th. Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 22, Dash 246 Changing the zoning classification for 2039. South William Street in University are required public hearing on Council Bill 22, Dash 249 Changing the zoning classification for 41, 51 and 4155 Jason
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance amending Article II of Chapter 15 of the Revised Municipal Code for purposes of approving a new redistricting plan for the eleven council districts of the City and County of Denver for the municipal election on April 4, 2023, and for any general or special council election held thereafter.
Describes the district boundaries depicted on Map D. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 3-14-22.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_03212022_22-0201
|
Speaker 1: Councilmember Clark, would you please put resolution 2a1 on the floor for adoption.
Speaker 0: As council president of the council, resolution 201 be adopted.
Speaker 1: Thank you. We've got a mover in a second. Comments and questions by members of Council on Resolution 201. Councilmember CdeBaca.
Speaker 3: Thank you. I just want to go on record voting no for this tonight. Pepsi is not necessarily a group that needs $1,000,000 incentive to stay in Denver, and they are well on their way to completing their move with or without this incentive. So definitely just want to make sure that I'm clear in not supporting this tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. And I'll go ahead. And since this is in my council district, District 11, we as community members, along with some of the original steering committee members from the far northeast neighborhood plan, reconvened and talked through all of the pros and possible challenges of welcoming a large scale manufacturer into District 11. And the community saw fit that this was a great use for this area and this will bring close to 500 jobs to the region as well. And I would ask my colleagues to support it tonight. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Resolution 22, Dash 201, please.
Speaker 3: See tobacco? No. Clark.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 3: Swen.
Speaker 0: I. Herndon, I.
Speaker 3: Hi. All right. Cashman. Kenny Ortega. Sandoval.
Speaker 6: I.
Speaker 3: Sawyer. I. Torres. I. Black. Madam President, I.
Speaker 1: Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 3: One day, 11 eyes.
Speaker 1: 11 Eyes. Council Resolution 22, dash 201 has been adopted. Madam Secretary, please put the next item up on our screens. Councilmember Flynn, go ahead with your comments on resolution 159, please.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Business Incentive Fund (BIF) contract with Bottling Group, LLC for an amount not to exceed $1,000,000 for 7 years and for performance based criteria that include establishment of a state-of-the-art manufacturing facility and associated significant investments, as well as job retention and creation and associated investments into upskilling and training of the manufacturing facility’s Denver-based workforce.
Approves a Business Incentive Fund (BIF) contract with Bottling Group, LLC for an amount not to exceed $1,000,000 and for 7 years through 12-31-2028 for performance based criteria that include establishment of a state-of-the-art manufacturing facility and associated significant investments, as well as job retention and creation and associated investments into upskilling and training of the manufacturing facility’s Denver-based workforce (OEDEV-202160849-00). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 4-11-2022. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 3-9-2022.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_03212022_22-0328
|
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Flynn. And see no other speakers in the queue. We'll go ahead and move. Move forward on the agenda. Madam Secretary, would you please put the next item up on our screens? Councilmember Clark, will you please put Bill 328 on the floor for publication?
Speaker 0: Yes, council president. I move the council bill 328. We ordered published.
Speaker 1: Thank you. It's been moved and seconded. Comments and questions by members of Council on Bill 328 Map G. Councilmember CdeBaca.
Speaker 3: Thank you. I'd like to ask my colleagues to vote no on this one. I introduced this back in back last week when we were not sure what kind of conversations we were going to be able to have around amendments and how the legal review would work. And so I introduced it as a separate map. It was an attempt at amending the approved map. EA The council sponsors of Map e were not amenable to these changes. And so I am pulling this one and asking you all to vote no on this one for now. Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Madam Secretary. Roll call on Council Bill 22, dash 328. And for the public who are watching this map, G.
Speaker 3: CDEBACA No.
Speaker 0: Clark No. Flynn No.
Speaker 3: Herndon.
Speaker 0: No hay.
Speaker 3: No cashmere?
Speaker 0: No.
Speaker 3: Kenny.
Speaker 5: No.
Speaker 3: Ortega No. Sandoval.
Speaker 6: No.
Speaker 3: Sawyer. No. Torres.
Speaker 5: No.
Speaker 3: Madam President.
Speaker 1: No, Madam Secretary, please close of owning and announce the results.
Speaker 3: 12 nays.
Speaker 1: 12 nays. Zero Ies Council Bill 20 2-328 has failed. Madam Secretary, please put the next item up on our screens. Councilmember Clerk, will you please put Bill three, three, two on the floor for publication?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance amending Article II of Chapter 15 of the Revised Municipal Code for purposes of approving a new redistricting plan for the eleven council districts of the City and County of Denver for the municipal election on April 4, 2023, and for any general or special council election held thereafter.
Describes the district boundaries depicted in Map G. Councilmember CdeBaca approved direct filing this item on 3-17-22.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_03212022_22-0332
|
Speaker 1: 12 nays. Zero Ies Council Bill 20 2-328 has failed. Madam Secretary, please put the next item up on our screens. Councilmember Clerk, will you please put Bill three, three, two on the floor for publication?
Speaker 0: Yes, council president. I move that council bill three three to be ordered published.
Speaker 1: Thank you. It's been moved and seconded. Resolution three, three, two is on the floor. This is map a. The floor is open for comments on all three items. Resolutions to 99, which is map D three, three, two, map A and or 300 map e. After comments, council will vote on each item separately. The floor will not open again for comments on these three items once voting begins. Councilmember Sandoval.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Madam President. I am calling out Bill three, three, two. As we have had the process of redistricting and as the chair of the redistricting committee, we went through the process of debating the maps and then having the opportunity to vote on all the maps. It is rare that you will see City Council convene as a committee of the whole. In my recollection, the last time we convened as a committee of the whole is when this body I was not on the body was debating marijuana policy for the entire city. And so for the the fact that we are convened as a whole committee of the whole and last week two of my colleagues were not here and they were not present. So I decided to call out all three maps to have them be voted on separately so that we could figure out which maps would be on final hearing next Tuesday. The map that is currently up 0332 failed in committee and map 3332 passed and 300 passed with the majority votes. So I would ask that we please vote down three, three, two as it did also fail and committee. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember Sandoval, Councilmember CdeBaca.
Speaker 3: Thank you. I recognize what happened in our last redistricting committee, and I recognize that this was voted down and fully do not expect support on this. But what I wanted to make sure was done is that it went on record as having had a legal review and being determined to be a legal map that was not gerrymandering and in fact was the only map attempting to capture a majority minority district in District nine. We did not achieve that in any of the other maps. And so I just wanted to make sure that history recalls on the record that this map was introduced and it was voted down. And we did forfeit that majority minority district at a time where minorities in the city are being displaced rapidly. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam Secretary. Roll call on Council Bill 20 to dash three. Three to map a.
Speaker 3: Sustainable.
Speaker 6: No.
Speaker 3: Sawyer. No. Torres.
Speaker 5: No. Black. No.
Speaker 3: CdeBaca. I. Clark.
Speaker 0: No.
Speaker 3: Flynn.
Speaker 0: No.
Speaker 3: Herndon.
Speaker 0: No.
Speaker 3: Hines. No.
Speaker 0: No.
Speaker 3: Can each. No. Ortega? No. Madam President.
Speaker 1: No. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 3: When I 12 nays.
Speaker 1: One I Council Bill 20 2-33, two has failed. Madam Secretary, please put the next item on our screens. Council Member Clark, will you please put Bill to 99 on the floor for publication?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance amending Article II of Chapter 15 of the Revised Municipal Code for purposes of approving a new redistricting plan for the eleven council districts of the City and County of Denver for the municipal election on April 4, 2023, and for any general or special council election held thereafter.
Describes the district boundaries depicted on Map A. Councilmember CdeBaca approved direct filing this item on 3-17-22.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_03212022_22-0299
|
Speaker 1: One I Council Bill 20 2-33, two has failed. Madam Secretary, please put the next item on our screens. Council Member Clark, will you please put Bill to 99 on the floor for publication?
Speaker 0: Yes. Council President of the Council. Bill 299 be ordered published.
Speaker 1: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 22, dash 299. Map D.
Speaker 3: Black. I see tobacco. No, Clark.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 4: Flynn i.
Speaker 2: Herndon High.
Speaker 3: Heights Cashman. Kenny Ortega, i. Sandoval, I. Sawyer.
Speaker 5: I.
Speaker 3: Torres.
Speaker 5: No.
Speaker 3: Madam President, I.
Speaker 1: Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 3: Two Nays, 11 Ice.
Speaker 1: 11 Eyes Council Bill 20 2-299 has been ordered published. Madam Secretary, please put the next item on our screens. Council Member Clerk, will you please put Bill 300 on the floor for publication?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance amending Article II of Chapter 15 of the Revised Municipal Code for purposes of approving a new redistricting plan for the eleven council districts of the City and County of Denver for the municipal election on April 4, 2023, and for any general or special council election held thereafter.
Describes the district boundaries depicted on Map D. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 3-14-22.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_03212022_22-0300
|
Speaker 1: 11 Eyes Council Bill 20 2-299 has been ordered published. Madam Secretary, please put the next item on our screens. Council Member Clerk, will you please put Bill 300 on the floor for publication?
Speaker 0: As Council President, I move that council bill 300 be ordered published.
Speaker 1: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 22. Dash 300. Map E.
Speaker 3: Black.
Speaker 6: No.
Speaker 3: CdeBaca No.
Speaker 0: Clark No. Flynn No. Herndon No.
Speaker 5: Hines No.
Speaker 3: Cashman Kenny Ortega, I.
Speaker 6: Sandoval, I.
Speaker 5: Sawyer No.
Speaker 3: Torres, I. Madam President.
Speaker 1: No. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 3: Three eyes. Tenderness.
Speaker 1: Three eyes. Ten Nays. Council Bill 22 Dash 300 has failed. That concludes 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. Council Member Clerk Will you please put the resolutions for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor?
Speaker 0: Yes, Council President. 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. 262269270271159196 200 337 254.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you. And we have it moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, Roll Call.
Speaker 5: Black Eye.
Speaker 3: CdeBaca.
Speaker 0: Clerk I.
Speaker 3: Flynn.
Speaker 0: I. Herndon, I.
Speaker 3: Hi, Cashman. Kenny Ortega. I. Sandoval, I swear, I. Torres.
Speaker 5: I.
Speaker 3: Madam President.
Speaker 1: I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 3: 13 eyes.
Speaker 1: 13 eyes. 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 21, Dash 1455, changing the zoning classification for 2000 Blake Street in five points and a required public hearing on Council Bill 20 2-1 60 Changing the zoning classification for
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance amending Article II of Chapter 15 of the Revised Municipal Code for purposes of approving a new redistricting plan for the eleven council districts of the City and County of Denver for the municipal election on April 4, 2023, and for any general or special council election held thereafter.
Describes the district boundaries depicted on Map E. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 3-14-22.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_03212022_21-1455
|
Speaker 1: 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 addresses. 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 yield enough 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. Councilmember Clark, will you please put Council Bill 21, Dash 1455 on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 0: As Council President, I move that Council Bill 21 dash 1455 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 1: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded the required public hearing for Council Bill 21 Dash 1455 is open. May we please have the staff report?
Speaker 8: Good evening. My name is Anthony Barnes. I'm with CPD before you. Today, we're looking at a map amendment for 2000 Lake Street. It's currently zoned debate and the request for CMCs eight. So the subject properties are located in Council District nine in any suitable district and it's located in the Five Points neighborhood. Subject property is located on the eastern corner of 20th Street and Blake Street and it consists of two parcels. There are approximately a third of an acre. The request is for a urban center mixed use up to eight stories that would allow for a variety of residential, civic and commercial uses on different building farms from townhome, general shop front drive thru services and drive thru restaurants. Now the existing zoning is a holdover from former Chapter 59. The northern part northernmost parcel is under a par 329, which was adopted in 1993 and allows for mixed use commercial and residential development with active uses at street level as well as an electrical substation. The rezoning would only affect one of many parcels under this beauty. The southernmost part of the parcel is on B eight with waivers with the use overlay one and two. The B8 is intended for activity centers that allow for high intensity commercial and residential uses. The use overlay one district allows for adult uses. However, the waiver precludes them, so it is not allowed. The use overlay to district allows for billboard uses and the applicant does not propose to retain either. Overlay the surrounding zone districts to the north is i-8, which is a light industrial to billboard. There are several TMX eight with and without the billboard use overlay. And then to the south you can see the downtown core and lower downtown districts with the adult use overlay. Now in the immediate vicinity. The area's land use is a mix of commercial office, multi-unit, residential and vacant land in course field shown in the top photo is is the north of this is it the north of the site? In this considered entertainment cultural use the surface parking lot on the subject property is shown in the middle and the existing commercial development south of the site is shown on the bottom of the photo there. Here at the top photo shows the adjacent surface parking lot, which is currently undergoing a rezoning process to allow for Iraqis Plaza, which would host game day events as well as non-game day events. And the photo at the bottom shows a street view along Blake looking southwest. Um, so this has gone before the planning board back in November 17th and it was approved, approved unanimously. Uh, concurrent with this rezoning, the applicant has worked with the Department of Housing Stability as they intend to provide 12.5% of residential units at 80% ami with a voluntary housing agreement, affordable housing agreement, and as described in the applicant's revised narrative that they submitted, they conclude they conducted extensive outreach to City Council members Arnaud's and multiple neighbors. And to date, staff has received three letters of support from the local district, the Lower Downtown Neighborhood Association and the Ballpark Collective, stating that the proposed mixed use development replacing an existing parking lot would improve the streetscape. Right before the proposed City Council meeting back in January of 18, there was two letters of concerns that came from the Laurel district as well as Rockies, and those concerns were along design standards and engagement. And so since then, the applicant has done extensive outreach to the District and Rocky, and they have come into a memorandum of understanding agreement. And in that agreement, a lot of district and the Rockies provide their support. Now moving forward to the, um, the Denver zoning review criteria. Um, it must be found that the request map amendment is consistent with the five review criteria. And as a reminder, staff only evaluates the proposed zone districts and not a specific development. So when we're looking at the first criterion to see with adaptive plans, we're looking at four plans, which is Comprehensive Plan 2040, Blueprint, Denver 2019, the Northeast Downtown Neighborhood Plan of 2011 and Downtown Area Plan of 2007. So as stated in the staff report, the rezoning is consistent with several goals found in the comprehensive plan, particularly as they relate to increasing housing units close to transit and creating mixed use neighborhoods such as Equitable, Affordable and Inclusive Growth Strategy to increase development of housing units close to transit. It makes these developments connected, safe and accessible places. Strategy B Promote transit oriented development and encourage high density development, including affordable housing, near transit and support ridership and environmental resilient. Go strategy b encourage mixed use communities where residents can live, work and play in their own neighborhoods. Now jumping into blueprint timber under the future neighborhood context. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the downtown neighborhood context defined in Blueprint Denver. This context includes the most intense mix it uses in the city with large scale buildings that frame the street in the greatest and the greatest access to transit. The zone districts in the zoning codes downtown neighborhood context have generally been applied to location specific areas such as the theater district in Arapahoe Square, with urban center zone districts, including the eight, are prevalent in other areas of downtown context, including those north of 20th Street and west of Lawrence Street. And the urban center districts are appropriate in the neighborhood context. Additionally, Blueprint Denver allows the boundaries of context to be interpreted with limited flexibility. If the if the request furthers the goals of Blueprint Denver and is consistent with the overall intent of the neighborhood context map. So since the proposed district allows for a mix of uses and building terms that contribute to street activation and the proposed rezoning to CMC is appropriate and consistent with this plan. Now looking at the future place type, it's classified as high residential, which typically has the highest intensity of residential uses and taller mixed use buildings are common . Both like in 20th Street are downtown arterials, which are surrounded by intense pedestrian oriented land uses. The IMX is consistent with the future place and street types as it allows for a mix of uses in an eight storey building with with siting and design requirements that will help create an engaging streetscape. Now within the growth of your strategy, do you think the city city generate directs to key centers, corridors in high density residential areas that align with transportation options? In this case, the future growth of the area is categorized as high and medium high, medium residential areas in the downtown and urban core context, which anticipates 5% of jobs in 15% of new houses within 2048, will help achieve this goal. Furthermore, the proposed rezoning helps implement blueprint members policy relating to converting former former Chapter 59 zoning to a Denver zoning code. Now when we're looking at the northeast downtown neighborhood plan, the subject properties are classified as a mixed zoning with a maximum height of eight stories , which is consistent with this plan's recommendation. Um, uh. And then the plan further redefines height at this location by identifying it as part of the coarse field context area, where it is recommended that the building heights not be allowed to exceed the height of sports fields and to prevent use into the ballpark. So as shown in this graphic provided by the applicant, a six foot tall person standing at the top of a 110 foot tall building across Lake Street would not be able to see Intercourse Field. So just wanted to show that illustration. Now when we're looking at the downtown area plan the plan for the redefines height guidance at this location by of. The downtown planner recommend that the ballpark sub a provide distinct ground floor retail and other active uses along the street edge and pedestrian improvements near 21st. So the proposed TMX eight zone district enables street level active uses in a vibrant pedestrian realm and is consistent with these plans recommendations. The rezoning is consistent with review criteria two, three and five as specified in the staff report. In regards to Theater four, there are two applicable justifying circumstances, including the fact that the city has adopted several plans since the subject property has was zoned under former Chapter 59 and it retained former Chapter 59 zoning after the city adopted the current Demery Zoning Code of 2010. Therefore, CPD recommends approval based on all the findings that the review criteria have been met. Staff is available for any questions. You may have the opportunity here. Any questions as well as. Andrew Johnson. The House is here for any questions you may have. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, edson. We have nine speakers lined up to speak this evening. I'm going to call the first few speakers in chambers and then we'll go to those online virtually. Our first speaker is Gerry M in person in chambers. Jerry M. Okay. We're going to go ahead and move on then. Paul, the Journal in Chambers. And I might have mispronounced your name, so please correct me.
Speaker 0: Good evening. I'm Paul DiGiorgio in the Summer Capital Partners with the developer for this exciting project. And I want to introduce a couple of our folks here this evening from Miller Capital, Mr. Ron Silver, who's our CEO, and Mr. Mike Harrington, who has spearheaded the project for the last year or so. And it has been a thoughtful process and with which we appreciate and we're respectfully here this evening seeking approval. And with that, I'll turn it over to. You're next in line.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you. Our next speaker in chambers is Tobias Stroh.
Speaker 0: Good evening. My name is Maestro. I reside in Lakewood, Colorado, an office in Denver, Colorado. I'm with Janus Architecture and Design. We were the architects on this project and working with our client to come up with a solution that is appropriate for this location in our in our hometown, our city here. And we appreciate the opportunity to be here tonight and look forward to continuing to work on this project. May make it come to fruition.
Speaker 1: Very, very good. Thank you. We're going to go ahead and go virtually. Our next speaker is Jesse Perez.
Speaker 2: As members of council. May I be her?
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 2: Yes. My name is just. There's no margin for Black Star action movies for self-defense, positive action come Mafia the Chains, as well as the Unity Party of Colorado, the East Denver Residents Council and Frontline Black Knows and I'll be there next November 2023. I'm against rezoning tonight. From what I've heard from the presentation, 80% Armani that is not affordable. So they said that this affordability clause or or neighborhood agreement, A-minus is not affordable. I don't care how you slice it. It's just not affordable to buy out of this area and. It's just going to feel more than just nice. So if you guys approve, this looks more likely will approve it because it meets all the criteria to see what it plans. Uniformity of district regulations for this public health, safety and welfare. Testifying circumstances and consistency with neighborhood context zone district. Purpose. In that sense, there's nothing I can say is going to change your mind on this. I just want to be cognizant of the unintended consequences that will result from having an eight storey building, right? HORSFIELD That is not affordable. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Our next speaker joining us virtually via zoom is Richard Farley.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam President. Members of City Council. Good evening. My name is Richard Farley. I'm live at 2500 Walnut Street, Denver, Colorado. I'm speaking on behalf of the Loto District Inc registered neighborhood.
Speaker 4: Organization as a LoDo District Board member and co-chair of its Urban Design Committee. Regarding this 2000 Blake rezoning.
Speaker 0: The local district fully.
Speaker 4: Supports the rezoning of.
Speaker 0: 2000 Blake Street. Based on extensive negotiations with the developer.
Speaker 4: Fillmore kept for Fillmore.
Speaker 0: Capital and Partners, which has resulted in a.
Speaker 4: Memorandum of understanding between the developer and the local district R.A..
Speaker 0: The ammo used satisfies the LoDo district's concerns.
Speaker 4: We commend the Fillmore Capital for spending the extra time and energy in working with us.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Our next speaker is Matt Ben, 16.
Speaker 0: Good evening, counsel. Thank you, Madam President. I Mat Van Sustain. I'm the executive director of a ballpark collective. The R.A. that is this property is the key corner of this, the area that we represent. I live a few blocks away at 2127 Larimer Street. We have been communicating with Fillmore for a few years now on this project. They communicated early and often. They've been very responsive to feedback. They recently stepped back to to work some things out with the Rockies and LoDo and kept us in the loop. We believe that they're going to be a great neighbor and this is going to be a positive activation that fits in well with the project that's coming that the Rockies have proposed, and it's going to activate a very dead corner.
Speaker 2: In a very key spot.
Speaker 0: So we we support the rezoning of that property. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Our next speaker, we're going to transition back in chambers, Ron Silver.
Speaker 0: Good evening, Madam President. And Chamber. I'm Ron Silva. I'm from San Francisco, California.
Speaker 2: And I came here to support our project today.
Speaker 0: And to introduce my team, which has already been introduced.
Speaker 2: But Mike Harrington here.
Speaker 0: On my left is really the person for the last four years that has spearheaded this project along with.
Speaker 2: Janus, our our distinguished architectural firm. And I think although we can't show our pretty pictures.
Speaker 0: We have really.
Speaker 2: Designed a very beautiful building for a key location.
Speaker 0: In downtown Denver that we would like to see go forward. And if you do approve it, we will move it forward as expeditiously as possible. Thank you much for your time.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Our next speaker is Joe Veena Amar.
Speaker 6: Good evening. I'm Jovenel Moise and I reside on 660 Layton Street, Denver, and I work for Johnson Nathan Steel Architects. And I'm here to answer any questions that you have of the architects. We've been working with the clients over the last couple of years and the community. And thank you for your time.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Our next speaker is Mike Harrington.
Speaker 2: Good evening, Madam President. Chamber Thank you for your time this evening. I just want to rehash, I think Edson did a fantastic job, so there's not a lot to cover here, but just wanted to make a few points on our commitment to the community and neighborhood that we are excited to be part of. We currently own and operate three restaurant brewery entertainment concepts just across the street on Market Street, which we renovated and opened late last year. So we really view 2000 Blake as the next step in our further engagement and investment in the community. As mentioned, we did work with host Andrew to draft and execute a voluntary affordable housing agreement to provide five and a half percent of the units at an 80% AMI for all residential units. And and just lastly on our outreach. It's been a long process for us. We, I think, all told, met held 17 R.A. and community neighborhood meetings. We were granted meetings with eight city council offices. We did receive letters of support from the District Ballpark Collective and from the Lower Downtown Neighborhood Association and a vote of support from CDP. And as it's been mentioned, we did take a little extra time to work with the Rockies and the lower district to address some of their concerns. And we're very pleased that we were able to come to an agreement and sign animal you. So thank you for your time.
Speaker 1: Thank you. That concludes our speakers this evening. Questions for members of Council on Council Bill 21, Dash 1455. Councilmember Flynn.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. Edson, could you help me out a little bit on the current zoning pdf? 329 I think it was. What? It's very unclear to me in the staff report what entitlements exist under that PD other than an Excel substation. What are the other entitlements and how do they differ from the new zone district request?
Speaker 8: So under the PD, commercial and residential uses are allowed and they do allow active uses but doesn't have great design standards like the CMC would. And in this instance they are at, I believe, the hours of to, but the maximum they can go up to here is five storeys. That's why the applicant is trying to go up to eight. That would be consistent with the neighborhood plan as well. And so, um, those were some of the uses that would be allowed.
Speaker 4: Okay. Make sure I understood correctly the FDR under the PD. Wow. That's the floor area ratio of.
Speaker 8: Floor area.
Speaker 4: Ratio. Unit development for those playing acronym bingo out there is 2 to 1. Did you say?
Speaker 8: I am making sure right now 2.5 with the maximum of five stories.
Speaker 4: Correct. Okay. So that would imply. Okay. I see. And then this would allow up to eight stories.
Speaker 8: Correct.
Speaker 4: Thank you. This pod was in 1993.
Speaker 0: Correct.
Speaker 4: It's the same year the course field got under construction, if I recall.
Speaker 0: Correctly. I am not sure.
Speaker 4: That or slightly before that. Well, that's the year the Rockies came to town in 93. All right. Thank you. That helps put in a little context. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Flynn. Councilmember Hines.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council President. Um, despite people the I was probably for the applicant. I am a strong proponent of the 50 to 80 trail. It's a 5.280 pedestrian and cyclist loop around the city center. I think it's a transformative project, and I think that it will significantly improve the public health, safety and welfare of our our city center. Um, I, I'm curious because this is along the route of the 50 to 80 trail. What your thoughts are for this development and its integration with the trail. Yes. We're extremely excited to potentially become another amenity along the trail. We agree it's going to be an exciting asset to the city. This being a prominent corner will obviously require very thoughtful, pedestrian accessible design. We feel there's a real opportunity here with the Lake Street closure of Lake Street on 80 plus days a year to really create a vibrant pedestrian experience and create a landmark corner along the trail. I'm not sure if that answers your question or if there's something more specific for me to get into in terms of design work. We're still in the conceptual, conceptual stage, but this is absolutely top of mind for us due to the real asset. Sure. Well, thank you. I also think it's a huge asset. Um, so. And. Certainly understand why you might you might want a more specific question. The my thought with a 50 to 80 trail is, is just as you said, a place. It is it is an opportunity to connect places like Coors Field or like the art museum or something, Gardens Park, where the kind of movement was centered in the, you know, a few decades ago. And and I see an amnesty capital and so many other locations that are that are along the trail. I want to make sure that as as you say or as I said, public health, safety and welfare is preserved. And in the 81 game days. Outside of playoff games, I can understand that we want to make sure that that cyclists don't plow down pedestrians. But in the other days I could see that. But it would definitely be beneficial to to make sure that the pedestrian and cyclist loop is preserved on the non-game days. And so I guess perhaps you mentioned it's in the conceptual phase. I like what you're saying about having it be another destination along the trail. And I recognize that on game days, that MacGregor Square conversation that we had a few months ago brought that up as well. And on game days, I recognize that we don't want cyclists going, you know, in an unsafe fashion around pedestrians. But in the non-game days, perhaps, have you considered the concept of of allowing cyclists to remain cyclists? And I'll mention one other thing, that the concept of the 50 to 80 trail and I believe this and want this to occur is for tourists speeds along the trail for for cyclists so the spandex riders that that bomb down Cherry Creek path great for them stick to the the jerky bike trail this is meant more as a as a community type type event. So with that context, perhaps you could tell a little bit about the your concepts. Absolutely. I also agree that nobody was setting tires on on Blake Street during this timeframe. But, you know, our initial concept for the for the building is going to consist of two floors of commercial space at ground level, light and airy and open. So I mean, I think the idea of slowing traffic down, allowing cyclists, encouraging pedestrian traffic, I mean, that is that is what we're aiming for. I mean, we want this to be a destination where people don't just say, oh, that's a nice building and continue on, but this is a destination along the trail that we're going to make a stop at. And I think so. I think by design and use on those two ground floors, that's really going to be the draw. And I think that will lend itself to, you know, slowing cyclists and creating a real safe and friendly pedestrian and cyclist environment on the street. So it's absolutely a priority for us. Okay, fair enough. I hope that you continue to to to follow the 50 to 80 trail as it goes through its discussion and implementation. And and if if I can be a resource, please let me know. And I like what your what you're suggesting. Thank you. Council President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Hines. Mr. Harrington, would you mind introducing yourself for the public record?
Speaker 2: Mike Harrington Fillmore Capital Partners.
Speaker 1: Great. Thank you so much. Council pro tem to.
Speaker 5: Thank you. I think my questions are probably for you and I'm just trying to understand I know that it was language in the neighborhood plan about not being able to see the field from surrounding buildings. Is that a legal requirement or is it a kind of a neighborhood preference based on that relationship with course field? Is there something else behind that?
Speaker 8: That's a great question. I don't think it's a legal requirement, but it is a recommendation from the plan specifically. In the northeast downtown neighborhood plan. It gives height recommendations, but then it has an awful context area limiting height no higher than the stands. And so it's a recommendation that's that's tied to height.
Speaker 5: And this is different from the view plane that's down there, right?
Speaker 8: Correct. And this site does not have a view plane.
Speaker 5: It is not okay. Mm hmm. But there's a view playing near there. It doesn't. Yes, it doesn't. Okay. All right. I have a stadium in my district, so I'm just trying to make sure I understand what's going on. Thank you.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you. Counsel pro tem tours and seeing no other questions from members of council. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 21, Dash 1455. Council Members State Abarca.
Speaker 3: All right.
Speaker 1: I don't see anyone else in the queue. And so I will go ahead and finish up the comments. I do believe that this meets all of the rezoning criteria and we'll be supporting it tonight and asked my colleagues to do the same. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 21, Dash 1455.
Speaker 3: Please sit. Abarca. Clerk.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 3: Flynn.
Speaker 0: I. Herndon, i.
Speaker 3: Hi. Cashman. Kenny Ortega.
Speaker 1: Excuse me, i.
Speaker 6: Sandoval, i.
Speaker 3: Sawyer, i. Torres, I. Black I. Madam President.
Speaker 1: Hi, Madam Secretary. Please close the voting and announce the results.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 2000 Blake Street in Five Points.
Approves a map amendment to rezone property from PUD 329 and B-8 with waivers, UO-1, UO-2 to C-MX-8 (planned development to mixed-use, 8-stories), located at 2000 Blake Street in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 12-7-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_03212022_22-0160
|
Speaker 1: Hi, Madam Secretary. Please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 3: 13 Eyes.
Speaker 1: 13 Eyes Council Bill 21 Dash 1455 has passed. Thank you, Edson and the community members and development team that joined us here this evening. Our next rezoning. Councilman Clark, will you please put council bill 22, dash 160 on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 0: Council President I move that council bill 20 2-160 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you. It's been moved and seconded the required public hearing for Council Bill 20 2-1 60 is open. May we please have the staff report?
Speaker 8: Good evening again. This is anyone else with CPD before you today we have 3760 Jason and 3759 the street. It's currently a light industrial billboard use overlays non-district in the applicant is requesting you residential mixed use up to three stories. Um, so the site is located in Council District one in the Highland neighborhood. Um, and so the site consists of two parcels, approximately 8750 square feet. It's currently vacant and a four bay car wash. And the applicant's requesting is a urban residential mixed use, up to three stories, which allows for residential mixed use development, which would be commercial uses on the first floor and residential on above that. Um, so the existing zoning, like I mentioned, it's a light industrial use overlay, as you can see, to the north and to the west is in this industrial mixed use up to three stories. You do have some two unit directly to the south and the yellow as well as some to the north. And then industrial. To the west. To the east. The land is commercial retail and vacant. There's a lot of single unit, residential, office and industrial in close proximity to the site. And then on the top, right corner is an aerial view of the site looking south on 38. Likewise, on the bottom right corner is street level looking south on 38th of the carwash, on the top left corner, you can see the billboard and the car wash. And on the bottom left corner is some single family residential road on the 1 to 2 stories in close proximity, as you can see, directly south of the site. This went before the planning board on January 19th and was approved unanimously. It is before you today and it has received a letter of support from honey. Now in there are no they have a unanimous approval for this and then this specific map amendment, we will have to we base it based off the Denver zoning code review criteria, and we're looking at five review criteria. And the first one is to see with adaptive plans. And so for this specific site, we're looking at four plans, which is Comprehensive Plan 2040 Blueprint Denver of 2019, the Highland Neighborhood Plan in the 41st and Fox station area plan. So this specific map, I mean, it's consistent with several goes down in comprehensive plan as specified in the this for here under equitable affordable inclusive goes to a strategy a create a greater mix of housing and options in every neighborhood for all individuals and families. Environmentally resistant goal. Resilient goal. A strategy to promote infill development where infrastructure and services are already in place and environmentally resilient strategy. We encourage mixed use communities where residents can live, work and play in their own neighborhoods. Now looking at a blueprint anywhere within the future neighborhood context for this area, it's classified as urban. Within the urban neighborhood context, it's widely distributed throughout the city. Homes vary from a multi-unit development to compact single family houses, and then these areas offer access to neighborhood areas and commercial nodes with some small mixed use nodes within the neighborhood. Now within the future place type. This area is classified as order where primarily provides an option for dining and entertainment and shopping and may also include some residential employment uses with building heights generally up to three stories. 38th Avenue is a main street arterial with Inca and Jason Street as local streets. Within the growth area strategy. This area is classified as all areas of the city where we anticipate 20% of new household, new housing, as well as 10% of new employment within 2040. Now when we look at the highland highland neighbor hand Highland neighborhood plan of 1986 plan is intended to promote patterns of land use. Urban design as well as the overall vision for Highland is to create a stable, low density residential neighborhood, which offers a variety of housing opportunities. Um, specifically in this plan, it calls for a primary revitalization area within 38th Avenue from Federal Boulevard to Income Street. And some of that cost for the encourage re-use of vacant or abandoned commercial structures, as well as rezoning vacant industrial parcels back to residential for redevelopment and discourage further residential encroach. Industrial sorry, industrial encroachment. Now when we look at the 41st and Fox station area of L.A. 29, it's just outside of the quarter mile buffer. And this plan classifies this area as urban, residential, 2 to 8 stories here. And these areas are intended as new moderate density neighborhoods. Now for review criteria two and five, it's consistent as specified in the staff report for review criteria three, furthering the public health, safety and welfare. This is done by implementing the adopted plans as well as the building on standards for improved site and building designs that promote pedestrian interest and activity which is linked to improved built environment and improve safety and for justified circumstances. The applicant stated change changing conditions specifically in the neighborhood as well as the city adaptive time. Therefore, CPD recommends approval for approval based at all the findings and the review criteria have been met. And so staff is available for any questions you may have and as well as the applicant, Michael McCarthy is on line as well for any questions you may have.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you very much, Edson. This evening, we have one individual signed up to speak online. Jesse Perez. Go ahead, please, Jesse.
Speaker 2: That's the reason it starts to move. It's part of the vaccine command for social change as well as the part of your car. The East Denver Residents Council and from black knows now I'll be the next my number 2023. I'm against this rezoning tonight. I don't believe it's going to be good for the people of this neighborhood. I have a question and several questions. That's going to be the my level for the residential as proposed for the site. What is there a neighborhood agreement that's been put in place to guarantee there's going to be affordability for the site as a parking study done. Has there been a real study that someone can please answer those questions? I would really appreciate it. There's nothing I can say that's going to change your mind on this. It meets all five of the criteria, which is consistency with adopted plans. Uniformity of district regulations versus public health, safety and wellness. Justify circumstances. Inconsistency with neighborhood context. This purpose. And it's so. So I could please answer those questions. I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. That concludes our speakers questions for members of Council on Council Bill 22, Dash 160 Council Councilmember Sawyer.
Speaker 5: Thanks, Mr. President. This is Councilwoman Sandoval's district. So if she's got questions, she's welcome to go ahead of me.
Speaker 1: I don't have her in the queue. And so we'll bring her up first on comments. So go ahead.
Speaker 5: Okay, great. Just wanted to ask a question about the 1986 Highland Area plan. Is this part of the, uh, is that the West Area plan that it's happening right now? I'm just curious whether this is set to be updated sometime soon because I was eight when that plan was written.
Speaker 8: Correct? Yes. It is part of the Near Northwest area plan. Okay. We are looking at the site.
Speaker 5: Okay. Great. Thank you. Really appreciate that. Thanks, Madam President.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you. Councilmember Sawyer. Councilmember Flynn.
Speaker 4: Hey, Madam President. Edson, with the rezoning of these two parcels, that leaves one parcel. Let me get over to my map here. One parcel remaining at 3749 anchor just to the south of the other one that would still have the industrial, a zoning and sort of isolated. There was are you aware was there any attempt to include that parcel? It seems kind of odd to have an industrial parcel the size of a small home lot six 200 square feet zoned industrial in an otherwise not industrial area.
Speaker 8: That was probably better answered by the applicant. I believe they did try to reach out to that specific property owner, that applicant there. Maybe it can answer this.
Speaker 4: Okay. It just leaving a remnant zoning in in an area that has changed and it just seemed I'm not saying that that's that they should have done that or or should not have done that. I just wondering if they had done that. So. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 1: All right, great. We'll go ahead and get Michael McCartney moved in to the panelists. Okay. We've got Mr. Michael McCarty, one of the owners reps in the queue. And so, Mr. McCarty, did you hear Councilmember Flynn's question or would you like him to repose it?
Speaker 0: I heard it. Can you hear me okay?
Speaker 1: Yes, go ahead.
Speaker 0: Hi, Mike McCarty.
Speaker 4: I live in Englewood, Colorado.
Speaker 0: To answer your question.
Speaker 2: Yes, we did reach out to the neighbor to the south, and they they were not interested in combining or or rezoning at the time that we started this process.
Speaker 4: Thank you very much, Mr. Mack. And to the rest of the the rest of that block appears to be a two unit zoning. So I imagine we may see the other person at some future date. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Flynn. And seen no other questions from my colleagues on Council Bill 22, Dash 160. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 22, Dash 160. Council Member Sandoval.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Madam President. Although this parcel said and is called out the 41st and Fox station area plan, it is actually, as the crow flies, very easy to get to. But if you're walking in a pedestrian, absolutely challenging, which has left this parcel vacant and really, really hard to get to, it's a one way street. So even as if you use the car wash, you are required to use the alley. And it's very complicated. I agree with this rezoning. I think that this is a good use of the zone district to have required commercial at the bottom and have co-living space. A lot of times, especially during the pandemic, people have changed the way that they live. Where you work below and but you want to live up top. The property owner met with the community and myself several different times, probably like three different times to talk about the esthetics of the building materials and other things that aren't necessarily taken into a rezoning application but are very important to my community. And with that, I would ask that my colleagues support this rezoning in Highland. And yes, thank you for calling that out, Councilwoman. So this is part of the neighborhood plan which will be coming forward in the next couple of years. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Sandoval. And next up, we have Councilmember Flynn. Or was that a carryover from the last?
Speaker 4: That's a remnant.
Speaker 1: Okay. We got that remnant taken care of. I'll go ahead and chime in saying that this meets all of the rezoning criteria. I am happy to support it as well. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 22, Death 160.
Speaker 3: See the ball.
Speaker 6: I.
Speaker 5: Sawyer, I.
Speaker 3: Torres.
Speaker 5: I.
Speaker 3: Black I. See tobacco.
Speaker 0: Clark, I.
Speaker 3: Flynn.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 0: Herndon, I.
Speaker 3: Hines Cashman. All right. Kenny Ortega, I. Madam President, I.
Speaker 1: Madam Secretary, close voting and announce the results.
Speaker 3: 13 Eyes.
Speaker 1: 13 Eyes Council Bill 20 2-1 60 has passed. Thank you again, edson and community member who testified on that bill. Our pre adjournment announcement on Monday, April 18th, 2022. Council will hold the required public hearing on Council Bill 20 2-168 changing the zoning classification for 4116 Decatur Street in Sunnyside and a required public hearing on Council Bill
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 3759 North Inca Street and 3760 North Jason Street in Highland.
Approves a map amendment to rezone property from I-A, UO-2 to U-RX-3 (industrial to urban, residential mixed-use), located at 3759 Inca Street and 3760 Jason Street in Council District 1. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 2-8-22.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_03142022_22-0305
|
Speaker 2: They're moving on. We don't have anybody else in the queue. And so tonight there are no presentations, there are no communications. We have two proclamations being read this evening. Councilmember Ortega, will you please read Proclamation 20 2-0305?
Speaker 9: Thank you, Madam President. Proclamation number 22 305. Recognizing the essential service provided by RTD transit drivers in proclaiming March 18th as National Driver Appreciation Day, we're. Whereas RTD transit operators safely transport passengers to places and destinations they need to go, such as school work, health care. And. Whereas, RTD transit operators continued to provide front line essential services to our community during COVID 19 pandemic, often putting their own health and welfare at risk. Whereas transit operators are called on to demonstrate patience, empathy, humor and understanding to create a safe and welcoming environment. And we're as RTD transit operators travel 135,495 miles per day, over 143 fixed routes, including bus, rail, free mall ride and free metro ride. And we're as RTD transit operators contribute to a healthier environment because public transportation reduces the number of people driving single occupancy vehicles. And. WHEREAS, transit operators are an essential part of the city's efforts to reduce reliance on fossil fuels fuels and curb greenhouse gas emissions. And. Whereas, RTD bus drivers must drive a £28,000 vehicle in traffic conditions that are unforgiving to even cars to ensure customer and pedestrian safety. And. WHEREAS, RTD rail operators are trained with skills to operate millions of dollars worth of specialized equipment to ensure the safety of thousands of customers. And. Whereas, Transit Operators merit appreciation and respect on Transit Driver Appreciation Day and throughout the year. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Council of the City and County of Denver. That's number one, section one. The Denver City Council recognizes the hard work and commitment of RTD transit drivers. Section two The Denver City Council invites the public to recognize transit operators by thanking them on March 18. Section three that March 18, 2020 to be recognized as National Transit Driver Appreciation Day. Section four 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 transmit it to RTD and the Amalgamated Transit Union. Local 1001.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilmember Ortega. Your motion to adopt.
Speaker 9: I move for the adoption of Proclamation 20 20305.
Speaker 2: Thank you. It's been moved and seconded comments by members of Council. Councilmember Ortega.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Madam President. My office was contacted by a resident that lives in the Globeville neighborhood. Her name is Jenny Santos, and she had asked if I would be willing to bring this proclamation forward. And I know that during COVID, many of our drivers were those frontline workers who were expected to show up to work, and they were moving other workers in our city who were also expected to show up to work that are transit dependent and neither had access to facemasks. Many, many people struggle to have access to those in the early days. It was mostly our medical professionals who were able to get the N95 masks and they were putting themselves at risk during that time. I know a number of them were impacted with COVID as well, and I just want our bus drivers to know that your your work was seen and it was appreciated by all of us, and especially those people who relied on those busses to show up to their bus stop and get them to work when they were expected to show up to their job. So I hope that all of my colleagues will join me tonight in supporting this proclamation being adopted and that we can officially thank them for for the hard work that they do day in and day out, but especially during COVID. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilmember Ortega. Councilmember Flynn.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Madam President. I want to join Councilwoman Ortega in thanking our bus operators and light rail operators who work through the pandemic. Councilwoman is absolutely correct. Very difficult job under difficult circumstances during the pandemic. My older son is one of those frontline workers who had to rely on transit all through the pandemic and the shutdowns, where we were all trying to work from home and trying to find ways to accommodate these folks had to be out in the field. I just wanted to recognize not by name because I don't want to get him in trouble with RTD in case this was against the rules. But a few years ago, I was on my way to an event that you and I took light rail to the Evans Station and over the Route 21 and on the way back to the light rail station afterward, this fellow, he just loved his job so much. It was right after Valentine's Day, and he had two pictures of him and his wife at a Valentine's Day dinner the week before. And he had I'm looking at the picture here. He had taped them to the rail around the fare box and on the PA system. He not only announced every stop, but he announced what amenities could be reached by each stop. You know, where the coffee shops were, where the grocery stores were at each stop along the way and in between. He went on and on and on about how much he loved his wife and how much he loved his job. And and he also when we got to Evans Light Rail Station, he told us all about the event coming up later that week. That was the grand opening of the new right light rail line in Aurora, which was the our line was going to have the grand opening to work through such a difficult job where you have to come in sometimes at 430 in the morning or earlier, work half your day and then sit in the break room at the at the ops center, at the light rail center down on Malattie, and then go to work in the evening rush hour and only then go home and go to bed and get up again. These are very difficult jobs and they're very necessary jobs. And I want to express my support for all the members of EDU Local 1001 who work at RTD. And and I urge people they're looking for new operators, mechanics, light rail. If you're interested, check it out. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilmember Flynn. Councilmember Kinney.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Council President. And thank you to my colleague for bringing this forward. So many unsung heroes. We've talked a lot about grocery workers. And so I'm glad we're acknowledging the transit workers as well. I, too, is going to add a shout out to the Amalgamated Transit Union. We try not to use acronyms up here, but this union represents many of these drivers, not quite all of them. I know that. Smart Local nine. I believe I represent some of the train drivers, but together these unions and any others that I might have missed are really important because they help to represent the interests of the workers and to help the agency solve problems. Right now, labor unions are sitting at the table with employers trying to solve the driver shortage, thinking about ways to change the structure of the contract or the job. And that type of problem solving is really helpful for us in the public sector. And so thank you to the drivers who together make up those unions. Right. The union isn't something outside them. It's it's where the workers come together to have their problem solving and their voices heard. And so very grateful for all of those workers. And thank you for bringing this forward.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council Member Kenney each and I'll add my sincere thanks to our partners at RTD. Always going above and beyond the call of duty and very, very committed to their jobs. And Councilmember Flynn, it sounded like you got a little above and beyond the call of duty. And that's beautiful. It's wonderful to see that dedication. And and so. Madam Secretary, roll call, please.
Speaker 7: Ortega. I. Sandoval. I. Sawyer I. Torres High School. Black. I see tobacco I. Talk I. Flynn.
Speaker 8: I.
Speaker 1: Herndon, I.
Speaker 7: Cashman. Kenny, I. Madam President.
Speaker 2: I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 3: 12 Hours.
Speaker 2: 12 eyes Proclamation 20 2-305 has been adopted. We have 5 minutes for the Proclamation Acceptance Council member Ortega and we'll go ahead and start that. If you'd like to welcome up who's going to accept the proclamation?
Speaker 9: Thank you, Madam President. We are being joined by Michael Ford, who is our TV's chief operating officer, as well as Lance Logging Horn, who is the ETU Amalgamated Transit Union president. And if you all can come to the podium.
Speaker 2: Please go ahead with any remarks that you might have. We just ask that you pull the mic up so that we can hear you. Okay.
Speaker 1: Well, thank you.
Speaker 8: Everyone. The job does not typically get this kind of recognition. And I can tell you.
Speaker 1: I will share it.
Speaker 8: With each and every one of my members.
Speaker 1: I would also.
Speaker 8: Like to just point out that what we focus.
Speaker 1: On the operators, the.
Speaker 8: Happy faces most of the time at the front line. It's also very important to remember that we have mechanics and people who clean the bus. So it's really transit workers, we like to say, but we certainly appreciate the recognition. I'd also like to just mention you also pointed out there are some other unions. We have another.
Speaker 1: ATU union.
Speaker 8: And that 1772 does service for RTD as well. Thank you very much.
Speaker 7: Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 8: Thank you. I just would also want to acknowledge and thank you. And obviously, last as mentioned, there are a lot of other E2 employees as well that we'd like to just acknowledge as well. But we really appreciate the recognition. It's really important and they do a tremendous job. So thank you again for everything that you are standing for here today. Appreciate that.
Speaker 9: Thank you. And I would just ask that you not leave until after we read the next proclamation, because I have a copy of the same proclamation to give you. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 2: All right. Well, thank you very much. And again, we honor all of the transit workers who help make sure that folks can move around our city safely. Councilmember Ortega, will you go ahead and please read your second proclamation tonight?
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation Recognizing the essential service provided by the RTD Transit Drivers and Proclaiming March 18 National Driver Appreciation Day.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_03142022_22-0214
|
Speaker 2: No items have been called out under bills for final consideration. Council member CdeBaca has called out Bill 273 for a vote. Under pending, no items have been called out. Madam Secretary, please put the first item up on our screens. Thank you. Councilmember Sawyer, will you please put resolution 214 on the floor for adoption?
Speaker 4: I move.
Speaker 6: That council resolution 22 dash 0 to 1 four be.
Speaker 4: Adopted.
Speaker 2: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Comments and questions by members of Council on Resolution to 14. Councilmember Sawyer.
Speaker 6: Thanks, Madam President. Although this is not specifically an on call contract, which I always call out to vote no on, it is a contract where there are still negotiations happening between the different parties that are involved in the contract. So really appreciate them coming to committee to explain what was going on there. And you know, the contract negotiations between SMG and the theatrical production services team. But since this is a contract for up to $23 million and it's unclear how much of that could potentially be access, but the average spend amount is about $7 million. I feel like this falls into the same category as a number of the on call contracts that I call out because we don't have any reporting that tells us at the end of the day what is used, how much is used and for what. I think that I am I'm equally uncomfortable voting yes on this contract, so I'm going to go ahead and call it out to vote no. You know, the charter says that we as council members have a duty to oversee the budget and to oversee improved contracts over $500,000 and without the reporting requirements on the end of some of these open ended up to contracts. That's a little bit it can get a little sticky. And I feel like we are we're not necessarily, you know, following the money in the way that we should be. So I'm going to be a no vote. But, you know, I understand why everyone else supports it, and that's great. Thanks, Madam President.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilmember Sawyer. Councilmember Flynn.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Madam President. Tad, are you here to represent arts and venues?
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 8: Oh, the whole gang. Hail, hail. The gang's all here. Okay. Can someone come up and just briefly explain the relationship between the city SMG and and the Yahtzee Local seven and why we fund this and what what the purpose of this is? Because I'm concerned that if this were not to be approved, what would be the consequences?
Speaker 2: Just briefly and as you come up, we'll ask you to go ahead and introduce yourselves for the public record as well.
Speaker 1: I'm Mark, Company Director Performing Arts Complex. And your question, I think, gets to when we were in committee, we talked about why Local seven is not a union that is negotiated with the city, has to do with the CSA rules and things like that. So we have a third party that we enter into an agreement with and they negotiate on our behalf.
Speaker 8: Exactly. I recall when this came to the committee. The the rationale is that we do not have a collective bargaining agreement with the union. And this goes back to quite some time ago that we've been doing this. So SMG, which is our our vendor, our operator of these facilities, pays the members for the work that they do and. We pay for that work, but it has to go through SMG. That's correct. Okay then. So why $23 million?
Speaker 1: Yes, we have.
Speaker 8: Did you introduce yourself? Yes.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry. My name is Frank Del Monte. I'm the director of Finance of Arts and venues. $23 million. So we had put into the ordinance that we had been averaging about $7 million a year. That was before the pandemic. Activity has increased dramatically. We've added about ten weeks to the season. We're probably averaging now between nine and $10 million a year. We had two years left. The contract is going to be competitively bid this year going into 2023, and we'll consume that. So as we articulated, this is a pass through. We pay the stagehands, they're called for the events and it's negotiated through SMG.
Speaker 8: Thank you. So the understand, just for the folks who are listening on Channel eight or here in the room, the the $23 million is not fully spent unless $23 million worth of work is is performed.
Speaker 1: That is accurate.
Speaker 8: So it's a it's a pool of money from which we will pay. And right now, the balance in the contract is how much?
Speaker 1: About $1,000,000.
Speaker 8: So if this were not to be approved.
Speaker 1: We could not pay the stagehands and we couldn't hold the event. Okay.
Speaker 8: Thank you. And we also have here Brian Preston, who is the business agent for Yahtzee Local seven. And I spoke with him briefly in the hallway before the meeting, and I believe he had some input he wanted to give us on this. Madam President, sorry to invite him up to the mic.
Speaker 2: Sure.
Speaker 8: Go ahead. Thank you, Mr..
Speaker 2: Preston, yourself for the public record.
Speaker 1: Absolutely. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Good evening. My name is Bryant. I represent I stagehands under the collective bargaining agreement with F and g for councilwoman. Can each agency stand through International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees? We were organized in 1891, not 1908, as stated in the committee. But it's always difficult to bear witness to and far too common for us to be the topic of conversations we're not included of. So here we are. We know that COVID changed the face of our industry and funny looks to have been temporary, but we're still not back at full scale. We spent the pandemic being categorized as hospitality workers, not as entertainment workers, which left a lot of our members without that needed assistance during the time. As stagehands, we make a living not being seen. But if the last two years have taught us anything, it is the visibility matters. So here we are. We're here to speak today in favor of this amendment, so long as it represents the reality that truly includes us, as we haven't had a raise under this agreement in four years. So we view this as the first step, going to hopefully many to come in gaining equitable pay for our members.
Speaker 8: Thank you. That's all I have. Madam President. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. And thank you. Councilman Flynn. Councilmember Sawyer, we have you back up.
Speaker 6: Thanks, Madam President. I was in committee and so already had this discussion. This isn't a question of the contract itself. It's a question of the agencies of the city and county of Denver not reporting to city council on the money that they are using on open contracts. So just want to make sure that I clarify that obviously I support our workers and and obviously, as I said in committee, incredibly grateful to arts and venues and the entire team for doing what is an extraordinary job, keeping all of our arts and venues operations running even during COVID, when, you know, it was very unclear what was going to happen next. So really appreciate all of that. This no vote is not at all about that. It is about the lack of reporting structure from the agencies of the city and county of Denver.
Speaker 4: Thanks.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilmember Sawyer. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Resolution 22. Dash 214, please.
Speaker 7: Sawyer. No. Torres, I. Black I. CdeBaca, I.
Speaker 1: Clark, I. Flynn All right. Herndon, I.
Speaker 7: Cashman Kenny Ortega, I. Sandoval, I. Madam President, I.
Speaker 2: Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 7: When you have a nice.
Speaker 2: 11 eyes council resolution 22 dash to 14 has been adopted. Madam Secretary, would you please put the next item up on our screens? Council members say to Barca, Please go ahead with your questions on resolution 251.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Tenth Amendatory Agreement between the City and County of Denver and SMG by adding funds to provide continued scheduling and management services and administrative and payroll services for on call stagehands who provide theatrical production services in city venues.
Amends a contract with SMG by adding $23,000,000 for a new contract total of $86,000,000 to provide continued scheduling and management services and administrative and payroll services for on call stagehands who provide theatrical production services in city venues. No change to contract duration (CE93004-10/THTRS-202261807-10). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 4-4-2022. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 3-2-2022.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_03142022_22-0251
|
Speaker 2: 11 eyes council resolution 22 dash to 14 has been adopted. Madam Secretary, would you please put the next item up on our screens? Council members say to Barca, Please go ahead with your questions on resolution 251.
Speaker 4: Thank you. I saw host here. Can you let me know if this new development is in the H-2A area that has been recently in the news? Britta Fischer, executive director for the Department of Housing Stability. And this is a rental housing development. So it is not a member of the WHO. It is it in the metro district. Yeah. I'm not sure. When you say the Metro, are any of the metro districts. I would have to get back to you on that one. Okay. Is there a way for us to if we don't know if it's in the Metro District, do we? Have we ever built our affordable housing in a metro district and been able to. Avoid the tax increases that sometimes come when it's built out. When a metro district is built out in levying a higher tax. So if I understand your question correctly, you're asking, is affordable housing within a metro district able to avoid cost increases from metro district that it's within? Yes. I'd have to do some research on that. In particular, I don't know that it pertains to this particular contract, but we could certainly get back to you on that. How long is this project supposed to be affordable? Uh, I mean.
Speaker 3: Just check here.
Speaker 4: Rene, do you happen to know that? I want to ask my colleague, Rene Gallego to join me. She's the deputy director of housing and Opportunity.
Speaker 3: Good evening, counsel.
Speaker 4: We should verify this in going back, but I believe it's our typical affordability terms of 60 years. The covenant terms of 60 years. Okay. I'm I'm a little bit nervous just given the media around the HRA and the metro districts and how eventually the tax increases in the Metro District get passed on to even affordable housing payers . And so I'm curious about what we're doing to mitigate that. Obviously, we want affordable housing, but I would love to make sure that host has a plan when we're building in metro districts, given that that's becoming more common to make sure that we're not letting those people who are in those units suffer when that cost increases. So I'll support this. But I do want to raise that issue because it is becoming more and more of a hot topic nowadays. It seems like our metro districts wait a little while before they impose the higher taxes. And so now that some people are experiencing that, I want to make sure that we're also mitigating for that on our side. So if you guys could get back to me with that information and perhaps our plans to ensure that we always protect our affordable housing residents from those Metro District increases, that would be really helpful. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Next up, we've got Councilmember Flynn.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Madam President. I don't want to step on the toes of the council president because this is her district and I am in the exact opposite end of the city from it. But I believe that the Green Valley Ranch Metropolitan District, which has existed I think, since 1972, covers the entirety of Green Valley Ranch. Sorry, I.
Speaker 1: Can correct that.
Speaker 2: So we have more metro districts in District 11 than anywhere else in the city. And so we can certainly share a map out to councilmembers about the different metro districts. The issue that has been covered in the media lately is not necessarily related to a metro district. It's related to a homeowners association that is perhaps employed and paid for through some of those additional mills that come through the Metro District. But it's not the metro district that we're looking into. It's the practices of the homeowners association, right?
Speaker 8: Yes. Because I read those articles and it it's the way that is involved in the foreclosure, not the metro district. Correct. Brita, if you're still available, I don't know if you can answer this, but my recollection is that an affordable housing developer, typically that's in a metro district typically would negotiate some sort of what we call pilot . Another acronym for those playing acronym bingo payment in lieu of taxes as part of their development. Does that do we know if that's the case here?
Speaker 4: Thank you, Councilman, for your question. And I don't know what is in play on this one without some further research, so we'll have to get back to you. But you're correct. There are often agreements that would be in.
Speaker 8: All right. Thank you.
Speaker 6: All right.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Brita. And thank you, Councilmember Flynn. See no other questions. We'll go ahead and move on tonight. Madam Secretary, would you please put the next item up on our screens? Thank you, counsel. Pro Tem Torres, please go ahead with your questions on resolution 252, please.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Second Amendment and Modification Agreement between the City and County of Denver and OPG Green Valley Ranch Partners, LLC to increase the loan amount to support the construction of The Reserves at Green Valley Ranch, comprised of 144 affordable housing units located at 17800 Green Valley Ranch Boulevard.
Amends a loan agreement with OPG Green Valley Ranch Partners, LLC by adding $60,000 for a new cash flow loan total of $2,160,000 to address escalating construction costs at The Reserves at Green Valley Ranch, comprised of 144 affordable apartments units in Council District 11. No change to contract duration (HOST-202161347-02). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 4-4-22. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 3-2-22.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_03142022_22-0252
|
Speaker 2: Thank you, Brita. And thank you, Councilmember Flynn. See no other questions. We'll go ahead and move on tonight. Madam Secretary, would you please put the next item up on our screens? Thank you, counsel. Pro Tem Torres, please go ahead with your questions on resolution 252, please.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. Brenda, this might be for you as well. So this is the board pop up emergency shelter contract. So we had some recent email traffic that that seemed contradicting some saying we didn't have enough shelter beds available one evening host countering saying we did not to get into I think that back and forth but I want to understand what's the trigger for exercising this contract for Bayard to stand up emergency shelters and what would that look like on the community side? Council member Torres and British Fisher for a Department of Housing Stability. Your question, as I understand it, is what is it that triggers this particular contract? And it's basically it's basically a communication from our staff to the bad staff. So they have been recently activated a couple of times, but not to a rec center. They've been activated to help at a shelter that had overflow space so that we could have staff on hand should we need to use that capacity. And so they have been activated a couple of times. What activates that is our read of many different factors where we are at with capacity and also what we project for any weather event or any kind of severe weather as well. Anything that you would add? Okay. Do you determine the location of of the pop up location or it is bad we the city do. You do? Okay.
Speaker 7: Okay.
Speaker 4: I don't have any other questions. Thank you.
Speaker 2: All right. Thank you. Counsel Pro-Tem Torres. And we have Councilmember CdeBaca. You had called this out as well. Do you have additional questions? And then we'll go to Councilmembers Flynn and Quinn each. Go ahead, Councilwoman.
Speaker 4: Yes, similar questions building on us, determining where those go. Is it possible for us to activate these this contract or these contractors in rec centers? And in what cases would we do that? And also, how many people do we activate? Is it do we decide per activation how many folks and what does it entail? Is it 24 hours? There's several questions there, so I'll do my best to answer those and also give you a little bit of an it depends answer. So as far as could it be possible to activate in a rec center? Yes. And specifically called out as one of the possibilities as far as when that happens. Right now, what we prioritize is how can we keep people as supported as possible. And right now, most of our food and other services staffing is located within shelter locations. So if we are able to utilize adjacent overflow capacity space, that is one of our first steps because that is part it's close to food, transportation and that staffing and can be very helpful as far as I think. One of your other questions was about how many people are activated. That's really determined between the contractor and the city to look at what are our needs and what is their availability as well. And the length of time is at 24 hours or just based on per activation, depends on the specific factors of that activation. Got it. Well, I just wanted to highlight, we had run into some folks at Kala Madison the other day on one of our really cold nights. And one of the challenges that was highlighted by individuals who could not get into a shelter was that they had no transportation to get to the shelters that we have. And so I understand why we would do adjacent activations to, you know, save ourselves some of the trouble of moving elsewhere. But I would also love us to take into consideration those who cannot get to the shelters. We had to figure out how to transport a wheelchair. And that is a common occurrence. And so maybe if we are trying to identify locations, we should maybe look at like where people are are naturally hanging out or where we have some high camp, where we have high usage of transit lines and maybe figure out some kind of partnership with RTD to let these people be able to get on and get to shelter, because those are the reasons that people are telling us they need warming centers instead of shelters, especially after 8 p.m.. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilmember CdeBaca, Councilmember Kinney, we had you up. Are you good? Okay. All right. Thank you, Britta, for answering those questions and Angie Nelson for being here as well. We're going to go ahead and move on, Madam Secretary.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Amendatory Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Bayaud Enterprises, Inc. to fund the staffing of emergency stand-up shelters as needed.
Amends a contract with Bayaud Enterprises, Inc. by adding $590,000 for a new contract total of $990,000 to fund the staffing of emergency stand-up shelters as needed citywide. No change to contract duration (HOST-202261989-01). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 4-4-22. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 3-2-22.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_03142022_22-0273
|
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilmember CdeBaca, Councilmember Kinney, we had you up. Are you good? Okay. All right. Thank you, Britta, for answering those questions and Angie Nelson for being here as well. We're going to go ahead and move on, Madam Secretary. Please put the next item up on our screens. Thank you. Councilmember Sawyer, will you please put Bill 273 on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 6: I move that council bill 20 2-0273 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 2: Thank you. It's been moved and seconded. Comments or questions by members of Council on Council Bill 20 2-273 Council Member State Abarca.
Speaker 4: This one I would like to call out for a vote. I mentioned last week that I did not support repealing the auditors subpoena power. While this is in litigation, I do believe we should be waiting for the litigation to to go through or until we have an alternative that is better drafted and ready to approve simultaneously or prior to the repeal. So just going on the record as a no for this tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilmember Kinney.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Council president. I voted for this last week without comment. This week I just wanted to clarify. I had gotten some email traffic from constituents asking that we not pass this bill because it would harm those who have wage claims. And I wanted to make really clear to the community that our wage ordinances have significant leverage in them. For the auditor to be able to access records. They include penalties for not producing those records. They include daily fines in some cases and penalties. So there are a number of enforcement mechanisms for our minimum wage, our local minimum wage ordinance that already exists. I is a co-sponsor of the minimum wage bill. We looked at some of the best practices across the country in terms of enforcement, including things like allowing anonymous complaints where the auditor simply gets a tip that there is underpayment and then goes in and asks for the record, even if there's not an individual employee who feels safe enough complaining. So I don't want anyone to think that wage enforcement is going to stop if the subpoena power goes away. This was about where there is a dispute and wanting to find a less costly way of going to the courts for those wage dispute record requests. Typically, that's what a subpoena would be for. There is where someone is withholding the records. I will just state the state of Colorado also has.
Speaker 4: Access to wage records through state law.
Speaker 6: So there are just a number of safeguards here. And I did support the original subpoena power and believed it was helpful to have another tool for their small number of cases where it may apply. And there may be some conversation coming about a subpoena power just for those wage claims. But just to be clear, there are numerous legal powers, penalties, daily fines, etc., in place. Wage enforcement can and should will continue even in the absence of the subpoena power, which which really came after thousands of wage complaints had already been processed and had been successfully recovered for workers. So I want to make clear, to the credit of our auditing team, a wage Denver labor team, they recovered many, many wage claims before the subpoena power was put in place. And I expect them and to continue doing that. Hopefully we work ourselves out a business where everyone is up to date and paying the wages they're supposed to. That would be great news. But in the meantime, we have lots of tools. So I will be supporting this again tonight for the reasons stated by my colleagues last week, but wanted to clarify the record. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilmember Kinney. Councilmember Flynn.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Madam President. I am not willing to waste taxpayer money on fruitless and frivolous litigation. It's really unfortunate that we have to do this, that we have to throw the baby out with the bathwater. But repealing this ordinance that was passed last year because of the lawsuit that was filed is a necessary move to moot the lawsuit and start again. And to Councilwoman Kasich's point, we are drafting and we are bringing to Finance and Governance Committee next week a new bill that would address only the wage enforcement subpoena authority, which is the councilwoman noted, is little used if well hadn't been used yet. But there are plenty of other mechanisms in place as well. This is another tool that we all, I believe, wanted the auditor to have. This was not the controversial part of the ordinance that led to the auditor filing the suit. So next week at Fin Govt committee we will hear the new bill that would restore a subpoena power for wage enforcement, wage theft investigations, minimum wage, prevailing wage and take that under consideration. Then invite the auditor back to try to authentically engage on the more controversial aspect of performance and internal audits and subpoena power there, and how we can safeguard the security of of proprietary and confidential information. And with that, Madam President, I urge us all to. Take the final vote on this, repeal it and then start over and do it right this time. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilmember Flynn. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 22, Dash 273, please.
Speaker 4: CdeBaca No.
Speaker 7: Clark.
Speaker 1: I. Flynn, I.
Speaker 7: Herndon, I. Cashman I can eat. Ortega, I. Sandoval, I swear, I. Torres, I. Black eye. Madam President.
Speaker 2: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 7: One day, 11 eyes.
Speaker 2: 11 Eyes Council Bill 20 2-273 has passed. That concludes the items to be called out this evening. All other 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 the item for a separate vote. Councilmember Sawyer, will you please put the resolutions for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor?
Speaker 6: 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. All Series 20 202220227. Hold on. I got to scroll down here. 02570263024700780255025102520253022902480179.
Speaker 4: And that's it.
Speaker 2: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Sawyer. And it's been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 7: Black I. CdeBaca, I. Clerk.
Speaker 1: All right. Flynn All right.
Speaker 7: Herndon.
Speaker 1: Ah.
Speaker 7: Cashman. Kenny Ortega, I. Sandoval, I. Sawyer, I. Torres, I. Madam President, I.
Speaker 2: Madam Secretary. Close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 7: 12 eyes.
Speaker 2: 12 eyes. The 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 2-1116 changing the zoning classification for 900 North Monaco Street Parkway in Montclair and a required public hearing on Council Bill 20 2-125 Changing the
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance repealing certain sections of Chapter 20, Article XI of the Denver Revised Municipal Code regarding Auditor subpoena power and production of records in connection with performance of internal audits and investigations and enforcement of prevailing and minimum wage.
Repeals certain sections of Chapter 20, Article XI of the Denver Revised Municipal Code. Councilmember Gilmore approved direct filing this item on 3-3-22.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_03142022_22-0116
|
Speaker 2: 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 Sawyer Will you please put Council Bill 20 to dash 116 on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 4: I'm not going to do that.
Speaker 6: Based upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 2: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded the required public hearing for Council Bill 22, Dash 116 is open and we're going to go ahead and get the staff report here in just a moment. We're trying to get our. Podium computer set up so that we can go ahead and have our planners share the PowerPoint presentation.
Speaker 3: I'm going to text.
Speaker 2: And we'll go ahead and welcome Fran with us this evening. Go ahead, Fran.
Speaker 3: Good afternoon, members of City Council. My name is Frampton Ifill and I'm a city planner with Planning Services. And today we are going to look at the rezoning request for 900 North Street Parkway. The subject property is located in Council District five. In the Montclair neighborhood. The request is to return to a district that will allow you in the rear of the property. All other forms and standards will remain the same. The property is currently shown ESG and the request is to respond to ESG one which requires a minimum standard size of 99,000 square feet and allows for the touch to you in the rear of the property. The site is 10,000 square feet and the current land use for the site is single unit residential and it is totally surrounded by other residential uses. As shown on these photos. The character of the neighborhood is mostly residential and the subject property can be seen on the bottom left image of the slide. Throughout the rezoning process, application notifications have been provided according to code requirements. Planning Board recommended approval unanimously on January five, and to date, staff has not received any comment letters from Orange or from the public . Now moving on to the Denver zoning code review criteria, it must be found the requested MAP amendment is consistent with five criteria. The first criterion is consistency with adopted plans. There are three plans applicable to this rezoning. We have comprehensive plan 2040 loop in Denver and the East Area plan. A stated on 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 already in place. The subject properties mapped as part of the urban edge neighborhood context blueprint Denver. And the future places map designated as low residential place type displaced types have predominantly single and two unit uses and accessory dwelling units are appropriate. Monaco Street Parkway is designated as residential arterial street type, which are mostly characterized by residential uses. The growth area enveloping Denver is other 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 four focuses on diversifying housing choice through the expansion of accessory dwelling units throughout all residential areas. Now the East Area Plan adopted in 2020 updates the guidance in comprehensive plan 2040 and Blueprint Denver within the East Area Plan. The subject property is within the east. Within the urban edge neighborhood context. The proposed ESG one district will allow single unit development within and with an accessory dwelling unit in conformance with the urban edge neighborhood context. The East Area Plan designates the subject property as within the low residential single unit future place. The plan recommends this category in areas where single unit homes with accessory dwelling units are appropriate. Land use and build firm policy states that east area neighborhoods should inclusive, should be inclusive places and integrate missing middle housing and accessory dwelling units. The ESG one's own district allows for a single unit residential use with an additional dwelling unit accessory to the primary single unit use. Therefore, the proposed ESG one zone district is consistent with a low residential single unit. Place description. Stuff also finds that they requested signing 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 implementation of adopted plans. Justified circumstance for this rezoning is a city adapted plan since the approval of the existing ESG zone district. The city has adopted the comprehensive plan in Denver and the East Area Plan, a stated through this presentation. The proposed rezoning meets the intent of this plan's. Overall, the proposed rezoning is consistent with the urban edge neighborhood context, residential district and the ESU one zone district. With that stuff recommends approval based on finding or review. But the area has been.
Speaker 2: All right. Thank you very much, Fran. This evening, we have one speaker signed up, Mr. Hunt. And we have that. Mr. Hunt will be in chambers. Mr. Hunt. Okay. Looks like we don't have the speaker and we don't have anybody by that name on the zoom either. All right. Well, that we do not have any speakers for this public hearing. Then questions from members of Council on Council Bill 22, Dash 116. Seen no questions by members of council. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council. Bill 20 2-116. Council Member.
Speaker 6: Sawyer Thanks, Madam President. No comments except to say that this is the lack of speakers and the lack of response from the community is clearly the results of the East Area Plan Process, which was three years worth of community conversations about what neighbors wanted to see in the East Area Plan neighborhoods, Montclair being one of them. And so, you know, those conversations were had and the East Area plan is reflective of that. So I'm not surprised to see that there are no speakers here tonight and no feedback from the community. This is well within the discussions of what we had during the East Area planning process and I'm supportive of it. Thank you.
Speaker 2: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Sawyer and I agree it has met the requirements and happy to support this this evening. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 22, Dash 116.
Speaker 7: Sawyer, I. Torres. I black. I CdeBaca. Clark.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 7: Flynn.
Speaker 8: I.
Speaker 7: Herndon.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 7: Cashman. I can teach. I. Ortega. Sandoval, I. Madam President.
Speaker 2: I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced results.
Speaker 3: 11 Eyes.
Speaker 2: 11 Eyes Council Bill 20 2-1 16 has passed. Thank you, friend, for being here this evening. Councilmember Sawyer, would you please put council bill 20 2-1, two, five on the floor for final passage?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 900 North Monaco Street Parkway in Montclair.
Approves a map amendment to rezone property from E-SU-G to E-SU-G1 (allows for an accessory dwelling unit) located at 900 North Monaco Street Parkway in Council District 5. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 2-1-22.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_03142022_22-0125
|
Speaker 2: 11 Eyes Council Bill 20 2-1 16 has passed. Thank you, friend, for being here this evening. Councilmember Sawyer, would you please put council bill 20 2-1, two, five on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 6: I move that council bill 22 does zero 1 to 5 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 2: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded the required public hearing on Council Bill 20 2-125 is open and we have Brandon Shaver here for this is the staff report. Thank you for being here.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. And good evening, Council. I'm Brandon Shaver, senior city planner with CPD presenting an official map and application at 81, a one in 8351 East Bellevue Avenue. I requested to three zone 2smx8. This request is in Council District four at the far edge of our city in the Hampton South neighborhood, just at the northeast corner of South Ulster Street and East Bellevue Avenue. This is a larger site, just under 14 acres currently used for commercial retail. And the proposal here is to rezone to allow for a variety of building forms at a maximum building height of eight storeys or 110 feet. Existing zoning on these two parcels, as well as most of the surrounding area is B eight, with waivers with the adult use and billboard use overlays. Also further to the east, there's an open space zoning as well as some single unit. And then Arapahoe County of the city of remote villages directly south. So on the first side of 81 on one he's of the avenue has some waivers in a condition that were approved in 1988. These waive certain fabrication uses, waive the sale of goods and certain structures also provide a maximum of 2 to 1 and lock them into a condition of a site plan that was approved the time of the last rezoning for the other site, 8351 East Bellevue Avenue. These waivers were approved in 1978 and are very similar. Weaving fabrication uses the sale of goods and certain structures, waiving the gross floor area to 2 to 1. They are also waiving the right to erect structures in excess of two and a half stories and waiving the right to erect freestanding retail or strip retail shopping areas. As I mentioned, both of these sites are currently mapped with the use overlays. However, these are not wanting to be retained by the applicant. The first adult use overlay staff found that there is sufficient remaining land left in the city for folks to exercise their First Amendment rights and for the billboard use overlay again not to be retained and there are no existing billboards on the site. This is largely due to the Denver Tech Center Architectural Control Committee, which provides protective covenants independent of the city's land use regulations and particularly relevant to the site. They prohibit adult uses, prohibit billboards, and require a 40 foot minimum building setback along both South Ulster Street and East Bellevue Avenue. This site went through a large development review as it was larger than five acres and was found to have regional significance in the evolution of the tech center. This produced an older framework which outlines potential regulatory steps and the sequencing, as you can see on this slide. O. The R also requires a community information meeting that was led by the applicant team. This was held back in July of 2020 and we had more than 70 attendees. The applicant team presented their development plan and CPD staff was present to explain the regulatory processes, sequencing and present equity analysis. Overall, most of the comments received were positive and supportive of the project. Again with existing land use on the site is commercial retail. Some commercial retail also exist in the surrounding area as well as some office and multi-unit residential uses. Here are some photos to give you a sense of the building form and scale in the immediate area with the subject properties on the bottom left. In the bottom right. Moving to the design standard differences between the existing versus proposed zoning. The proposed zoning again would allow for a maximum height of eight storeys or 110 feet, would allow a variety of building forms and also introduces, build to and transparency requirements. There is also a proposed affordable housing agreement that has been executed prior to this meeting. This is a little complex, more than we see usually as it contemplates three options for the developer to choose from. Options B and C would result in more units are a D for affordability, more in line with the current expanding housing affordability proposal, which is under public review. This application was sent out for notice last July. Between now and then, they've worked on the infrastructure masterplan and negotiated the aforementioned housing agreement. This was the planning board on January 19th, where it was moved forward unanimously in favor. And to date we have not received any letters or comments from our nos or the public. Moving to the review criteria first being plan 2040. This request is consistent with the number of goals and objectives and strategies which organize by vision element. Moving to Blueprint. Denver This is also consistent with the suburban neighborhood context and the regional center feature place, which envisions a high mix of uses and larger scale buildings. It's also consistent with our future street types, as both East Bellevue Avenue and South Ulster Street are commercial arterials. This fits in to our regional centers growth area strategy, where we expect significant growth for the year 2040 to the amount of 50% of new jobs and 30% of new housing. Also consistent with a number of strategies here and Blueprint Denver, which speak to encouraging higher density at our regional centers, rezoning properties out of the old zoning code, and aligning our high density areas, high density residential areas and your regional centers. As part of this application through the sites we did a full in the equity analysis to consider this provides three equity concepts which I ran through briefly. I ran through these with the applicant at the Pre-Application phase and provided them with an equity brief and then they provided us with an equity response for staff review. Overall, the subject sites were pretty well on all these measures, but significantly lacking in the number of income restricted units. So first, with access to opportunity, the site has more than average access. The low access is only two. There is no access to a full service grocery store and staff finds that the processes would allow for a broader range of commercial uses, potentially being a grocery store or fresh food options. For vulnerability to displacement, this area, of course, is less vulnerable based on all of our metrics, except for the percent of renters. Therefore, staff finds that this rezoning would allow for additional increased residential densities and also provide an opportunity for housing for additional housing options, including for sale units if we can ever get those developed under city . So we also use supplemental data for vulnerability to displacement. This helps us better understand how neighborhoods and areas change over time. And again, while this area does square less vulnerable, some of the data points are included in the staff report and presentation that helped tell that story. So what I thought was interesting is that racial composition of this neighborhood is much less diverse than we see citywide. However, it is becoming more diverse by the city is becoming more white. Also our population over the age of 65. This neighborhood does have a greater proportion of residents that fall into that age category. It is increasing at a much faster rate than we see citywide. Also, when it comes to median household income, this part of the city does have a little bit higher above median household income, but these incomes are not increasing as quickly as we see citywide. This course is having moderate housing diversity. Again, I mentioned that we have zero income restricted units down here and it's also less diverse when it comes to bedroom counts. So staff found that this rezoning, in conjunction with the Affordable Housing Agreement, would allow for more housing, including affordable housing, and provide some two and three bedroom units for jobs. Diversity. Not surprising, since it is in the tech sector, these jobs skew more towards innovation categories and the rezoning would allow for additional retail jobs. But overall, no limited no impact on overall job diversity scores. So what do we get from the equity analysis? There are some guaranteed outcomes, those income restricted units and some three bedroom units. There are also some commitments that are still under discussion through the development of the infrastructure master plan. Those include an upgraded RTD bus stop, a better connected street network through the site, and an increased open space more so than we see in our user requirements. And there's also another need that came through the equity analysis, and that's the need for a grocery store and or fresh food options. This was also noted in the community information meeting and the applicant has been working diligently to make some kind of commitment to one of those options. This also meets the next two criteria as it would result in the uniform application of the Sun District building form, use and design regulations in the state and further public health, safety and welfare by facilitating increased housing density, air services, amenities and employment. The justifying circumstance of this rezoning is that the city adopted the Denver zoning code in 2010, but the property remained in former Chapter 59. Lastly, this is consistent with the suburban neighborhood context, the mixed use district purpose and intent statements for x eight. Therefore, CPD recommends approval of this application based on finding review criteria have been met. Thank you.
Speaker 2: All right. Thank you, Brandon. We have four individuals signed up to speak this evening. Our first speaker is Thomas Reagan. Eddie.
Speaker 0: Madam Chairman, two members of council. This is Tom Ragged Eddy, and I'm here to answer questions if they if subjects arise that require my comment.
Speaker 2: All right. Thank you. Our next speaker is Randy Frye.
Speaker 1: Yes. My name is Randy Frye. I'm with Shea Properties. I'm here to answer questions as the need arises.
Speaker 2: All right. Thank you. Our next speaker. Their last name is Mander. And Jerry. And I have that they're going to be in person. It doesn't seem that we have anybody here by that name. All right. We'll go ahead and move to our fourth speaker. Peter Culshaw.
Speaker 1: Good evening. I'm in person. Thank you for your time and consideration of our rezoning application tonight. I'm Peter Coles from the Executive Vice President with Shea Properties in Colorado. And we're joined virtually by everyone I can imagine that can answer any question as well as a workman who's been working on our outreach to the community, which has been extensive. I'm pleased to say that to my knowledge, we don't have any public opposition to this, which probably means I've just jinxed it, but hopefully not. I mean, Square is on the south edge of Denver. It was developed in 1979 and at the time was really cutting edge and very cool retail center. It was relevant. Now, a little like me, it's past its sell by date and we're looking for a new energy for that part of the Denver Tech Center. Our vision is for an exciting, vibrant, mixed use redevelopment, which will add energy to this area and the surrounding uses. We've worked extensively with city staff and it's been terrific to work with, work through the LDR, process the equity analysis and reach what I think is a innovative, affordable housing agreement with most redevelopment is intended to be in keeping with consistent with the city's applicable plans and studies. So again, I'll be brief as I can. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Speaker 2: All right. Thank you very much. That concludes our speakers questions from members of Council on Council Bill 22. Dash 125. Councilmember Ortega.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Madam President. I just wanted to ask Mr. Gulshan if you wouldn't mind coming back to the podium. On The Affordable. I know it gives three options, but do you know which of those three you would choose to partake in?
Speaker 1: We don't yet. Our intent and our desire would be to do the option which has the most affordable housing, which is the third option which is off site. Yeah, we've actually done a number of affordable projects in the metro area and this is something we have made a major commitment to do.
Speaker 9: You already have another site in which you would do that if you choose to.
Speaker 4: Go that route?
Speaker 1: We have some options. We have not kind of gone forward with them pending kind of thing.
Speaker 9: All in Denver. I'm just curious whether any of them are in the adjacent county next door and if they are, how that sort of applies to I see one of our staff from the host.
Speaker 1: I mean, everything we will do will be in the city and county of Denver. Okay. And we have done affordable housing in the adjacent counties. But what we would do is we would do it in Denver.
Speaker 9: I'd like to ask our host representative if we are if we allow any of our developers to build something on an.
Speaker 2: Adjacent.
Speaker 9: In adjacent county and count that towards Denver's on or do we mandate they have to do it in Denver?
Speaker 1: Brad wanted staff of Department of Housing Stability. I would love to compel affordable housing development in Greenwood Village in another county, but I, I don't have that ability. So we have the realm of our city boundaries to work to work with in to this wasn't a question you asked, but in the agreement for the off site satisfaction , the location has to be within the either hand in South or South Moore Park neighborhoods, partly because that's an area where we don't have hardly any affordable housing to speak of. There's a lot of opportunity down there, a lot of great access to schools, jobs, amenities. And it's a it's a there's a dearth of truly restricted affordable housing and into because there are the affordable housing development in their own right. And we were we were willing to work with them on an offset agreement that would generate 2 to 3 times more affordable units than the onsite component would traditional agreement. So this is one that was fun to work on and happy to support it.
Speaker 9: Great. Thank you. I have no further questions.
Speaker 2: All right. Thank you. Councilmember Ortega, Councilmember Flynn.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Madam President. Brandon, could you address a couple of points that I find a little confusing on Slide eight? There's a map of all the adult use overlays around the city. And then on map or map on slide nine, there's a reference to the Tex Center Architectural Control Committee. That looks like it's in conflict with the adult use overlay map. First of all, on the map, I'm kind of surprised to see a bunch of adult use overlays down in my neighborhood. I will address that at another hearing. But the entirety of what appears to be the tech center is covered with the red overlay, which is the adult use overlay. Yet on Slide nine, it says that the architectural control committee has protective covenants and then stresses relative to this site prohibits adult uses. So how do we have the adult use overlay over the text center? But they have an architectural control committee says you can't have them. Is that true?
Speaker 1: That's a great question and you are correct.
Speaker 8: Thank you. I ask only great questions. Thank you. Maybe would attorney Tom Ragan Eddie, be able to address that? How do we reconcile that? Because we have to have. You know, a certain.
Speaker 1: Acreage or acreage.
Speaker 8: To allow that. So how can we have the entire tech center with that use overlay? But we have a committee at the tech firm says we don't allow it. I don't know if Tom can.
Speaker 1: Maybe they can answer that.
Speaker 0: Councilor Flynn, I can answer that question if you'd like. You know, this is a it's a result of historic practice. The you know, the public regulation that the city enacts is wholly different than the private covenants that are.
Speaker 1: Applied by the developer.
Speaker 0: And have been applied by the developer, the.
Speaker 1: Tech center from the beginning.
Speaker 0: They control the private governance. You control the public regulation. And what the law says is the stricter controls. So where the city would permit adult amusements and activities and an overlay, if the covenants, the private covenants which are imposed by the tax center on their property, prohibit those. Then the law would enforce that regulation.
Speaker 1: Because of the stricter.
Speaker 8: Good time. It is that the city's point of view as well?
Speaker 5: Yeah. Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Good afternoon. Good evening. Members of Council, Neighborhood Services and city attorney. I do agree with Mr. Reagan that as far as enforcing the stricter regulations in this case, it would be up to the tech center to enforce those. You are correct as well, Councilman Flynn, in that we have to, as a city, provide reasonable alternatives of communication for for that type of speech. And at this point in time, there still exists you will one throughout portions of the city.
Speaker 8: Thank you. Speech. The adult. The adult uses her speech.
Speaker 1: What did I say?
Speaker 8: I guess that's true. It's. It's free speech. I, I just I'm not familiar with the how many words are actually spoken in those establishments, but. Thank you, Brandon. Other requirements and maybe Tom. Mr. Magneti, you could address this also under requirements in the architectural control committee beyond the ones that we've addressed in the presentation that might have an impact on this rezoning.
Speaker 1: Also a good question. Maybe. Yeah, maybe. Mr. Haggerty or somebody else on the applicant team is better aware of other protective covenants other than the city might have on this property that I didn't look at for the zoning section, perhaps.
Speaker 8: Okay. And Brandon, I noticed I noted that there are two properties in this application and that one of them was the original rezoning or zoning was in 1978, I think, and the other was 1988. And in one of them in the presentation you said, Let me see if I can get to the right one, that one of the one of the waivers was waiving the amount of gross floor area to be greater not to be greater than two times the area of the zone lot, which implies that you could have a structure taller than two and a half storeys that's different than the one in 1978 that waived the gross floor area not greater than two times. But it also had a waiver of the right to erect structures in excess of two and a half storeys. So on the larger parcel, could there have been a taller structure because you have the the two times air, but with a smaller footprint you could go up four or five storeys.
Speaker 1: That's a good distinction. And you were correct. There could have been a structure.
Speaker 8: They were different waivers. Thank you. All right. It doesn't matter since we're getting rid of both of them, I imagine. But I appreciate it. Thank you, Madam President. That's all I have.
Speaker 2: All right. Thank you. Councilmember Flynn, did you want to hear from Mr. Reagan?
Speaker 8: If he if he had anything to add on whether there are other regulations of the architectural control committee that have implication or application to these two parcels?
Speaker 2: Okay, great. I know our producers had him in the queue.
Speaker 0: Councilman Flynn, I'm not aware of any.
Speaker 8: Thank you, madam.
Speaker 2: All right. Thank you, Mr. Reagan and Councilman Flynn, Councilmember Kenney.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Council President. I had a question for Brad Weinberg. First, I want to thank the team. I think we talked before you filed as you were exploring. If I recall correctly, that, you know, thinking about the site and housing options. I'm a little surprised to see the increased number of units at the lower a am I. That's unusual. And it tells me that they're unlikely to choose that option. And I see that it has a higher number of two bedrooms. So anyway, it's a higher standard and that's the opposite of what we usually do. So I just I'm trying to figure out is, is this kind of a red herring? It's in here to look like maybe we'll do 60, but we really won't because why would you do a higher percentage at a lower AMI with more two bedrooms? It's just it's an unusual option.
Speaker 1: On the surface. Councilwoman, I would agree with you again, Brad Winick with the Department of Housing Stability. Both of the stand alone onsite and the offsite options would require the support of low income housing tax credits through traffic through Chaput. So we wanted to support them in creating a life tech opportunity in these neighborhoods, if they could. We need the first option as a fallback plan in case they are unable to achieve an allocation of of taxes and bonds or low income housing tax credits to support those options.
Speaker 6: We went right to my next question, which was they're also unusual percentages without particularly see without a subsidy. And so how does it you know, I guess I'm a little again, tax credit projects would be a much higher percentage of units. Right? They would probably be 100% affordable, maybe not all at this exact, am I? But we don't do a lot of you can't tax credit one fifth of a building or one third of a building, in my experience, maybe some 4% crazy thing. But anyway, it's. They're. They. Again. Why wouldn't we just say try for a tax credit project on site with a minimum of 50 units or try for a tax credit project offsite? And if those are unsuccessful, then move to the fallback. Why make them such small percentages? Because the tax credit project would not be 12 percentage of units.
Speaker 1: I guess we could have gone about the that that way. But the percentage is relates to the number of market rate units on the subject property. And so if they end up building 500 unrestricted market rate units on the property, they're in the process of trying to rezone. They would need to come up with if it was 20%, 100 units offsite. So they wanted to allow themselves some flexibility in terms of the size and scale of the offsite development. Depending on the parcel, they were able to identify the the low tech program for which they would apply. That might be the best fit.
Speaker 6: Got you. Okay. So I misreading the slide. I want to say it back to you. It's not a standalone option where 12% of the units in the building are affordable. It's a standalone option that represents 12% of the units on the site. Correct. The slide does not communicate that, but that.
Speaker 1: Just because all this went into one slide. Brandon.
Speaker 6: Right. Right. I know. I know. You guys get your less real estate. Okay. That clarifies for me. The other question I want to ask is, what does the agreement say about what skin in the game comes from developers? So this is all about the idea that, you know, it's a way of exchanging height for affordability. I mean, that's the fancy way that these agreements work, right? So you're getting some additional entitlement, you're doing some affordable, but generally speaking, you're doing that without subsidy. If you go with option two or three, you've got, you know, federal tax credit subsidy, potentially gap money from the city. What's the equity in terms of the developer? Does it limit the gap financing from the city? Does it require the land to be provided to the project for free? How is it that we're not completely taking the obligation off of the developer and moving it to the public side if we go with option two or three?
Speaker 1: So with either of the options two or three, if they were to also accept funding from host for a gap financing, we have the right to negotiate for more and deeper affordability as part of that development. But if otherwise, if they're able to proceed successfully with a Chapa ward, we're we're okay with the outcome because the outcome produces an order of magnitude but 2 to 3 times more affordable units at a deeper affordability and what we would be able to negotiate via an integrated option on site. And so and we also are requiring that in order for them to pursue those options, they have to, for example, the off site option. They have to show evidence that they own a parcel that is sufficient to meet the needs and record a covenant against it before they're able to pull permit on the the subject property we're discussing this evening.
Speaker 6: Yeah. And I think that's tricky. Very few projects are able to satisfy the city attorney's offices timeline requirements. So I, I support creative solutions and off site, we did this at the Globeville area, you know, with, with the recent agreement there. And in that case, they avoided that issue by just doing a transfer of cash so they didn't have to time all of the transactions properly. Let me share my concern with you, and then you can tell me again what the agreement says, because I'm not sure if the agreement addresses my concern. My concern is the city of Denver get something like maybe 3 to 5 tax credit allocations a year period. We probably have a dozen projects that could use them, which means that when you get it. So I want two things. When I'm looking at an affordable housing agreement on a big redevelopment site, the first thing I'm looking at is, is the city getting mixed income community, right? Is there a mix of housing happening at the site or is it all just, you know, upper income? And and so any housing on the site, no matter who pays for it, no matter how it happens, is, is is achieving that mixed income goal. The second thing I'm looking for is that I want to see a net additional number of units than I would have seen otherwise. Right. I want to grow the pie of housing if I just move a tax credit project from some other half acre site with the developer who's applied it and instead I move it here. The city is not actually getting more affordable use units because we only have 3 to 5 tax credit projects. So I can move the pieces around the board, but I'm not actually getting more units. So here's my concern. I have never supported an agreement that gave a development credit for a tax credit projects unless there was a way that their actual contribution ensured that the city was getting more units than we would have gotten overall, i.e. the land is free. They don't get any gap financing. Somehow they are paying for that housing in the same way that they would have if they did an option. A for example, if they do option A, the development is subsidizing housing, right? It's doing it through, you know, spreading the cost throughout your entire proforma. If you do option B and C and you're simply financing it with tax credits, and if you come to the city for get financing, but even if you don't, let's say you're just using all public sources, but you've.
Speaker 4: Charged.
Speaker 6: An affordable developer or a different LLC within your company for the land, you know what I'm saying? So I guess you've got to share with me, Brad, how does the agreement ensure that this development is subsidizing the cost of B or C to the tune where I'm not just moving a project that might have been elsewhere onto this site and the city's not actually growing the net supply of housing.
Speaker 1: Our team too. And then if the team from Shea wants to to year for them as well but. In order that the B or C would not happen, you know, but for it. Right. I mean, so it's it's again, I think given that the need and the lack of affordable housing in this area, normally I want the same. You want council woman. I want mixed income opportunities throughout the city. That's why we're working on the city wide policies we're working on. But in this case and in this location, there are so few deeply affordable units and yet so many offices and retail establishments that employ and pay salaries that for for folks who would qualify to live in more deeply affordable units. We're getting 2 to 3 times the number of units via A, B and C and at a meaningfully lower level of am I right in terms of what the tax credit program can provide versus what can reasonably be integrated into a market rate development. And so that's why we're willing to. To negotiate this off site agreement opportunities and options for this development, and also because they have a track record of successfully developed developing properties. And so they have a like a better or higher likelihood of being successful in the Tampa process, given their experience.
Speaker 6: Would you guys like to speak to it? And then I'll just I'll ask you a follow up question, Brad. So don't go far, but happy to hear if you have something that I mean.
Speaker 1: Maybe clarify how we've been doing our other deals. And that has been we've been either acquiring or contributing the land so that that's how we've been putting these deals together. And the second part is that we've been trying to do more scalable projects. It allows the staffing to be more cost effective. You can staff it more appropriately. And so the genesis was maybe bigger than it sounds, but it was it was our intent would be to go and buy a piece of ground and contribute it and make it happen that way.
Speaker 6: When you say contribute, you mean provide at no cost.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 6: Okay. Brad, does the go ahead?
Speaker 1: Well, a lot of the time we've been putting it in as a tail subordinate bond so that if there is any cash flow, we can we can get a little benefit. But that's the intent.
Speaker 6: Got it. So I just want to clarify, Brad, does the agreement require that?
Speaker 1: It does not speak directly to that now.
Speaker 6: So and I just want to ask really very clearly if this development. Got 100% subsidy for 60% of my units and option two or three. And they didn't provide free land, but they got money from chaff. They got money from the state. And our agreement would allow them to get credit even without any cash contribution or land contribution to the project.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 6: That's problematic for me. I appreciate your intent. Our agreement should reflect that. It should reflect the fact that this is. You know, I had the same conversation Councilman Flynn may remember with Loretto Heights when that was being negotiated. It's not enough to say that we're supportive of a tax credit project happening, and we'll introduce the people who own the land to the people who are going to buy the land. And then it all happens. You know, this is about the development participating. And so it concerns me that we didn't negotiate that that that level of protection from the entire project being publicly subsidized. That's that's what concerns me.
Speaker 4: I'm very hearing.
Speaker 6: You very clearly about the benefit of having a tax credit project in this part of town. So I'm willing to think about it for a minute. But I just this isn't you know, that's not what other other developments that are negotiating agreements with the city, generally speaking, are covering the cost of the housing. They're not just going to the public sector for the same am-I. If you said to me they can only get credit if they do additional lower emissions than I'd be with you. But you're telling me they could completely publicly subsidize this? Am I? And that's the part that I'm struggling with. So I'll let it sit there. I'll consider the other criteria that, you know, have been discussed in terms of the plan, criteria, etc.. But I'm struggling a little bit. Thanks. Yeah.
Speaker 2: All right. Thank you. Councilmember Canete.
Speaker 3: Councilmember Ortega read a little bit more.
Speaker 9: Don't go too far, Brad.
Speaker 1: Know.
Speaker 9: So what is host's expectation in terms of the timing of when the affordable units get built versus when the project that's before us tonight gets to move forward?
Speaker 1: Sure. So as I mentioned, again, red wine and Department of Housing Stability, as I mentioned earlier. Right. They they need to evidence that they have ownership and record a restriction against an off site property before they were able to proceed with the development on this property. And then if they are unsuccessful in delivering or starting the start of the development process for the affordable units within three years of starting here, then it reverts back to onsite integrated option one and they would have to immediately record a covenant on the 81 one and neighboring property and then work to integrate the onsite affordability into that so that if either through no fault of their own or some other externality, they're unable to get tax credits or bonds to finance it. Then we still have the ability to ensure that there is affordability as part of this development.
Speaker 9: What's the trigger for when the three year starts? Is it within three years from when the project is completed? Is it three years from when this process tonight happens?
Speaker 1: I believe I believe it is from permitting for the for the first phase at the subject property. But I have the agreement on my computer and can come back up if I'm wrong.
Speaker 9: Okay. And then one last question for the developer. Is this intended to be a for sale project or a rental project?
Speaker 1: It's it's all rental.
Speaker 9: Rental market.
Speaker 4: Rate, rental.
Speaker 1: Market rate rental. Okay. Well, it's going to be a mixed use, so there'll be retail, uh, multifamily and then office. Right.
Speaker 7: Okay.
Speaker 9: So I guess part of my question or concern is that if, if it gets all leased up and it gets built before the affordable is ah. Done, you know. It's like when we did Stapleton, we made sure that the Affordable Is were tied to as development was occurring so that we didn't push it all back to the end and never see it get done. And so that's part of why I'm wanting to make sure we have some clear understanding of when when this affordability of housing comes online so that it's not something that never happens.
Speaker 1: We would write the leases on the market rate with the provision to allow for this. We wouldn't want to be caught by not being able to fulfill the affordable portion of the agreement.
Speaker 9: So you're saying you would reserve some units within yours if the if trying to do this off site does not work out? Is that what I'm hearing? Yeah. Okay. I just want to briefly. Fahad, you want to finish off?
Speaker 1: We knew we weren't going to be able to fulfill options two and three. We would reserve the units within the homes, within the market rate development.
Speaker 9: And what what's going to determine whether you will know that is that whether somebody is able to secure the low income tax credits, because we know that's critical to a project being able to write down the cost to provide it at a lower EMI level.
Speaker 1: I think it's a mixture of things. I think it's bond allocation, it's tax credits, and it's also securing the right piece of ground to do it on with the right approvals. So there's a bunch of moving parts. We have done a number of these.
Speaker 9: And in is that timing spelled out in the agreement?
Speaker 1: It is, councilwoman. So for the offside they would have to construct and market all of the income restricted units within three years of the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for a residence, a residential building on this property. But keep in mind too, so if within three years are unsuccessful, one, they have to integrate back to the onsite integrated option upon lease renewals within their property. Right. And so as leases turn, they would have to kind of revert to the 10% and 80% requirement on site and there would still be a property granted underneath their control, but it would have a recorded covenant against it that would require affordable housing on the offsite location. And so even though that the timing may not work out perfectly in that instance, we're getting some on site and we still have another property that has a recorded a covenant against that to ensure affordability also in the future
Speaker 9: . So just to be clear, Brad. The Certificate of occupancy on.
Speaker 7: You said.
Speaker 9: Within the first round of the certificate of occupancy.
Speaker 1: For the first residential building on this.
Speaker 9: That was my point. So it could not apply to the commercial. It's only the housing.
Speaker 1: Piece that the commercial components will be. We'll pay linkage fee.
Speaker 7: Got it. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 2: All right. Thank you, Brad. And thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilmember Black.
Speaker 4: Thank you. I just have a couple of questions for one of our city attorneys, maybe Nate. Nate Lucero, I. I have a question. We're talking about the affordable housing agreement. And can you just remind us, is that one of the things we should consider when we are evaluating the criteria for this rezoning?
Speaker 5: So I know that there are changes coming down the pike with respect to affordable housing. And and so moving forward is going to be required not only in the inclusionary housing housing ordinance or whatever we're going to call that from now on and part of zoning. But right now, affordable housing is something that is separate from from zoning, and it's not necessarily part of.
Speaker 1: The review.
Speaker 5: Criteria. However, we do have statements in our plans, our comprehensive plan blueprint Denver that that ask that developers in the city consider affordable housing when rezoning.
Speaker 4: Okay. Thank you. And then, Peter, I have a question for you. The property you're hoping to purchase, Brad mentioned it needed to be in that statistical neighborhood or the south, more statistical neighborhood, which are both in the Denver Tech Center. So I just wanted to clarify that those were the neighborhoods. And have you all started looking at possible properties in those areas?
Speaker 1: Yes. We're obviously very familiar with all the properties that are available so that we have actually had preliminary conversations. But pending tonight's outcome, we we have not taken it beyond that.
Speaker 4: Okay. And can you tell people on the council who may not be familiar with this part of town, just sort of about the character of this part of town and the Denver Tech Center? And it's not it's not really a it's a it's more of a commercial suburban area and not a residential suburban area. I'll let you describe it. There's a lot of tall buildings and there's at the Bellevue Light Rail Station is there. That goes up to 20 stories.
Speaker 1: Yeah, basically, the north part of the tech center really started out as an office park. It was pretty much all office buildings. We've been guilty of developing some of those. Over time, it's morphed into a little more mixed use with more residential. But it's really predominantly a business park with with multifamily. There are some condos before we had construction defect litigation which got built. But it's, it's, it's a true mixed use business park in that sense.
Speaker 7: Yeah. Thank you.
Speaker 2: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Black Councilmember Kinney.
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 6: You might have said this, Peter, in your presentation or prior, but are you all master developing and anticipate having separate vertical developers? Are you self developing? And just refresh me again on the size of the parcel and the scale that we're talking about in terms of the residential potential, I know that it's early and phased out all those caveats, but if you can just refresh me, please.
Speaker 1: Sure. It's 13.8 acres. Um, it currently we're thinking that it would be between. And I'm going to give a range 4 to 500 multifamily units. About 50,000 feet of kind of high end service retail and then an office building probably will round it out with another 100 to 120000 square feet. So I don't know if that answers the question where we are. We will be the developers of all of those portions. We actually develop all of those products and we hold for the long term. Typically, we don't sell, so we're taking a very long term view to how this is developed. We obviously buy and sell affordable as well. So I don't know if the answer to your question.
Speaker 6: Yeah, I think so. Brad, I have just one more question for you about the accompanying agreement, which I understand is separate. And we are not voting on the content of it today, but it is, of course, you know, connected to the equity criteria that the staff were analyzing. Does the agreement contemplate any freezing or committing on the linkage fees, or is it just that you will pay the applicable linkage fee at the moment that the commercial development is created.
Speaker 1: Is the latter.
Speaker 6: So they're not guaranteed at today's linkage fee rates, whatever the fee is when they build the commercial, is what they will pay.
Speaker 1: I don't believe something. It's not written into the agreement, but I'm trying to think through the. All right.
Speaker 6: If the agreement silent on it, then presumably they would pay whatever it is when they pulled the building permit. I think. Right. Building permit is the time for linkage fee. Okay. All right. Thank you. No other questions.
Speaker 2: Okay. All right. Thank you, Councilmember Canete. And thank you, Brad, for answering those questions. The public hearing has closed comments by members of Council on Council Bill 20 2-125. Councilmember Black.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. Thank you all for being down here tonight. Brandon, I did want to thank you for speaking really quickly during your presentation. We appreciate that. And I asked Peter about describing the character of this part of town. And it is a lot of office buildings and a lot of surface parking lots. And we are starting to see infill of housing, which is much needed. And it's an area that I said earlier is near the Bellevue Light Rail station and there's a lot of employment down there. And so it's much needed that this development that they're talking about is called Marina Landing, which is a very funny name for the Denver Tech Center that does not have a marina. Um, but I do remember when it was built, I was in high school and it was very cool. But if you look at it, it is one story. There is no density surrounded by parking. It's very car oriented and it is exactly what we don't want in Denver and we don't want in this part of town. And as Peter commented earlier, it will be mixed use and it's all uses that people were interested in. And when we had the public meeting with for the large development review, that's what we heard from people that they would like it to be mixed use. And one thing we did not hear from community members was opposition. There was no opposition whatsoever. Um, I will be supporting this. It meets all of the criteria. I think the affordable housing agreement is creative. I know that this developer has a very good reputation for doing what they say they're going to do, and they do have experience in building affordable housing. So I encourage my fellow council members to support this, and we will contribute to our overall housing stock in Denver, including adding housing units that are affordable. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilmember Black Councilmember Kinney.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Council President, I appreciate the staff presentation and the the criteria that were laid out I to celebrate the I know Councilwoman Black has worked to bring more urban format and walkable development to the district. And I recognize that this represents all of that. I, I wouldn't be able to support this on the equity piece and the conformance with plans. Unless I knew that there was another vote coming from this council, if there was an affordable housing agreement. And I just want to explain what that means. This council gets to vote on all contracts over $500,000. I have not seen a tax credit project with 60% of my housing that didn't need that much or more money from the city of Denver to come together. And so what I think that means is that this council gets another vote. If we go with option, if this developer's able to identify land and put together a tax credit project, they will be coming before this council with a request for gap financing of some level. And at that point I will not vote for it. If the land wasn't free and if there wasn't adequate financial contribution from this developer, it may come when I'm off this council. So I say this to my colleagues. I do not support any financing for a tax credit project if the commitments made today are not brought forward. So that, I think, is the chance we have to correct what was not fully negotiated in the agreement, simply because I think that's how the economics will work. Right. If you're able to do a 60% my tax credit project with no gap money from the city, well, then with and with none of your own money, I guess you'll be creative enough that I'll just congratulate you. If the state puts in that much money or some other entity puts in that much money and you don't need our money. So I feel like what we have is a backstop to make sure that the adequate amount of investment from the project is part of making it happen . And so I hear the point and especially, you know, given the the dearth of of this housing in this part of town, I feel like I'm weighing the risk of, you know, the financial exposure question versus the benefit of getting a tax credit project in this part of town. And it seems worth it to me. So. So with that, I feel like I'm comfortable that the plan criteria of, you know, getting to the equity outcomes and ensuring a mix of housing is is met. And I'll ask everyone to keep an eye on it with me, if you wouldn't mind. That's just my plea to my colleagues, but I will be supporting it based on those criteria. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilmember. Each and I'll go ahead and chime in. Since we don't have any other speakers, I appreciate Brandon and Brad for their answers tonight. I'm constantly asking Brad, why do we get all of the affordable housing in D11 and different communities? And we don't see it around the city. And so I appreciate the work that's been done on this and definitely take that cautionary tale. Councilwoman can reach that. We need to keep close eyes on this and make sure we get everything that has been proposed and more if possible, when the time is right. And so I will be happy to support this tonight as well. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 20 2-1, two, five, please.
Speaker 7: Black I.
Speaker 3: Clarke.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 3: Flynn.
Speaker 8: I.
Speaker 7: Herndon, i. Cashman. Kenny Ortega, I. Sandoval. Hi. Sawyer, I. Torres. Hi, Madam President. Hi.
Speaker 2: Madam Secretary. Please close the voting and announce the results. 11 911 IES Council Bill 20 2-125 has passed. Thank you to the speakers and the staff for the presentation. Our pre adjournment announcement on Monday, April 11th Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 22, Dash 209 changing the zoning classification for 3455 North Birch Street
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 8101 & 8351 East Belleview Avenue in Hampden South.
Approves a map amendment to rezone property from B-8 with waivers and conditions, UO-1, UO-2 & B-8 with waivers, UO-1, UO-2 to S-MX-8 (former chapter 59 zoning to suburban, mixed-use), located at 8101 & 8351 E Belleview Ave in Council District 4. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 2-1-22.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_03072022_22-0171
|
Speaker 1: Council Member State Abarca has called out Bill 273 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 up on our screens for us. Thank you. Councilmember Herndon, will you please put resolutions 171 through 178 on the floor for adoption?
Speaker 0: Yes, Madam President, I move the Council resolution 01710172017301740175017601770178. Be adopted in a block.
Speaker 1: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Comments and questions by members of Council on Resolutions 171 through 178. Councilmember Sawyer.
Speaker 6: Thanks, Madam President. I just want to. I see Carolina. I can't see you behind the there's a screen in the way of us wanted to thank the airport for taking these contracts to committee and also to making changes to your reporting structure. I am really looking forward to those coming through so that I don't have to keep voting no on these uncalled contracts that we we keep seeing. So thank you very much to all the airport staff for coming and doing that and making those requested changes. And I hope that the other city agencies follow Daddy and the airport's leads in creating reporting structures for their on call contracts as well. Thanks.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Sawyer. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Resolutions 22, dash 171172173174175176177 and 178, please.
Speaker 3: Sawyer.
Speaker 6: No.
Speaker 3: Torres. I see. Tobacco, I. Flynn.
Speaker 5: I.
Speaker 3: Herndon, I. Hide. All right. Cashman. Kenny Ortega, I. Sandoval, I. Madam President.
Speaker 1: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results one day.
Speaker 3: Ten Eyes.
Speaker 1: Ten Eyes Council Resolutions 22, dash 171 through 22. Dash 178 have been adopted. Madam Secretary, please put the next item up on our screens. Thank you. Councilmember Flynn. Please go ahead with your comments on resolution two, two, two.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Contract between the City and County of Denver and HDR, Inc. concerning architectural and engineering and other professional services on an as-needed task basis at Denver International Airport.
Approves a contract with HDR, Inc. for $4,500,000 and 3 years, with two possible 1 year extensions, to provide on call architectural and engineering and other professional services on an as-needed task basis at Denver International Airport in Council District 11 (202056892). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 3-29-22. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 2-23-22.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_03072022_22-0222
|
Speaker 1: Ten Eyes Council Resolutions 22, dash 171 through 22. Dash 178 have been adopted. Madam Secretary, please put the next item up on our screens. Thank you. Councilmember Flynn. Please go ahead with your comments on resolution two, two, two.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam President. I have called this out for a one week postponement. Under our Rule 3.7 to next week's meeting on March 14th of the title of the resolution was inadvertently printed incorrectly on our agenda. Its correct on the resolution itself. It's correct on all prior agendas. But Madam President, for just inadvertently the title from a the resolution right above it got duplicated. And this will this one week will give the administration time to do the proper and correct notice. I know it's a technical paperwork error, but we want to make sure everything is done correctly. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember Flynn, there's no motion required. Do any other council members how many comments on this? All right, scene one Council Resolution two, two, two will be back before the Council for consideration on Monday, March 14. Madam Secretary, please put the next item on our screens.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Contract between the City and County of Denver and Hamon Infrastructure, Inc. concerning construction services for the Jackson Gap and 78th Parking Expansion project at Denver International Airport.
Approves a contract with Hamon Infrastructure, Inc. for $8,259,000 and for 325 days from Notice to Proceed for construction services for the Jackson Gap and 78th Parking Expansion project at Denver International Airport in Council District 11 (202160382). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 3-29-22. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 2-23-22. Pursuant to Council Rule 3.7, Councilmember Flynn postponed this item at the 3-7-22 meeting to 3-14-22.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_03072022_22-0273
|
Speaker 1: If folks would like to contribute or participate in any way. So thank you. All right. We're going to go ahead and move on. Madam Secretary, if you would, please put the next item up on our screens. Councilmember Herndon, would you please put Bill 273 on the floor for publication?
Speaker 0: Yes, Madam President, I move that council bill 20 2-0273 be ordered published.
Speaker 1: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Comments and questions by members of Council on Council Bill 22, Dash 0273 Council members say to Barca.
Speaker 4: Thank you. This is first reading and so it will come up again in front of us. But I want to go on record at this meeting and I'll be a no next reading as not supporting this. As you may recall, I'm a staunch supporter of the auditor's request for subpoena power. I believe it's a critical component of his work and to the transparency our Denver residents have so frequently demanded from our government. If you're watching the news, members of the public, there are legal actions being pursued by the auditor for what he believes was an overreach of council's power. An amendment in an amendment that made it into this bill when it was passed last spring. There are three branches of government, of course. The mayors, the executive branch councils, the legislative branch and the courts are our third branch. There are three branches of government to serve as checks and balances to each other for a reason. Because this issue is in litigation, I feel that it is in fact an overreach for us to pull the ordinance out completely through a flat out repeal, rather than allowing the issue to be resolved either in court or by conducting a brand new process to find a better solution mutually. While this ordinance remains in effect. So for that, I'm a note tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember CdeBaca. Councilmember Flynn.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam President. I think if I recall last May's debate on this accurately. Most members of this body want the auditor to have subpoena power and would vote that way and in fact, did give him subpoena power. He has it. We put a few guardrails in for the in the interest of security of confidential and proprietary data. But this repeal is necessary now and to start over. I agree with Councilwoman CdeBaca. We will start over because we want the auditor to be able to do proper investigations. But this repeal is necessary to prevent the waste and abuse of taxpayer money that is triggered by the auditor's ill advised decision to file a meritless lawsuit. Repeal removes any basis for it. The auditor suit asks the judicial branch to usurp the role of city council and hand the auditor a version of the ordinance that could not have passed this body. That is an attack on the independence of the council and the separation of powers that we just heard about from Councilwoman CdeBaca. He did this in place of authentically engaging with us. So while the lawsuit is doomed to fail, the lawyers bills to the taxpayer would be all too real and a waste. This council last year was frustrated by the auditor's refusal to engage with us in the legislative process and address very real and serious concerns over how he would handle proprietary and confidential data. Because of this refusal, culminating in his absence from the council meeting where the vote was being taken, the final vote, his request for subpoena authority that night was headed for defeat. In order to give him that subpoena authority that most members want him to have. I proposed this amendment in order to save the bill. Without my amendment, his bill would have died on the floor with my amendment. The auditor would have the authority to subpoena any and all data, documents and information, including complete access to all confidential and proprietary information held by entities being audited. But it allowed those entities, if they chose to require that only, only proprietary or confidential data had to be examined on site instead of being copied and taken away to the auditor's office. Since then, the auditor has made many misleading and incorrect statements about this ordinance, most notably that the amendment allows outside parties being audited to withhold information. It does no such thing at all. His decision to refuse examining confidential or proprietary information on site is not the same as being denied access to it. Audit subjects had legitimate fears about sending their sensitive, proprietary and confidential data out the door on a flash drive, especially knowing that the auditor would extract that data and upload it into third party applications outside their oversight. So after the ordinance is replaced, is repealed. Rather, it is my intention to start outrage over a new bill to reestablish subpoena authority for the auditor in the area, especially of wage investigations and enforcement only at first, which we all want or most of us want, while inviting the auditor reengage on the use of subpoenas in performance and internal audits. And we hope, Madam President, for serious cooperation and authentic engagement this time around. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember Flynn. Councilmember Sawyer.
Speaker 6: Thanks, Madam President. I just wanted to reiterate points both my colleagues made. I do think it's incredibly important that the auditor have subpoena power. And so I hate to repeal this tonight, but at the end of the day, process matters. And the process that we went through is the governmental process of the city and county of Denver. And the judicial branch shouldn't be asked to settle that, especially when it's going to cost taxpayer money unnecessarily. I agree. If the auditor had been prepared a committee, if there had been if they the auditor's office had attended the final hearing, you know, maybe things would have been different. But that didn't happen. And process matters. So as much as I hate to do this tonight, I am going to agree and vote yes that we should repeal this ordinance and start the process over again. I'm not happy about it, but you know, this is the best choice in order to save taxpayer dollars, which I think is the most important right now. Thanks.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember Sawyer. Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 0: Yeah, thank you, Madam President. I just this feels to me like a spat between friends. I couldn't have more respect for my colleagues on the dais. I couldn't have more respect for Auditor O'Brien. I think he's done a spectacular job in his time of service to the city, and the level of discourse has gotten heated and to me a bit extreme on both sides. But I do agree that rather than turn this matter over to the judiciary, I think the proper path. Forward is to bring this back through the committee structure and see if we can't come up with a policy that serves the the citizens of the city and county of Denver as best we can. And but I think it's time for the level of acrimony to come back down to earth again. I was here when this policy was debated. It was a city council doing its best to consider all the elements. There's nothing different from this discussion than any other that that we've put forward in my in my time on council. So I look forward to going through the process again and my best to two other O'Bryan. I hope he's having a good evening.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilmember Sandoval.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. I just wanted to iterate some of my comments that my colleagues made and just remind everyone that this is a public city council meeting and anyone is freely and openly willing to attend. And when you have a bill in front of city council as a sponsor, I hope that we make ourselves available for questions from this body. Anyone is able to participate. We have people who participate at all of our public hearings on Monday night and they don't need an invitation. This is a public meeting for everybody. And so I ask Ed O'Brien and his team to make sure that to understand that this is a very public process. And as we will note that other times, as bills get called out, whoever is bringing the bill forward, we are able to ask robust questions from the bill's sponsor. And this happened to be a bill sponsor from Ed O'Brien. And with that, I also admire the work that we he has done and the audits. I read his audit reports. I have learned a lot about his audit reports. I just ran a bill with Councilwoman Cranitch about the Board of Adjustment and I read his report on the Board of Adjustment when I was reading, when I was doing that bill. And it had a lot of information that actually I did not I was not aware of. So I do hope that we can bring this forward without costing the taxpayers money to have to go to court. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember Sandoval. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 22, Dash 0273, please.
Speaker 3: See tobacco?
Speaker 4: No.
Speaker 0: Flynn. I.
Speaker 3: Herndon.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 3: Hi. Hi. Cashman. Can each. I. Ortega. I. Sandoval. I swear. I. Torres. I. Madam President, I.
Speaker 1: Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 3: When Nate and I's.
Speaker 1: Ten I's counsel build 20 2-0273 has been ordered published. That concludes the items to be called out. All of their bills for introduction are ordered published. Councilmembers remember this is a consent or block vote and you will need to vote I. Otherwise, this is your last chance to call out an item for a separate vote. Councilmember Herndon, will you please put the resolutions for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor?
Speaker 0: Yes, Madam President, I move that the resolutions be adopted and bills on final consideration be placed upon final consideration, and do pass in the block for the following items. 211 2211 91 to 15 to 23 to 20 5 to 26 two 3231 to 30 2 to 24 to 16 to 19. 184. 202205.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Councilman Herndon. It has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, roll call, please.
Speaker 3: CdeBaca I Flynn.
Speaker 0: High. Herndon, I.
Speaker 3: Hi, Cashman. How can each I. Ortega Sandoval. I swear i. Torres. I. Madam President.
Speaker 1: I. Madam Secretary. Close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 3: 11 East.
Speaker 1: 11 I. The resolutions have been adopted and the bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass. Council will not take a recess this evening. Our pre adjournment announcement on Monday, April 4th. Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 22, dash 0147 Changing the zoning classification for 2875 North Albion Street in North Park
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance repealing certain sections of Chapter 20, Article XI of the Denver Revised Municipal Code regarding Auditor subpoena power and production of records in connection with performance of internal audits and investigations and enforcement of prevailing and minimum wage.
Repeals certain sections of Chapter 20, Article XI of the Denver Revised Municipal Code. Councilmember Gilmore approved direct filing this item on 3-3-22.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_02282022_21-1528
|
Speaker 0: No items have been called out under. Let me see. Under. Bills for an addiction. No items called out. There are no bills on final consideration this week under pending. Councilmember Herndon has called our bill 20 1-1528 for a vote. Madam Secretary, would you please put the first item on our screens? Thank you. Councilmember Hines, will you please put Council Bill 21, Dash 1528 on the floor.
Speaker 2: And move the council bill 21, dash 15 to 8 to be taken out of order.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Comments and questions by members of Council on Council Bill 21, Dash 1528 Councilmember Herndon.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. We need to vote to move this item out of order so that we can postpone final consideration due to the posting requirements.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Madam Secretary. We don't have anybody else in the queue to ask questions. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 21, Dash 1528, please.
Speaker 3: CdeBaca AI Clerk.
Speaker 2: All right. Flynn All right.
Speaker 1: Herndon Hi.
Speaker 3: Hi. Cashman.
Speaker 2: Hi.
Speaker 0: Ortega, I.
Speaker 3: Sandoval, I. Sawyer, I. Torres.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 3: Work. I. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce results.
Speaker 3: 12 Hours.
Speaker 0: 12 eyes Council Bill 21 Dash 1528 may be taken out of order. Councilmember Hines, would you please put Council Bill 21, Dash 1528 on the floor for final passage.
Speaker 2: And move the Council Bill 21, dash 1528 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Councilmember Herndon, your motion to postpone, please.
Speaker 2: Yes, Madam President. I move the council bill 21, Dash 1528 with its public hearing be postponed to April 4th, 2022.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Comments and questions by members of Council on Council Bill 21. Dash 1528. Councilmember Herndon.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council President. This item did not meet the posting requirements, so that's why we have to postpone final consideration to the date stated.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. You don't have anybody else in the queue, so we'll go ahead and continue. Madam Secretary, roll call on the postponement of Council Bill 21, Dash 1520.
Speaker 3: CdeBaca.
Speaker 6: I.
Speaker 3: Herndon High. Cashmere Ortega, I. Sandoval, I.
Speaker 0: Sawyer, I. Torres, I.
Speaker 5: Black Eye.
Speaker 2: Clark. All right.
Speaker 3: Flynn. All right, Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 3: 12 Eyes.
Speaker 0: 12 eyes. Final Consideration of Council Bill 21 Dash 1528 with this public hearing has been postponed to Monday, April 4th, 2022. That concludes the items to be called out. All bills for introduction are ordered for induction or 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 Hines, would you please put the resolutions for adoption on the floor?
Speaker 2: Yes, ma'am. I move that resolutions be adopted in a block for the following items. 20 2-0180 20 2-0181. 2220 2-018 220 2-019 720 2-019 820 2-019 920 2-0170 20 2-018 320 2-0190 20 2-019 220 2-014 220 2-0020 322 Dutch 020 422. Dash 0260. 20 2-0123. 20 2-019 422. Dash 0195. 20 2-0261.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Hines. And we haven't moved. We're going to need a second if we can get one. Thank you, Councilman. Madam Secretary, roll call, please.
Speaker 3: CdeBaca.
Speaker 2: I ask I. Flynn All right.
Speaker 1: Herndon Hi. Hi.
Speaker 3: Hi. Cashman. Ortega. Sandoval. I swear.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 3: Torres.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 3: Black eye. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 3: 12 eyes.
Speaker 0: 12 eyes. The resolutions have been adopted. Our pre recess announcement tonight. There will be a required public hearing on Council Bill 22, dash 0028, changing the zoning classification for 1468 Tennyson Street in West Colfax and a required public hearing on Council Bill 22, Dash 004 for changing the zoning classification for 3178 South Dayton Court in Hampden.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 3435 North Albion Street in Northeast Park Hill.
Approves a map amendment to rezone property from PUD 539 to E-MX-2x (planned development to urban edge, mixed-use), located at 3435 North Albion Street in Council District 8. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 2-1-22.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_02282022_22-0028
|
Speaker 8: Residential properties have 24 hours until they have to shovel. Let's all do our part to keep Denver's sidewalks safe for everyone. Denver 311 and Pocket Gov are helping you navigate Denver City Services.
Speaker 7: Clearing sidewalks after snowstorms helps ensure the safety and mobility of our entire community. This is important, especially for senior citizens and people with disabilities. What's inconvenient to you could be dangerous or even life threatening to them. Be sure to shovel your entire sidewalk. A wheelchair needs a minimum of 36 inches to pass, and if your property has a curb ramp, be sure to clear that entirely as well. Residents and businesses alike need to help make our community safe and accessible for all.
Speaker 1: One. 11111111.
Speaker 0: If you have signed up to answer questions only, please state your name and note that you're available for questions from 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 will alternate between.
Speaker 4: In-Person and virtual for efficiency.
Speaker 0: By calling in-person participants and then alternating to virtual speakers. Speakers must stay on the topic of the hearing and must direct their 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. Councilmember Hines, will you please put Council Bill 20 2-0028 on the floor for final passage.
Speaker 2: And move the Council Bill 20 200 to be placed upon final consideration and to pass.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded. The required public hearing for Council Bill 20 20028 is open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 4: Thank you very much, Councilwoman Thrace. Good evening, counsel. My name is Valerie Arara, senior city planner with community planning and Development. I will be presenting an 80 year rezoning case for the subject property located at 1468 North Tennyson Street. The applicant's names are Matt and Lindsay Waste, and they'll be joining us virtually this property in Council District one with Councilwoman Son Duvall. And is located within the West Fox statistical neighborhood. The subject property is currently our standard 6250 square foot zone lot with a width of 50 feet. The request is to go to urban single unit C one to allow for a detached accessory dwelling unit in the rear of the lot. In terms of zoning, the site and the surrounding properties to the northeast and west. Are you, as you see, to allowing urban houses with a minimum zone, lot of 5500 square feet to the west and east? The zoning is your 2.5, which is a multi-unit district that allows up to two and a half storey rowhouse building farms. To the north is West Colfax Avenue, which is classified as a main street arterial. For existing land use. The site is single unit residential and surrounded by single two and multi-unit existing residential land uses in the neighborhood to the north along with cold facts. Existing uses include a mix of commercial, retail, public, quasi public and mixed use. For existing building form and scale. The subject property is on the north side of the block with Alley Access and is located just south of West Colfax Avenue. There's an existing primary single unit structure and a detached garage accessory structure currently on the lot. Nearby properties just south of the site are shown on the screen. The property in Orange is classified multi-unit residential and the bottom left photo is looking down. Tennyson. In terms of process. This MAP amendment went to planning board on Wednesday, January 5th, where the item was recommended approval on consent agenda. The rezoning was moved forward to final hearing of city council by the Land Use Transportation Infrastructure Committee on consent on January 18th and is being heard today. To date, staff has not received any written input from any of the registered organizations that were sent notice. And there's also been no public comment. The Denver zoning code has five review criteria. The first is consistency with adopted plan, starting with Plan 2040. I found this rezoning to be consistent with several strategies shown from the Comprehensive Plan 2040 for equity and environmental resiliency. Equitable, equitable, affordable and inclusive goal staff found the rezoning to be consistent with Goal two strategy a creator creating a greater mix of housing options in every neighborhood for all individuals and families that can be found on page 28. And in speaking to the climate and environmental resilient vision elements, staff found this rezoning to be consistent with the goal listed. Environmentally Resilient Goal eight Strategy A promote infill development where infrastructure and services are already in place that can be found on page 54. Blueprint. Denver maps this area as the urban neighborhood context. Future places is residential low, which consist of predominantly single and two unit uses on smaller lots and allows for accessory dwelling units to be thoughtfully inappropriate, appropriately integrated. Where compatible. Additionally Blueprint Denver guidance provides support through policy for diversify housing choice through the expansion of the aid to use throughout all residential areas and then strategy a city wide approach to enable aid uses preferred until the holistic approach is in place individual rezonings to enable to use in all residential areas, especially where proximate to transit are appropriate unless there is an a neighborhood plan supporting adus rezoning should be small an area in order to minimize impact to the surrounding residential area. Looking at the West Colfax Neighborhood Plan of 2006, we have support provided through the Urban Neighborhood District Goal two focused on density and promoting discrete increases in residential densities within established residential districts. We also have recommendation one of the urban neighborhoods Stability support the efforts of the Zoning Code Task Force to update residential zone districts and ensure the provision of appropriate design and development standards for additions, infill and redevelopment in established urban neighborhood areas. Recommendation three on building types is established vocabulary of urban neighborhood building types promote the construction of these buildings within appropriate locations. In urban neighborhood districts include a range of building types that permit discrete increases in residential densities, such as carriage houses, multiplexes, small apartments, townhouses or road houses. Looking at criteria two and three staff found that this rezoning is consistent with adopted plans. The proposed rezoning will result in uniform application of zoned district building form, use and design regulations, and it will further the public health, safety and welfare through implementing adopted plans and facilitating increased housing density. Four criteria for justifying circumstances. Staff found the proposed rezoning is justified through a city adopted plan. And finally, for criteria five, the context zone districts purpose and intent of USC. One are all appropriate for this particular location, giving the surrounding area the adopted plan guidance and the location of the site. A small nuance is that us you see two allows for tandem house duplex and detached adu building forums specifically on corner lots that are on either collector or arterial streets. This property is not on one of those corners, so they can't do any of those building forms. They could right now only do attached ads by going to us, you see, one, they will be allowed to construct that detached adu that they are requesting. Given the findings that our review criteria have been met. CPD Recommends City Council Approve Application 2020 1i00160 based on finding our review criteria have been met. Approval of a rezoning is not approval of a proposed specific development project. Thank you very much. I'll take questions.
Speaker 0: If there's questions. Thank you, Val. We have one individual signed up to speak this evening. Jesse Paris is joining us online.
Speaker 1: Greedy members of council may be heard.
Speaker 0: Go ahead.
Speaker 1: My name is Jessica. Some parents and I'm representing for Black Starts a movement for self-defense, defense, positive action for social change, as well as the Unity Party of Colorado. It is Denver Residents Council in Fort Long Black Nose and I'll be the next November 2023. I'm in favor of rezoning tonight. As the stated on general public comment, we have a housing crisis. Any time now we have an opportunity to increase our housing stock. That is great. I don't know exactly what the occupant is using this associate building for. If they're using it for Asian parents or if it's going to be a short term rental, I could answer that question or those questions. I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Jesse. Questions for members of Council on Council Bill 22, Dash 0028. Councilman Sandoval.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Madam President. Thank you for the presentation. So in our zoning code, are there any other areas other than this area in West Colfax that have this particular zone district?
Speaker 4: You know, Councilwoman Sandoval, that is a great question. Off the top of my head, I'm not sure this is the first time I see a case with this scenario. I'm not sure of CPD leadership or if there's someone else that might want to respond to that from our department.
Speaker 6: Oh. You. You in here and.
Speaker 4: And but I'm we're happy to follow up with you if this is my first case to see this scenario like this with the C2.
Speaker 6: Can you go over the uses again on one of your slides the U.S. use to.
Speaker 4: Absolutely. So right here on the first bullet, you, as you see to allows tandem house duplex and detached accessory dwelling unit building forms, specifically on corner lots that are on collector or arterial streets. So this property is not on one of those corners nor one of those street classifications. And so in order to do a detached ADU, they will need to go to this one.
Speaker 6: So do you have a map with all of the parcel sizes?
Speaker 4: Not with me in this presentation, no. The closest is just looking at the zoning map and the existing land use in built form.
Speaker 6: Okay. So this particular if you can if you go to this map, all of the houses on the corner, even though it would probably be they look I can look it up on the Internet, but they look like about the same zone lot. It doesn't matter. They so that corner units could build an excess detached accessory dwelling unit, tandem house or duplex, but all the interior homes could not. Correct?
Speaker 4: That is correct. Because of the corner lot limitation. Yes.
Speaker 6: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Yes, ma'am. Thank you. I know other council members in queue for questions. The public hearing is closed. Any comments by members of Council on Council Bill 22, Dash 0028. Councilwoman Sandoval.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Madam President. Pro Tem. My office attempted to do a overhaul on the zoning over here. We didn't get as much participation as we like, so therefore I didn't move forward with a legislative rezoning for this area. But I feel like this is an area toward zoning code. There's only 300 and some odd houses in the whole entire city that have this zoned district. And it does not seem fair to the everyone else who are in the interior homes to not have the ability to have a detached accessory dwelling unit. When I did a deep dove on 1468 Tennyson Street with our planning department and asked them why they usuc2 zoned district was created, I did not get any clear answers. Nobody quite understood why these areas and I think it's only like 300 some odd parcels are zoned this way. So I would ask my colleagues to please approve this rezoning. The owners, Matt and Lindsay did as much outreach as possible so that we could do a legislative rezoning so they didn't have to be have to bring this forward on a one off. And unfortunately, at that time, we didn't get the traction that we needed. So I would respectfully ask my colleagues to support this. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Seeing no other members of council in queue. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 22, Dash 00280 CdeBaca.
Speaker 3: Sandoval.
Speaker 6: I.
Speaker 3: Sawyer.
Speaker 0: I. Torres. I.
Speaker 3: Work. I. Clarke.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 3: Flynn, I kill more. Herndon.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 3: Cashman. Ortega. I apologize, Madam Pro Tem. I should have closed with you.
Speaker 0: I think.
Speaker 3: You have ten eyes.
Speaker 0: All right. Madam Secretary, close the voting. Announce a result.
Speaker 3: Tonight.
Speaker 0: Tonight, Council Bill 22 zero 0 to 8 has passed. Councilmember Hines, will you please put Council Bill 22, dash zero zero for four on the floor for final passage?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 1468 Tennyson Street in West Colfax.
Approves a map amendment to rezone property from U-SU-C2 to U-SU-C1 (Allows for an accessory dwelling unit), located at 1468 Tennyson Street in Council District 1. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 1-18-22.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_02282022_22-0044
|
Speaker 0: Tonight, Council Bill 22 zero 0 to 8 has passed. Councilmember Hines, will you please put Council Bill 22, dash zero zero for four on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 2: My pleasure. I move that constable 20 2-004 for be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded the required public hearing for Council Bill 20 2-0044 is open. May we have the staff report? I really.
Speaker 5: Just a minute.
Speaker 0: Okay. Go ahead and introduce yourself.
Speaker 4: I'm Libby Adams with Community Planning and Development, and I will be presenting the MAP Amendment at 3178 South Dayton Court as soon as the PowerPoint opens. Okay. So this application is located in Council District four in the Hamden neighborhood, and the applicant is requesting to rezone from suburban single unit F to Suburban Single Unit F with waivers to allow for an accessory dwelling unit. The applicant has proposed waivers to allow the aid to use the detached edu building form and then to waive the minimum zone. Lot depth of 150 feet. As stated previously, the property is currently zoned SNCF, which allows the suburban house building form on a minimum zone. Lot size of 8500 square feet. This site is currently occupied by a single unit home with single unit and park uses surrounding the site. This slide shows the existing building form and scale with the subject property on the upper right hand side. Then a postcard notifying neighboring property owners within 200 feet of the site was sent out on October 19th. Planning Board unanimously recommended approval on January 5th of this year. And to date, staff has not received any public comment. The Denver zoning code has five review criteria that must be met in order for a rezoning to be approved. The first criterion is consistency with adopted plans. This rezoning will meet several of the strategies and comprehensive plan 2040, including creating a greater mix of housing options in all neighborhoods and promoting infill development where there's already services and infrastructure in place. And then in Blueprint Denver this the neighborhood context is classified as suburban. These areas are a range of uses from single uses to commercial corridors, and then block patterns are generally irregular with curvilinear streets. And Blueprint identifies this property as the low residential place type, and these place types are mostly single unit residential uses on larger lots and accessory dwelling units are appropriate. And then both South Dayton and Dartmouth Place are local streets, which are mostly characterized by residential uses. 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 blueprint also includes specific policy recommendations. So land use and vote form housing policy for strategy states that individual rezonings to allow AIDS are appropriate and should be small and area. And then Blueprint Policy five discusses removing barriers to constructing use and then Blueprint also has guidance for when to use waiver. So it recommends limiting the limiting the use of customized zoning tools like waivers to unique and extraordinary circumstances. So customized zoning tools are most effective when a standard zoned district does not exist to implement our adopted plans. So CPD uses waivers in situations where the waivers help solve an issue the department is committed to resolve through a future text amendment. So, as seen on the previous slide blueprint, Denver recommends removing barriers to Adus through a text amendment. Until those changes are made, it's appropriate to consider individual rezonings to allow adus and the suburban context currently has a limit has limited adu district options. So this waiver is a bridge to a district that will be created with the ADU Use and Denver project. And so staff believes this is an appropriate circumstance to use a customized zoning approach. Staff also finds the requested zoning meets the next two criteria. It will result in uniformity of district regulations and will further the public health, safety and welfare by providing a new type of housing in a largely single unit area. And then blueprint serves as the justifying circumstance for this rezoning in its recommendation to allow to use in all residential areas. And lastly, the proposed rezoning is consistent with the suburban neighborhood context, the residential districts and the specific intent of the SUV Zone district. So based on finding all five review criteria, have the net staff does recommend approval. And that concludes my presentation.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Livy. We have one individual signed up to speak this evening. Jesse Paris is joining us online.
Speaker 1: You're ready? Yes. Good evening. Members of Council for Black Star. Can you hear me? My name is just a the person I'm a present for. Black Star salute a self defense positive actually come in for social change as well as the Unity Party of Colorado and East Denver Residents Council and front line black males. And I'll be the next November 2023. I'm in favor of this rezoning to make it meets all five of the criteria. Consistency what adopt the plans uniformity of district regulations for this public health, safety and wellness. Justifying circumstances and consistency with neighborhood context and so district purpose. And since I'm in favor of rezoning, I just wanted to know what this idea was going to be used for so I could please answer that question. I would really greatly appreciate it. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Council on Council Bill 22, Dash 004 for Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam Pro Tempore. Thank you, Libby. You just said something at the end, which is contrary to something that I believe. So you referred to the ADA in Denver Advisory Committee. And you said something about that committee making a recommendation about changing the zoning for ADAS. And it's my understanding that's not what that committee is doing.
Speaker 4: That's yeah, I won't change the zoning. My understanding and we do have Josh Palmeri is here from the Eighties and Denver project, but that one of the potentials is that more adu districts may be created, people will have to rezone into them. But I think the the creation of new districts.
Speaker 5: Okay, good. I just wanted to clarify that. Um, so. This is an interesting application in a very suburban neighborhood. If you look at it on a map like every street is a dead end and there's paths and park. And it's a it's a lovely neighborhood, but I have concerns about the building form. And I know that I've talked to you about this before, but this house is a single story and it's surrounded by one story. Houses, potentially someone could build a two story house five feet from the back fence. Is that correct? Correct. And I think that was really my only question for now, all that my fellow council members asked questions and then I'll probably get back in the queue. Okay, thanks.
Speaker 0: Next in the queue, Councilman Ortega. Thank you, Madam President. Pro tem. My questions are about in the application. It makes reference to 150 feet. Is that the that lot depth on the frontage of the property?
Speaker 4: So that would be the depth from the street frontage to the rear and that. So we only have one ADU district in the suburban neighborhood context and it requires a lot depth of 150 feet. And so that's why that's waived because the waivers point to the form standards for RSU F one.
Speaker 0: Okay. So looking at the photographs of the homes in the neighborhood, it looks like there's a very long set back in the front of these properties. Is that consistent throughout the block?
Speaker 4: Yes, I would say so.
Speaker 0: Okay. So then how much space does that leave in the back for an end to you, given the fact that part of the law is already taken up by a front yard excuse me? And then it has a single family home, and now we're talking about putting a unit in the back. So I'm just trying to understand how much of that 11,900 square feet is actually available for construction of a another single family home? And is there a limitation on the size that it can be?
Speaker 4: Yes. So there is a limitation on the size as far as the actual square footage that would be in the backyard that could be taken up for you. And I don't know the exact numbers for that. I do know it needs to be in the back 35% of the lot. And given this lot size of 11,900 square feet, you know, I would imagine that that still leaves a general. I know that this particular applicant has already worked with development services on the site plan.
Speaker 0: And so does the developer, the homeowner available to answer any of the questions.
Speaker 4: That Gavin built.
Speaker 0: Gavin Belt Pldt. Nope. He's not online. Okay. So nobody's here representing the applicant. They're just letting you all present it to us without being available to answer any questions. That's unfortunate. Okay. Is this an HOA community?
Speaker 4: I did not know that, Councilman. No, she's.
Speaker 0: Okay. So we wouldn't have any of those e2e restrictions that they have to deal with. I think those are my only questions. So. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 2: Thank you, madam president. Pro tem Libi the you mentioned that in blueprint rezonings for Haiti use are appropriate, particularly when a text amendment may be in the offing. You mentioned Josh is in the audience. Josh, could you come up and take a couple of questions pertinent to this application? Because I'm very concerned about the prospect that a vote on this tonight by this body might prejudice the outcome or predetermine or dictate an outcome for a process that hasn't even started. So when when is your first meeting? Is it's this Thursday. Yeah. Good afternoon. Council Josh Omari, senior city planner, CPD. Thank you. Yes.
Speaker 1: As Councilwoman Black alluded to earlier in.
Speaker 2: The meeting, our first meeting is this Thursday, this evening. I'm sorry, could you speak a little more into the mic for me? Yeah, thank you. Yeah. I also would not want to speculate on that process and what the outcome might be. We are kicking off this Thursday. It will be ideally a one year process. And so we'll be back for you guys and adoption.
Speaker 1: In early 23. But without knowing, you know, kicking off the process, having the discussions, we're not sure what building form will end up with.
Speaker 2: Josh, could you tell us what what is the full scope of the project? What are the areas they will look at? Are there any areas they will not look at? Yeah, certainly. So we are implementing land use recommendation five from Blueprint Denver, which is tasked with removing barriers to a new construction. So not only looking at what zoning regulations are getting in the way of construction issues, but also building context sensitive form standards. And so currently the ADA standards are the same. Citywide, you can do.
Speaker 1: A 24 foot all edu.
Speaker 2: Building form throughout the city. Mm hmm. And so we know that potentially that it doesn't match with all of our other contexts. And so we're going to look really closely at suburban context neighborhoods and figure out what the setbacks should be there, what the height should be, etc., etc.. Okay. And as I think that Councilwoman Black brought up the this application, if this lot in question 3178 South the court if it were 25 feet deeper, this would be a straightforward application reason to assess. You have one presumably correct? Or maybe Libby is more. No, I think everyone still allows the tandem house form in this district, so it's unique in that sense. This application waves the tandem house. Correct. Yeah. So we would also we would want to waive that and I think as well, if this was the straightforward Adu rezoning. Correct. Libby, is that the other waiver? Is there waiving the the tandem house?
Speaker 4: So we're not we're only waiving in the 80 you use for the tandem house will not be allowed. But that isn't allowed. Use and building form in the SCAF one.
Speaker 2: Correct. Okay. So we're not we're we're just doing a waiver. This is on. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 4: You're using by waiving. Yes.
Speaker 2: Yeah. The context here is is on is difficult for some people to grasp because usually a waiver means you're giving up something. And here we're using a waiver to give or.
Speaker 4: We're waiving here. And so the tandem house is not permitted in these waivers.
Speaker 2: Right. Okay. And Josh, how many how many meetings do you anticipate this group to have? I think there were going to be for now we have seven meetings guaranteed and room for an eighth meeting just in case if we need to really hash out some of these details. So eight meetings throughout the year. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Pro-Tem.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Hines.
Speaker 2: Thank you, President Pro tem. So there are five criteria with which we should make our decision, correct? Correct. Then only those criteria. Nothing else? Correct. So if someone were to ask you, I'd like to know what the area will be used for. Kim, is that a question that we can use the answer to shape our decision?
Speaker 0: Well.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Thank you, Madam President. Pro tem.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you, Councilwoman Sandoval.
Speaker 6: Thank you, ma'am. President pro tem. Um. Thank you, Libby. Thank you, Josh. A couple of questions. When the application came in to CPD, did the applicant come up with the idea for waivers, or was this a collaboration with CPD and the applicant?
Speaker 4: Yeah, I would say it was a it would be a collaboration just because when they came in, they said they wanted an EDU. And we currently don't have a district that will allow them to have what they wanted, which is a detached adu. And so that's where the collaboration and looking at CPD policy and a waiver might be the best fit at this time.
Speaker 6: And how was the decision made to waive that? So if you went to a standards and district with a that allows accessory dwelling, does it automatically allow a tandem house form as well?
Speaker 4: So the SDF one is the only one that also allows the tandem house building form.
Speaker 6: And that's the zone district that's closest to this area.
Speaker 4: Correct? That's the only district within the suburban neighborhood context that currently allows the 82 use and building form. So it also allows that tandem house building form.
Speaker 6: Okay. And have there been? Outreach to the neighbors. Have you heard anything from the neighbors on this application?
Speaker 4: I have not heard anything from the neighbors. In the applicant's narrative, he did say that he reached out to the registered neighborhood organizations, and I believe he did speak to his neighbors. I have not received any comments.
Speaker 6: So in these areas that have this suburban form and usually that means that they don't have alleys. I have some areas in inspiration point that have don't have alleys and they usually are not your traditional rectangles or not. They're probably a little bit different. How do these building building firms, such as an accessory dwelling unit, do? Have we looked at any of the unintended consequences of building an accessory dwelling unit with standards that are meant for more of a probably, I don't know, like the one we just did, the urban town, the form in northwest Denver, where it's predominantly a rectangle zone. It's deeper, meaning they get it's the front zone on the front light for the public, for the front lot is smaller and it goes deeper in the back and you have alley access. Even if you don't have the access, I don't have the access and I live in as an urban zone, but I do have still that traditional rectangle zone. Have we looked at unintended consequences and how these building firms actually exist in the built environment? Because I think that's something that is important and that's why we have this edu task force is looking at these unintended consequences of trying to fit a circle into a square peg.
Speaker 4: Mm hmm. Yeah. So, I mean, my answer to your question was, yeah, that's why we have the AIDS in Denver project. And I would also say that these waivers, they point to the as you F-1 standards. And so if those get changed based on the aid use in Denver project, this law will still have to comply with that. So it doesn't point to specific like it has to be five feet from the property line so say that you use in Denver project does come up with a different step back from the rear this project would have this development would have to follow that if it's done after that project.
Speaker 6: And remind me when my last question in that zone district, can you go 2.5 stories as well with that other how high can you go? It's 24 feet.
Speaker 4: 24 feet over the primary. So we have the primary is two and a half storeys across the whole zone lot.
Speaker 6: Okay. And then the health talk in the Adobe, the detached 24 feet.
Speaker 4: So 30 to 35 feet for the primary, depending on width across the whole zoned lot and then 24 feet for the adu.
Speaker 6: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 2: Yeah, thank you, Madam President. Pro tem. Let me just more direct this planning. Think it makes sense? To zone a 24 foot structure five feet from a back property line. With this, with this project, the edu project, beginning with that being acknowledged as a problem area, I'm mystified how we get a recommendation to do that.
Speaker 4: Yeah. You know, I think we we have guidance that says 80 users should be permitted in all of our residential areas and we have applicants that are coming forward. And so I think, you know, we we kind of have to work with the standards that we have. And so we have this guidance that says 80 you should be permitted here from our in our plans. And so I think that's why we did this waiver. And I think that's why we did the waiver the way we did. Because, like I said, if you know the applicant, sometimes these processes take time to actually develop. And so if the views and project comes in with something different and changes the text, then this will still be subject to that change because it just points to the standards. And so, you know, Josh's project here could change what the actual ADA will look like on the site.
Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you for your answer.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Along those same lines, did you guys consider halting these in suburban sound districts until after this process?
Speaker 4: Yeah. So my understanding is that I don't think CPD has the authority to. Stop projects to do a moratorium on use in urban context. But that could be in the question.
Speaker 5: You know, that makes sense for, you know, can you commit to that piece? Hi, Nate.
Speaker 1: I sincerely believe that members of Council, Navy Services and City Attorney, Councilwoman Black, can I have your repeated questions as I have a little trouble hearing?
Speaker 5: So we were wondering if CPD considered not. Supporting these applications in suburban zone districts until after the advisory committee some of its work so just. A temporary pause to the. 80 rezonings in suburban sound districts until after the committee makes its recommendations.
Speaker 1: That that would be a policy consideration either for council or CPD. Um. And there would be. Something that that you could take up as a council or take to CPD management to see if they'd be willing to do something like that.
Speaker 5: Okay. Thank you. Libby, I have a question. The applicant's not here. And then you said you knew that he had talked to building services. Do you know anything about his proposed plans?
Speaker 4: I do not know specifics. I just know that he has spoken to them.
Speaker 5: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Cashman. You're not an excellent Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 2: Thank God the President made in your reply. I seem to recall in the last term of Council we we issued a moratorium on slot homes. Until we figured out how we wanted to alter the rules and regulations and the zoning criterion for slot homes. And so we did not accept any new applications for that building form until we settled that. So would this be this policy you say would be in our hands, or is this something, in your opinion, CPD could simply. Since Josh's committee is just getting started, say, you know, look where we have tons of zoned districts that allow you to use and we will continue to process those. But for areas where we're going to study how to incorporate them into the context and character of suburban context and other zoned districts where we might not have the Dash one available, we're not going to process any. It's going to just going to be a year. Heck, if we approve this tonight, this fellow might not be able to get his permit for another two years. The way you are considering my my neighbor trying to build a deck took nine months to get a deck permit.
Speaker 1: Right. Moratorium is certainly one option that council would have, but there would be legal criteria that council would have to meet in order for a moratorium to.
Speaker 2: I'm sorry. Could you speak up a little more? I'm sorry. What's into the mike.
Speaker 1: Okay. Yeah. So a moratorium would be an option that council could pursue, but they would have to, of course, check with Legislative Council and make sure whether or not for that type of more time would meet the criteria.
Speaker 2: But would it be something appropriate for CPD to administratively say, we're not going to consider applications with waivers at this point until this process is done?
Speaker 1: Well, I think that's a question for CPD management, but I, I don't think that that is probably the direction that CPD would like to pursue, because there's so much guidance within the current comprehensive plan and blueprint Denver that are calling for addus throughout the city.
Speaker 2: Certainly. Certainly. But the blueprint also has direction to do certain things in order first, such as this study, which has not yet been done. So. All right. But they don't have there's no legal prohibition to them saying we're not going to consider issuing waivers or recommending rezonings with waivers until the new standards are figured out. No legal bar to that.
Speaker 1: I'm not understanding your question. I'm sorry.
Speaker 2: Could could CPD say to applicants who come in like like this one, that there is no zone district that allows in to you on 125 foot deep lot in suburban context. If you were 150 feet deep, you could go ahead with it. But we're not going to process applications for rezonings that rely on waivers from current forms in the code, current standards in the code. Until this effort that kicks off on Thursday comes up with consistent standards that we will then follow. Is there a legal bar to CPD taking that policy with the public?
Speaker 1: Well, if if council approved this rezoning with waivers, then the applicant could move forward with building their aid. Right.
Speaker 2: That's that wasn't my question. How could CPD say to an applicant, we are not going to advance this application?
Speaker 1: They could or they could advance the application with a recommendation of denial if that if that's the direction they wanted to go.
Speaker 2: I understand that they currently they wouldn't want to do that. Thank you. That's all.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you, Councilwoman Sandoval.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Madam President. To answer Councilman Flynn's question about the moratorium. That was Councilman Espinosa. And Councilman, we knew who proposed the moratorium, and they used the criteria that we were trying to solve a problem for. There's only a certain reason why you can use a moratorium. So I've often thought about that in certain in certain areas of development. So it gets complicated when the moratorium. But I do understand that we do have this process and it does seem like we don't have a zone district in this area. And I know that it it it's not best practices to use waivers and conditions on anything in rezoning. I know that's not looked highly upon for CPD. So for you to be coming forward with a recommendation to use waivers for an accessory dwelling unit. I don't think I've ever seen that before. I'll just say that. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you, Councilman Hines.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Madam President, pro tem Nate. Sorry to bring you up again.
Speaker 0: They? We have a question for you.
Speaker 2: Welcome back. So the so I'm going to go down the same kind of line of question. I think that Councilmember Flynn was going down so we could, as a council, pass something that issues a moratorium on any new development at all if we wanted to. Is that right?
Speaker 1: Yes, sir. That would be legislative.
Speaker 2: And and we could, as a council, pass something that limited to use in suburban contexts if we wanted to.
Speaker 1: That is also correct.
Speaker 2: But it is not possible for us to consider and pass that before we pass what we're considering right now tonight. Is that right?
Speaker 1: That's correct. So.
Speaker 2: Okay. So while we could consider that, that is only theory and conjecture until we make a determination tonight. Yes, sir. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. I see no others in Q Libby, just one question that I have on Slide 16, I think. Strategy. Just if you can clarify for me, it says unless there is a neighborhood plan supporting any use and we don't have a neighborhood plan here, rezonings should be small in area in order to minimize impact to the surrounding residential area. What does that mean, small in area?
Speaker 4: Yeah. So for us, you know, a lot of times it's these individual rezonings that come in. You know, the an impact of one eighth you won't necessarily be a huge impact on the surrounding area. Now, that doesn't preclude the neighborhood wide aviaries because we have other guidance that talks about large legislative rezonings.
Speaker 0: Okay. So the area is are there other edu rezonings that have come through in this neighborhood?
Speaker 4: I do. I don't know in this specific neighborhood, but I know that there have been others that have gone through in the suburban context.
Speaker 0: Okay. Did those those revised F-1?
Speaker 4: Yes. The one that has gone through, I think went to SC F1 because it would have met the parameters of the depth and the size.
Speaker 0: Can you remind me what the F one depth is?
Speaker 4: Yeah. So it's 150 feet and then a minimum zone lot size of 8500 square feet.
Speaker 0: Got it. Thank you. Okay. I don't have any other questions, seeing no one else in queue. Public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council and Council Bill 20 2-004 for Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 5: Thank you, madam pro tempore is the the other one that was approved actually was in this neighborhood and. There were a lot of questions about it, including some opposition. In this neighborhood and in my district, we're starting to see some of these applications pop up. And I do have constituents who don't want to use. There's those people. I actually am very supportive of ideas. Well, I also have heard from a lot of people who are very concerned about the building for. And they live in a suburban neighborhood. They don't have an alley. And the thought of having a two storey structure looming over their back fence with windows, looking in their backyard, shading their garden is not something that they bargained for. And I I've never used the health, safety and welfare criteria. I don't believe as a reason not to vote for something. But I am not going to support this for that reason. It's just not something that community members bargained for when they moved to these suburban neighborhoods. And while I do support HD use, I feel like we need to have an agreed upon building form that is more conducive to these kinds of neighborhoods. These houses are all single storey, and someone could build a two storey structure five feet from the neighbor's fence. And I'm just not comfortable with that. And without the applicant being here to answer questions. I'm sorry, I just don't think this is something I can support tonight, but thank you for your work and I really look forward to being on the committee and resolving this so we can move forward with rezonings in the future. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam Pro-Tem. In my analysis, this application fails to meet four of the five criteria. I don't believe it's consistent with adopted plans. Sometimes it seems to me that we cherry pick statements and adopted plans here and there with which the application can be seen as consistent. And it does in the ones that we choose to highlight in the staff report or the presentation. But then we ignore other statements in the plans with which the application is inconsistent. So in blueprint land use and built form recommendation for a study quote study and implement allowances for aid use study and implement allowances for 80 use , including those attached and detached from the primary home in all neighborhood contexts and residential zone districts use an inclusive community input process to respond to unique considerations in different parts of the city. This recommendation was not done and this application is not consistent with that 40 recommendation and blueprint quote A citywide approach to enable aid to use is preferred until a holistic approach is in place. Individual rezonings to enable to use in all residential areas, especially where proximate to transit parenthetically which this one is not, are appropriate unless there is a neighborhood plan supporting a to use rezoning should be small an area in order to minimize impacts to the surrounding residential area. So here the property is in a suburban context district that would accommodate a rezoning if it met the form standards currently in the code. But it does not it's only it has insufficient lot depth blueprint would support a rezoning to F1 is consistent if the parcel were 150 feet deep. But in light of the fact that in three days the city is kicking off a project to come up with the recommended standards. Waivers are inappropriate and in my view, not consistent with Blueprint's guidance on 82 rezonings are proceeding after an inclusive community process and study prior to implementation. And then finally in Blueprint five, see states revise detached adu form standards to be more context sensitive, including standards for height, mass and setbacks. We've done none of that in the context of this application. Mr. Pomeroy's committee is going to come up with those, and I'm sure that in a year's time we will have something like that , so that, as the councilwoman said, where you have a parcel with a one storey house in the front, you don't end up with a two storey separate dwelling unit five feet from the back, from the neighbor's back fence. So we have not yet revised those form standards. And Blueprint says we should do that. We have not done it. CPD staff and Josh, you might remember this. I pulled my hair out when I got these emails. CPD staff recently sent a representative of a property owner in my district. To me, he was applying to rezone a property for an idea in a district that as of now doesn't even have such an option in the code. I think it was opseu c 6000 square foot lot minimum, which it matter was 6200 square feet, but there was no way for me to form for that. So this representative told me that he was advised to come to me and to the R.A. with a remit, with a proposal to rezone it into a totally different context. Urban edge right in the middle of this vast sea of suburban context, we were going have one parcel on a lot in Brentwood that would suddenly have an urban edge context completely not appropriate. And my understanding is that maybe he might have misunderstood the guidance from staff when when they sent him to me. But I certainly hope we don't get any any more represent any more applications like that. The next criterion I believe, it fails to meet is uniformity of district regulations. It's not consistent unless this criterion is completely meaningless. The very nature of this request is precisely to be inconsistent with the s as you f zone district regulations. That's the point of the of the waivers. I don't believe it meets the fourth criterion justifying circumstances. In fact, in my view, the circumstances justify holding off on this rezoning because the project is coming up in three days to come up with the standards and building form standards and regulations for ADA use in areas like suburban without alleys. This application puts us, this Council, in the position of signaling to the advisory committee that has yet to meet what the outcome should be and we should not be determining the outcome this way. We could end up with an inconsistent zone district in this. In this instance, if we were to approve this, as I mentioned, we had a moratorium on the new slot home form. I know that we don't have time to do that here. But for that reason, though, Madam Pro-Tem and colleagues, I'm going to vote against this application. I also don't believe, by the way, that it meets Criterion five consistency with neighborhood context description for the reasons I've already stated, which I think are very obvious. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Hines.
Speaker 2: Thank you, President Pro Tem. The stakeholder process that we're about to kick off hopefully will change the policy that we currently have. But we should make a decision to nine based on the policy we currently have. We shouldn't kick off a stakeholder process that would retroactively go back and apply to this, or we shouldn't try to predict what that stakeholder process might give us and a year or so in the future and try to vote tonight based on what we think that stakeholder process might give us. I'm not saying that your other ideas are right or wrong. I just mean we shouldn't try to. That seems like a lot of work. It seems like way more work than just using the criteria that we have today to judge today. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Councilwoman Sawyer.
Speaker 4: Thanks, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Something that Councilman Hines just said I think is really important. And I just wanted to flag Councilman Flynn talked about it a little bit as well. We need to follow the procedures we have in place. And the purpose of putting.
Speaker 4: The form base zoning code.
Speaker 0: In in 2010 was so that we didn't have waivers anymore.
Speaker 4: And whether a waiver is.
Speaker 0: Granting something or whether a waiver is limiting something.
Speaker 4: The use of waivers is pretty rare.
Speaker 0: And so to me that says this doesn't belong in this district at this time. And so I'm also going to be an alternate thinks thank you seeing no others in Q I know one of the things that we've discussed a lot in West Denver are issues in lots that are smaller than the current criteria allows. And so but we've also seen single family homeowners fit to, I think, the neighborhood context and not exactly go to full entitlement either. So I think there is some flexibility around desiring and wanting to see things like 80 use permitted to be built, built in anywhere in Denver and working with residents and homeowners to make sure they they fit. If they tore down that single family home, they can build a bigger home. It takes up much more of the envelope of that property without, you know, without rezoning either or or additional waivers. So I appreciate, I think, the discomfort with flexing what is currently in the zoning code, but I don't know that it was it necessarily goes against, I think, the intention of blueprint. I will I think this one, though, really does, I think call into question a couple issues that have come up with smaller lot sizes and just guidance on whether something that applies in an F one with 25 additional feet still applies as is in a smaller lot. So I think that kind of guidance is desired here. And one of the things that I won't be supporting it tonight either, but I do know that that is one of the things that CPD is responding to in terms of really making it use accessible and flexible for lots of different lot sizes. So I appreciate that from the department that the public hearing is closed. Oh, we already did that. Right. Uh, Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 22, dash 004 for.
Speaker 3: Black. Clark.
Speaker 2: No. FLYNN No. Herndon No.
Speaker 3: Hines No.
Speaker 2: Cashman No.
Speaker 3: Ortega No. Sandoval No. Sawyer No. Madam President?
Speaker 0: No. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced the results. Ten days, ten days. Cancel Bill 20 2-00 for four has failed. There being no further business before this body. This meeting is adjourned.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 3178 South Dayton Court in Hampden.
Approves a map amendment to rezone property from S-SU-F to S-SU-F with waivers (grants a variance for the lot size for an accessory dwelling unit), located at 3178 South Dayton Court in Council District 4. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 1-18-22.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_02222022_22-0145
|
Speaker 9: Madam Secretary.
Speaker 3: Please put the first item on our screens. Councilmember Ortega, will you please put Council Resolution one, four, five on the floor for adoption? Yes, ma'am. Madam President. Pro tem, I move that resolution number 22, dash 0145, be adopted. It is a moved and seconded comments and questions by members of Council. On Council Resolution 145. Councilwoman CdeBaca. Since the appointment of the director. The. And I've called this out tonight trying to lift up the voices of my constituents and residents across the city. So many residents are concerned about this appointment for several reasons. My constituents have raised the issue of the lack of proven successes, as well as the lack of concrete commitment to community recommendations regarding reimagining policing. Constituents have pointed several times to the confusing, problematic and ineffective initiatives around traumatic displacements of the sick and unhoused. These initiatives were implemented unsuccessfully under the leadership of Mr. Solidarité and have been the only examples of his capabilities. Yet here we are elevating him to the highest office that is responsible for public safety at one of the most challenging times in our history. As an employee, he participated in false allegations against not only my office, but other situations, as we heard in public comment. And each time he failed to show the integrity that we should expect from a leader at this level of government and speak up against injustice. I hope that in this role he'll find the courage to not only speak up against injustice, but to act to remedy it with his new powers. Because I have not witnessed his ability to act courageously in a public fashion or show the leadership necessary in such a powerful and controversial role. And because I must honor my constituents concerns as their voice. I cannot in good conscience support this appointment tonight. So I'm a no vote on this. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember CdeBaca. Next up, we've got Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 6: You know. Thank you, Madam President. I see Mr. Soldat in the audience. Can I ask him up for a question, please?
Speaker 0: We'd ask that you introduce yourself for the public record.
Speaker 8: Hi. I'm Armando Soldat de, the third interim executive director. Public Safety.
Speaker 6: Well, it's good to have you here, sir. I think one of the most important things that the Task Force on Reimagining Policing brought forth was shining a light on the importance of looking at public safety through a public health lens, as well as the traditional enforcement arrest and incarceration lens. Can you talk about your view of public safety through that public health lens and anything that you have done or plan to do to honor that perspective?
Speaker 8: Yeah, absolutely. And thank you for the opportunity to address this question with counsel and members of the public. So I don't know if you've heard me in the past or you've heard me talk about this. Well, before I became the interim public safety director, I've always talked about public safety through the public health lens. I thought that a lot of the challenges that we face, a lot of the major challenges we face in public safety are rooted in public health, those being mental illness, substance misuse, sometimes the co-occurrence of those both. Public health has been very impactful. I mean, our lives were all upended by this pandemic. I saw that firsthand. I was one of the efforts I took forward prior to being in the latest roles and working in homelessness space. I led the effort that the Department of Safety stood up at the Pepsi Center for COVID testing. It's something that is very near and dear to my heart. As I was in this position of being an interim executive director and my former duties in homelessness and the homelessness response for the Department of Safety. I needed some help. I needed some help in that regard. And I reached out to our public health and environment executive director in the mayor's office for that help. And I asked for Jeff Holliday, who many of you know, he's currently the director of Office of Behavioral Health Strategies, but he's also someone I know personally and I've worked very closely with throughout my time here with the city. And I asked for his help to back from that position for me. On loan. He's on loan right now because I'm waiting to be confirmed. But he's he's on loan to our department. And he's already been a significant voice in helping us create our priority and agenda around public health. I don't just want to talk about it. I want to do it. And him providing his his lens as a clinician, as someone that as a mental health commission, as a licensed clinical social worker, and in his role at public health and environment. He's been over in our office helping with us in that regard.
Speaker 6: Thank you. One more question, Madam President. What is what have you done thus far and what is your intention moving forward as far as interactions with the task force?
Speaker 8: So my interactions with the task force have always been a priority to me, just not only the task force, but community. Since the time I was a young officer in the early nineties in Phenix, Arizona, where I was born and raised, I was always involved in community as a uniformed officer, but also on my own time I got to know my community that I served. I felt that that impacted me a lot and made me a better police officer. When I hear Councilwoman Ortega talk about we didn't see that I was one of those young officers in Sweden seed neighborhood working with kids one day in uniform and one day playing basketball with them in those same neighborhoods, trying to divert them away from gangs and all those other things that we were working towards. The first call I made after I was announced by the mayor as the nominee was to Dr. Robert Davis from the task force, the task force coordinator. I wasn't asked by anyone to make that call. That was something that was important to me. I wanted to start the dialog. I wanted to start the conversation. We were in spots. We meaning public safety. The city and the task force were both in our corners. And I don't I know one thing for sure. Nothing gets solved. No problems get solved when people are in their corners. We have to come to the middle. We have to be able to talk to each other with respect, with courage. We have to be courageous to have these smart conversations. I've always made myself available for those hard conversations. So I committed to them. I had a very good conversation with with Dr. Davis. He's someone I respect and someone that I've worked with in the past. On other endeavors. I committed there to try to start the productive dialog work of our teams getting together and trying to come to some solutions with all these challenges we face. I committed to go to the next task force meeting. That was a commitment I didn't take lightly. I actually I was conflicted in that commitment. I wanted to make sure I came to that first task, first meeting. But my daughter was also going. Undergoing a medical treatment at Children's Hospital. So I took that note. Even with that balancing that priority, because it was that important to me, I didn't do it for politics or anything like that, but I wanted to make that commitment. I didn't we I made myself open for questions. I answered the questions. And then I made myself available the next week for another time. Another time. And I know they're volunteering. So I made a time that was mutually convenient for a lot of those folks, and I made myself available for another 90 minute dialog. I continued to. I will take their calls. I will I will talk to them. I will I will get to a space where we can talk, but we are going to disagree. That's the problem. There's going to be disagreement. We can't just take that disagreement and then say, well, you know what, we can't talk to Armando because he disagrees with us on something. We need to have a dialog and I hope to still foster that productive dialog.
Speaker 6: Thank you for that. I, I do believe there are areas where we can come to agreement with that, with the recommendations, and I hope we can find those in short measure. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Next up, we've got Council Pro Tem Torres.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Armando. I have just a couple.
Speaker 3: Of questions for you as well. So what would we expect to be different or to change under your leadership?
Speaker 8: Well, the first thing I really want to show, and I think I've shown this, is accessibility. Accessibility to the community being out and being seen by the community being available to you all. And that availability isn't just business hours Monday through Friday. It's being able to talk to you at all times when problems come up that I hope that all of you can reach me and reach my staff. I've also set an expectation with my staff that it's not only going to be me and the community and me here at these meetings, it's going to be all of them . I think it's important for us to be seen, but it's also important for us to also treat everyone with respect and to have dialogs with our our constituency. You said something about Commander Fleece earlier that really resonated with me as he listened to the community. He handed it over to people in Westwood to hear. We need to do more listening and handing things over to folks. And really. So that's something that I really prioritize. And so one thing you're not going to hear from me is a lot of promises, a lot of, you know, big agendas, big initiatives. I'm not going to say that we're going to do an opportunity index or we're going to do that. What I want you to see a substantive change on things that matter. I want to also build sustainable change. And I want to back that up with policy and practice what we do and what we say we're going to do. We're going to back up with policy and hopefully you'll see a much more communicative and and much more information sharing from my office and with council and with the community. That's something that I hope that that we accomplished here in this and the time frame I have.
Speaker 9: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 3: One of the things that I've.
Speaker 0: Experienced and I think.
Speaker 9: Anybody who lives in any major city.
Speaker 0: Has seen.
Speaker 9: Seen this expressed in Denver. I joined the city in 2001.
Speaker 3: A public safety review commission. We reviewed complaints after IAB can review them. So this was the predecessor to the Independent Monitor. Toxic employees create a toxic workplace, and we hold our public safety personnel to a really high standard because we literally place our lives in their hands. What is your commitment to removing toxicity in public safety departments?
Speaker 8: Yeah, absolutely. So my my career part of my career has been devoted to internal accountability, internal affairs, functions. I've arrested uniformed cops. Very hard to do. Very hard to do. I've had that. That's been a responsibility of mine. When I first joined the city, I joined the city as a calling. At the time when I first moved here, my wife's career brought us here to Denver. And thankfully this is a beautiful place to live and to raise my family. When I got here, I was watching in the news. I'm a news junkie. I was watching the Denver Post. The Denver Sheriff's Department was in the news for not good reasons. Marvin Booker Those situations just came out. They were talking about backlogs in their internal affairs functions. It was just an utter disarray. The sheriff had stepped down at the time and then there was a calling for. External candidates for to help their internal affairs department. At that point, I said, you know what? I could help. I can help there. I have good experience there. And I came here as one of those external investigators. Then rising to their civilian commander, their accountability has been something that's always been important to me. And I'm not afraid to hold that accountability for our officers. I do think with the power that an officer has the power to arrest or to detain, we give them a firearm. You know, ultimately they can take someone's life and the preservation of other lives. That's significant. And we have to make sure that those folks that are out there wearing our uniform and doing the job that they've sworn to do are held accountable when they don't when they are those toxic employees, when they are the folks that shouldn't be wearing the badge. I've encountered those folks. They need to go and they need to have that accountability. So I'm going to work hard with our independent monitor, with our citizen oversight board, with all those entities that provide oversight, but also with our leadership team, with our leadership teams of our departments, and letting them know that this conduct misconduct is not going to be tolerated. And when I'm making those final decisions on discipline, you can trust that I'm going to make those decisions based on, first the evidence, but ultimately on holding folks accountable. We cannot continue to to allow behavior of misconduct to take place and not me. And with that, though, I do want to balance you know, people make mistakes. Officers are not are not robots. They make mistakes. I made mistakes as an officer. We got to balance that. Right. We got to make sure that we're not exacting a pound of flesh for an honest mistake, that we we recognize that that folks will make mistakes. Where can we train? Where can we make our officers better? We have to take advantage of that as well. So I want to work with our our police, you know, our police department, our fire department or sheriff's department, community corrections, all our departments and our safety department to make our staffs better at their job and provide them more training. So it limits those mistakes that we do make.
Speaker 3: Thank you. I appreciate that. I will look for that. I will support your nomination tonight, but I will hold you to that standard. It may only be a year and a half.
Speaker 9: Left in this particular administration, but every one of.
Speaker 3: Those days matters to our residents. So I hope you'll be swift and judicious in that work.
Speaker 8: Thank you. Absolutely. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Thank you for not seeing anyone else.
Speaker 2: And I'd like to hear from you. Earlier, I was on, I was like by 3 minutes, hoping.
Speaker 3: We continue on.
Speaker 0: With our meeting. Madam. Mr. Hagan, you. But this is not the time. Madam Secretary, please roll call on Council Resolution 145, please.
Speaker 5: See tobacco.
Speaker 3: No.
Speaker 4: Clarke, i.
Speaker 3: Flynn.
Speaker 6: I.
Speaker 0: Herndon, I have.
Speaker 6: All right. Cashman, i.
Speaker 7: Kenny Ortega.
Speaker 3: I. Sandoval.
Speaker 7: I.
Speaker 5: Sawyer.
Speaker 7: I.
Speaker 3: Torres. I. Black Eye.
Speaker 0: Madam President, I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce results. One Me 12 Eyes 12 Eyes Council Resolution 145 has been adopted. 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 Ortega, will you please put the proclamations and resolutions for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor?
Speaker 3: I will then, as President, I move that proclamations and resolutions be adopted and bills on final consideration be placed on final consideration and do pass in a bloc. Vote for the following items. Proclamation 244. Resolution 146. 153. 154155156157158148. 1491 5132. 133. 134. 135 to 38. 239 240. 129. 136 137 139 one 3815. Ten. 21. 15. Ten. 22 127. And I believe that's it.
Speaker 0: I believe that is it. We we got them all their council secretary.
Speaker 3: We did. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Wonderful. It has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, roll call, please.
Speaker 3: CdeBaca. I. Eye for an.
Speaker 8: Eye.
Speaker 0: Brendan.
Speaker 6: Hi. Hi.
Speaker 0: Cashman.
Speaker 6: Hi.
Speaker 3: Kenny Ortega. Sandoval. I swear, I. Torres. I. I. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced the results. 13 eyes. 13 eyes. The proclamations and 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 20003 changing the zoning classification for 735 North Milwaukee Street in Congress Park.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving the Mayoral appointment of Armando Saldate as Executive Director of the Department of Safety, pursuant to Charter Section § 2.2.6 (D).
The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 2-9-22.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_02222022_22-0003
|
Speaker 0: We have three public hearings tonight for those who are participating in-person when called upon. Please come to the podium and on the presentation monitor. On the wall you will see your time counting down for those who are participating virtually. When called upon, please wait until our meeting hosts promote you to speaker. When you were 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 residents 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 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. Will alternate between in-person and virtual for efficiency by calling in-person participants and then alternating to virtual protests. Speakers must stay on the topic of the hearing and must draw up their comments to the council members. Please refrain from profane or obscene speech. Judge your comments to council as a whole and please refrain from individual or personal attacks. Councilmember Ortega. Will you please put Council Bill two to death 0003 on the floor for final passage.
Speaker 3: Yes, Madam President. I move that. Council Bill 20 2-0003 be placed on final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded the required public hearing for Council Bill 22-0003 is open. May we have that report, please?
Speaker 5: Good afternoon, members of City Council. Madam President, my name is Frank Bruni, filled with CPD, and I'm here today to present you the rezoning for 735 North Milwaukee Street. Subject property is located in Council District ten. In the Congress Park neighborhood. And the request is to rezone through a district that will allow for an 80 you in the rear of the property. All other forms of your standard will remain the same. The property is currently zoned U.S. and the request to rezone to U.S. U.S. one, which requires a minimum lot size of 5500 square feet and allows for a detached U in the rear of the property. The site is 6250 square feet and the current land use for the site is single unit residential and it is totally surrounded by other residential uses. The property is within the Crown View plane that allows for heights up to 125 feet in this location. So building on neighbor, you should not be a problem. My apologies. The star is not where it should be. The subject property is also within the Seventh Avenue Historic District. Therefore, any additions or alterations to the structure would require a review by Denver Landmarks Preservation. As shown on these photos, the character of the neighborhood is mostly residential. The subject property can be seen in the bottom right image of the slide. Throughout the rezoning process, application notifications have been provided according to code requirements. Planning Board recommended approval anonymously in December 25, and to date, staff has received one letter in support of the rezoning stating how to use our creative way to help provide affordable units in communities and staff. Also received two letters of opposition from the public. The letters. These two letters express concerns with a potential increase in population density, the scale of a two storey AEW preservation of historic character and decreasing property values. On the first point, I would like to mention that Denver's zoning code and associated licensing regulations allows the resident of a primary dwelling unit to conduct a short term rental , either in the primary dwelling unit or in a legally permitted accessory dwelling unit. This basically means that a resident in a primary structure can apply for a short term rental license as long as they live in the property. Not not allowing for an you won't prevent an applicant from getting a short term rental license. On the second and third point, voicing concerns over the scale of the two stories to you and preservation of historic character. City rules limit the size of an EU so that they are always smaller, an accessory accessory to the main house and don't overwhelm or shadow neighboring houses. Many Denver neighborhoods already allow free to use. For example, carriage houses are commonly featured in historic neighborhoods. The site is located within the East Seventh Avenue Historic District CBD stuff in coordination with Landmarks Preservation Commission Reform Design Review for all projects that are required. Building permits for properties located in designated historic districts. This review ensures that exterior alterations preserve the property's key historic character defining features and qualities. If the site is to be stone and a need to use proposal, it would be subject to review by Landmark Preservation Commission. Now in the final point, voice in the letters about the concern on decreasing property values, we have not seen any data.
Speaker 3: That proves that property.
Speaker 5: Values decrease way to use our build. Now moving on to Denver's zoning code review criteria, it must be found that the request map amendment amendment is consistent with five material. The first criteria is consistency with adopted plans. There are three plans applicable to his rezoning Comprehensive Plan 2040 Blueprint, Denver and the East Central Area Plan. As stated in the staff report, the rezoning is consistent with several goals in 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. The subject property is mapped as part of the urban neighborhood context in Denver and the future places map designates a US low residential place type. This place type. Displaced types have predominantly single and two unit uses, and accessory dwelling units are appropriate. Milwaukee Street is designated as a local street, which is mostly characterized by residential uses. The growth area in Denver is all other areas of the city. These areas are anticipated to see a 10% growth and employment growth and 20% housing growth by 2040. Blueprint also includes specific policy recommendations. Housing policy number four focuses on diversifying housing choice through the expansion of accessory dwelling units throughout all residential areas. And then finally, the final plan, the East Central Area Plan was adopted by City Council in 2020 and applies to its subject property. The plan includes general recommendations and neighborhood specific recommendations and utilizes the same context and place framework as Blueprint. Denver. The subject property is designated urban low residential, the same as in Denver. The land use and build form section includes specific recommendations on rezoning. Reduce Tragedy. See recommends implementing adopted city waste policy in Blueprint Denver to diversify housing choice through expansion of its use throughout all residential areas, while also addressing context and sensitive data design and removing barriers to a two year construction. It goes further in saying that any use should be allowed in all residential forms. The proposed amendment is consistent with the East Central Area Plans, concert context and place designation and would allow for an accessory dwelling unit that is appropriate for this location in the neighborhood, making it consistent with the plan. Stuff also finds that the requested rezoning meets the next two criteria. The rezoning will result in uniformity of district regulations, and it will also further the public health, safety and welfare, primarily through the implementation of adopted plans. The justified circumstance for this rezoning is to see the adopted plan. Since the approval of the existing U.S., you see some districts the city has adopted the comprehensive plan in Denver and the East Central Area Plan stated throughout this presentation. The proposed rezoning meets the intent of this plan's. Overall, the proposed rezoning is consistent with the urban neighborhood context, residential district and the U.S. You see one swing district . Without requirements, approval based on finding or review criteria has been met.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Fran. We have one individual signed up to speak this evening on this hearing. We have Jesse Paris. I'm getting word from our producers that you're not accepting. It looks like you're in now. Okay. There we go. We're going to go ahead and get you cued up, Jesse.
Speaker 6: There's also a long black noose. And I'll be in November and 2023 when Barack's rezoning the mines. I supported 80 units. I supported the city council at large in 2019. I got almost 15,000 votes with no money, so I continue to support them in 2022. I just wanted to know what this used going to be used for and is it going to be used for aides and family members or. It was going to be. So it's on. So please answer that question. I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. That concludes our speakers questions from members of Council on Council Build 20 2-0003. All right. I'm not seeing any questions from members of council. The sorry, the public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 20 2-0003 Council Member Hines Thank you.
Speaker 6: Council President I this is in my district. I want to thank CPD for the presentation. When I was a candidate for office, I heard a lot about housing density. I know that there were some fliers that were sent out that were saying that I supported 80 plus story buildings everywhere. I think one of the allegations was specifically in Congress Park. We're in a housing crisis. We do need more density, but we don't need 80 plus story buildings everywhere. I see accessory dwelling units in a beautiful neighborhood of Congress Park as one way for for congress park to add a little bit of gentle density to our city . And as long as we all do our part that in in context with the surrounding neighborhood. I believe that that we can move forward to tackle some of our affordable housing challenges. So while I don't think the 80 plus storey building makes a lot of sense in in most of our city, particularly in Congress Park, an accessory dwelling unit makes a whole lot of sense. And in addition to that, this meets the five criteria. So I would encourage a yes vote for my colleagues. I'll be voting yes. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Hines and I do agree with you as well. The rezoning criteria have been met and we'll be supporting this this evening as well. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 22, Dash 0003.
Speaker 3: CdeBaca.
Speaker 7: Hi.
Speaker 6: All.
Speaker 0: Cashman.
Speaker 3: I can eat. I. Ortega. I. Sandoval. I swear. I. Torres. I. Black eye. Clark.
Speaker 6: All right.
Speaker 4: Flynn.
Speaker 8: All right.
Speaker 0: Herndon. Ah. Madam President, I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced the results. 13 Eyes. 13 Eyes. Council Bill 20 2-0003 has passed. Thank you, friend. Councilmember Ortega, will you please put Council Bill 20 2-0016 on the floor for final passage?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 735 North Milwaukee Street in Congress Park.
Approves a map amendment to rezone property from U-SU-C to U-SU-C1 (allows for an accessory dwelling unit), located at 735 North Milwaukee Street in Council District 10. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 12-28-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_02222022_22-0016
|
Speaker 0: Herndon. Ah. Madam President, I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced the results. 13 Eyes. 13 Eyes. Council Bill 20 2-0003 has passed. Thank you, friend. Councilmember Ortega, will you please put Council Bill 20 2-0016 on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 3: Madam President, I move that council bill 20 2-0016 be ordered to be placed on final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded the required public hearing for Council Bill 20 2-0016 is open. May we have a staff report, please?
Speaker 5: I just want to make a quick clarification. I believe the case number is 2020 100574, 1974, 1990, South Huron Street, if that's what was stated. Sorry.
Speaker 3: Um.
Speaker 0: The. Yes. So our bill. The bill number is 20 2-0016. Okay.
Speaker 5: All right. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Okay, sir. Okay, planner.
Speaker 5: Very good to present the case number 2020 100574, 1974, 1990, South Huron Street. And this request is to go from E2 City Subway. So this is in Council District seven in Clarke's district. More specifically, it's in the Overland neighborhood. And this request again, is from if you see it. Yes. This property is 18, just over 18,000 square feet, and there are actually two properties. So each property is just around 9000 square feet and there are one storey single family homes on each zone lot. And the request as a reason to allow up to three single family homes on each zone lot. So the existing zoning is it you see on the subject sites as well as within the surrounding area. There's also zoning of OSA to the west and to the north and there is um, x three to the south. I'd like to point out a couple of differences between the existing zone district and the proposed district. So the existing zone district of E2 C allows the Urban House detached accessory dwelling unit duplex in tandem house building forms, and those are allowed on a minimum zone lot size of 5500 square feet. The proposed zone district of East A allows the Urban House building form and is allowed on a minimum zone. Lot size of 3000 square feet. So just to break it down, each property has just over 9000 square feet. So if there was potentially a zone law amendment, there could be three single family homes on each zone, not allowing up to six units total for both properties. One thing I'd like to point out between the existing and proposed zone district is to propose a scenario of what would be allowed if you had two units. So with the proposed zone district, if there were two urban houses, that would be allowed on a minimum size of 6000 square feet. So one house on a 3000 square foot lot with the existing zoned district, there is one duplex that can be allowed, which is also two units, and that's allowed on 3500 square feet. So what I want to call out is that this proposed district would allow a similar density that was already allowed today, but just in a slightly different way. So the existing land use on the subject site is single unit residential and there is predominantly small unit residential in the surrounding area as well as to unit and multi-unit residential with the park and open space against the north and west as well as industrial to the south. These are some images of the building forms on the properties today. So it is a one storey single family home on each zone lot and these are some images of the surrounding properties. So again, one story homes, single family homes on each side that's kind of surrounding the area. So we're at the city council public hearing tonight. And I just want to point out that a planning board, public hearing, the planning board voted 8 to 1 to recommend that city council approve the application. I'd like to call out some of the public comment those received. The public comment was received in the staff report, and that includes everything. So I'm just going to give a very quick summary of what was compiled within the public comment letters. So the Overland Park Neighborhood Association submitted a letter of support, claiming that they would like to see three single family detached homes on the sites. And the neighbors of Overland North submitted a letter of opposition. In addition to that, there were 45 letters of opposition. A decent amount of them could be considered form letters and maybe a template. And then a lot of these, in summary, stated a concern of increased density, a concern of potential traffic and parking, and a concern of affordability of maybe the subject sites as well as potential increase in property taxes. There were ten letters of support received and they stated a desire for single family homes and that those single family homes would keep in character with the existing neighborhood. In addition to that, they stated the desire for the moderate increase in density and felt that that was appropriate for the neighborhood. And lastly, there was one letter not necessarily opposing the rezoning, but opposing the development of three units on each side. So I'll move on to the review criteria and how this rezoning case is consistent with it. So starting with the consistency with adopted plans, there are four plans that apply to the subject site. All of that is detailed in the staff report. So I'm going to skip over the comprehensive plan and start with the consistency with the blueprint. Denver Blueprint. Denver identifies future contexts, and the future context for these sites is urban edge, urban as is described as residential areas that are generally single and to users with some low scale and multi unit embedded throughout. So this rezoning request is consistent with the urban edge neighborhood context blueprint. Denver also identifies the future place types, and the place type for here is residential low and it's also described as predominately single and two unit uses on small or medium lots. So this rezoning request is consistent with this plan. Recommendation again blueprint. Denver identifies the growth area strategy and these sites have all other areas of the city applied to it, which essentially means that it's anticipated to see about 20% of new housing growth, as well as 10% of new employment employment growth by 2040. I want to talk a little bit about some of this additional guidance that's outlined in Blueprint Denver. So it has additional guidance for the residential low place type. So this guidance is for if a rezoning request comes in to allow smaller zone lot sizes. And if that comes in, the appropriateness of the rezoning request depends upon the existing character and neighborhood plan guidance. So this request is consistent with that. However, there is additional language that applies to the site, and it states that if there is an applicant driven rezoning request that is an individual site or an assemblage of sites, that and if this request is potentially a departure from the established zone lot pattern, then the request may be appropriate if the intent is to set a new pattern for the area as expressed by an adopted smarter plan. So I'll talk a little bit more about the evaluation of the second bullet points. I'll point you to the map that's on the left and talk you through about how we evaluate kind of the patterns for zone lots. So the subject properties are outlined in the lime green and they have the red color applied to it. So anything in red means that it is a size of 7000 square feet or larger. So the zone lot size is seven square feet larger. When we look to see if there's a pattern for the requested zones, the pattern would be to look to see if there's the darker blue zone lots. Those zone lots are 4500 square feet or less. So again, the requested zone district allows a minimum zone that size of 3000 square feet. So we look to see if there's a pattern of the blue and if the blue has the same use. So everything shown on the map has the same use of the proposed zone district, which is a single unit. As you can see, there's not necessarily a pattern of those so lot sizes. So then the evaluation looks to kind of the second half of the language saying is there additional guidance from adopted small area plans that support this and support the recommendation from Blueprint Denver? And there is additional guidance that do make this recommendation consistent with this plan, which I'll talk about next. So there's a seven station area plan. It identifies these subject sites as the land use of single family duplex. And there's a detailed description of what that means. It's on the PowerPoint right now. I'm not going to read all of it, but I'll summarize it on this slide. So for this land use, it recommends to allow a mixture of housing types to encourage new development consistent with existing conditions. And the plan describes the existing conditions as small, single family lots around 4500 square feet with moderate lot coverage and shallow to moderate setbacks. In addition to that, the plan recommends densities that should be between ten and 20 housing units per acre area wide. So looking at this plan, I'll talk through how this rezoning request is consistent with these recommendations. So the request is consistent with the predominant single unit character of the neighborhood. And it also allows additional units. It allows for a density of housing units that is consistent with the typical density that's outlined, which is 10 to 20 units per acre, and falls about halfway in between that recommended density. It also encourages the potential reinvestment in the neighborhood and provides an additional mixture of housing types of urban houses on smaller lots. And then lastly, the smaller lot size of the requested zone district would allow for a similar number of units as a two unit district. But again, in just a different way, the Overland Neighborhood Plan also applies to the site. It's a little bit older plan, but even still the request is consistent with its guidance. This plan identifies these properties as being in the residential subgroup A and it describes this subgroup as being considered a single family enclave. And it also has an additional recommendation to develop the remaining land in a manner that is compatible with the land use character and density of surrounding land use and the existing zoning. So the request of single unit would be with would be consistent with the neighborhood character that's there today as well as the land use. So that is a review of the consistency with the plans. The proposed zoning will also result in uniform application of zone, district building form use and the design regulations. So it meets criteria number two and it also furthers the public health, safety and welfare because it's consistent with Blueprint Denver's policies. And it also encourages compatible compatible infill as well as potential for new housing. For the fourth criteria justifying circumstances there. There is a change to such a degree that the proposed reasoning is in the public interest. So first, looking at city adopted plans as a justifying circumstance, there are plans that provide clear guidance and strategies and they also identify the need for a variety of housing types that are consistent with the existing neighborhood character. In addition to that, there are teams are changing conditions found in the neighborhood that can be used as a justifying circumstance. Blueprint Denver identifies the West Evans Avenue as a future place type of community corridor and the area adjacent to the Evans station as community center. And those areas along the corridor as well as near the station have seen some change over time and some growth over time as well. In addition to that, there has been city investments, city investments to a nearby park, and there is also a planned pedestrian bridge just northeast of this neighborhood. It's called the Jewel Evans Station Bicycle and Pedestrian Bridge. And it was part of the 2017 Elevate Denver Bond. So it's received initial funding and it's also had an RFQ out for initial design services. So the rezoning request was also found consistent with the neighborhood context zone, district purpose and intent. So finally, based on the criteria for review and the Denver Zoning Code staff recommends approval for application 2020 1i00057. Thank you. I'll be here for questions.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Sarah, for the staff report. We have 20 individuals signed up to speak this evening. Our first speaker is in person, Neil Shay. Please introduce yourself for the public record.
Speaker 2: Neil Shay 1625 South Lincoln Street. Like to thank council for having me tonight. Thank you, sir, for your presentation. So really what we're looking at here with this rezoning is a down zoning to a more attainable building form and one that's more in line with the character of the neighborhood. What could be built here under the current zoning is a massive duplex, one that's two and a half stories tall wedding cake style, 55 feet wide and up to 35, finished square feet above grade and would sell well into the $900,000. What we're proposing under this new zoning is actually three smaller single family homes that would be built on 3000 square foot lots. We can build them three beds, two and a half baths and aim to deliver these in the mid six hundreds to low seven hundreds. Each home would still be two and a half stories tall, but just under 19 feet wide. And all four two car garage. I do want to highlight the fact.
Speaker 0: Pull your mike down a little bit. We. You better. Thank you.
Speaker 2: I do want to highlight the fact that starting in the fall of 2019, we started our community outreach. We met with both neighborhood organizations, and we also met with individual residents one on one. During those meetings, we gained a lot of feedback. The feedback, as Sarah mentioned earlier, had to do with everything from affordability, higher property taxes, traffic. Neighborhood character. And the assurance that we would actually build what we said we're going to build. And we're aiming to address all those issues in this rezoning. We continue to meet with residents in the Oberlin neighborhood, and at our sixth meeting with the Overland Park Neighborhood Association, we did get that letter of support from that R.A.. Post resume. We continue to plan on meeting with these Hornets and individuals to get their feedback on what the actual design of these units will look like. Finally in closing, I just want to mention that most everybody knows that development in this neighborhood is inevitable. It's already happening. But we can do it in a more responsible manner. Our proposed rezoning is aligned with the city's planning documents, which call for greater diversity of residential dwelling units in an area in and around neighborhoods with greater access to transit. This proposal also seeks to minimize displacement by providing more attainable units that are significantly more in line with the existing neighborhood character. And finally, I'd just like to say, as was mentioned earlier, we are in a housing crisis. I'm also a licensed realtor. Before I came down here today, I checked the MLS to see how many available units were active online. There were 314 in all the county of Denver. All we're asking for is one additional unit that would currently be allowed by the current zoning, as Councilman Hines mentioned earlier. A gentle density might be appropriate. I think that word speaks well here. Thanks. Would also be more taking.
Speaker 0: The time we have allotted speaker. Thank you. Thank you. We're going to go ahead and move on line. And our first speaker joining us via Zoom is Weston Snyder. Go ahead, please. Weston. You're going to have to unmute yourself. It looks like you're unmuted. We have westerns, audio. Listen, we have you unmuted. Okay. Well, China is Western speaking or. Okay. We'll go ahead and try to come back to Weston if there's some problem. We'll go next to Beverly Bravo.
Speaker 3: Hi. My name is Beverly Bravo, and I live in Denver, Colorado. I own a property in Overland Park and. I support the application because I think that it is going to be a good, soft manner of providing more density in a transportation corridor and. It will be nicer than those duplexes that are going up. Sorry, I can't seem to get my video right. They're going to be smaller. You know, single family. And hopefully they'll be more affordable for and support home ownership. And like Neil said, the. The. Development seems to be inevitable. And it but it could be done it could be done in a nicer fashion than those huge kind of somewhat ugly duplexes that have been populating the whole area. So, again, I own a house in Overland and I do support the application for this zoning. And that's all.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. We're going to try to go back to Weston Snyder.
Speaker 6: Was going to ask me about.
Speaker 0: Western it showing that you're unmuted.
Speaker 6: Okay. Is that better?
Speaker 0: Yes. Go ahead. Okay.
Speaker 6: Perfect. My name is Weston Snyder and I own 1904 South Huron Street with my wife, Cleo Castelluccio. And we oppose the zoning change. I lived in a neighborhood prior that had some of the units that Neil Sheehan was using in one of his presentations. I was at 1240 South Pennsylvania Street, and the units in question were 1291 through 1295, and that neighborhood specifically was already shotgun lots. And that kind of fit with the esthetic of the neighborhood. In this situation, it's larger single family homes and duplexes, not three shotgun lots with single family homes on them. And. In my experience, we had a lot of parking issues in that neighborhood, and I think that had a lot to do with just the density of the housing, and that's going to become an issue here. We actually had to move to street permits for parking in that area. And another thing I've noticed is that our current zoning, we haven't even begin to touch what's available there as far as growth. So I don't see the need to move to a further dense plan than what we're already using. That's all I have.
Speaker 0: Our next speaker this evening is Mara SHAPIRO.
Speaker 3: Can you hear me?
Speaker 0: Yes. Hello?
Speaker 3: Can you hear me? Yes. My name is. My name is Mary Schapiro. I live at 1977, South Huron, and they lived at this address for more than 40 years. So I'm very vested in the neighborhood. I would like to speak against the proposal to rezone the property in 1974, in 1990, South Huron. This proposal was originally presented in 2019, but with was but was withdrawn shortly afterwards because at that time the city's community planning office indicated they probably would not be able to support it, since it was inconsistent with Blueprint Denver plans. The idea behind Blueprint Denver is that if changes are to be made to the zoning, it should not be for just one or two specific addresses, but only if there is an established pattern in the surrounding blocks. There is not an established pattern for smaller lots in Oberlin North. The character and pattern of lot sizes in Oberlin North is larger lots. I would like to present a fact based reason not to accept the zoning change. We live in a floodplain. I was on the Colorado Demat team for over ten years. Demat is the Disaster Medical Assistance Team. I was deployed to Texas for Hurricane Harvey in 2017. It was determined that a major reason for the flooding and damage that happened in Houston from Hurricane Harvey was because Houston has been so built up with buildings and cement. There is no place for the water to go. Overland Park hasn't flooded since 1965 and that is why Chatfield Dam was built. But we still are in the flood plain from Harvard Gulch. We continue to pay for flood insurance only once since I have lived here. Has the river swelled. And when that happened, the water almost reached the bike path and passed Grinnell's landing. Why do we want to repeat the same mistake made in Houston in our neighborhood by increasing the buildings and cement and Mother Nature to cause flooding here. The comment could be made, but we're only changing the lot. Size of two lots. That won't really affect anything. The problem with that comment is that once the zoning is changed at one address, it will set a precedent. And when the next developer wants to change the zoning and another address, that developer would be able to say, You've already changed it once. Why can't we do it again? It won't have much of an impact. The Denver Post analysis in 2018 found that green space in Denver is disappearing faster than in most other cities, with paved over coverage increasing from 19% of the city in 1974 to 48% in 2018. This deviates greatly from Denver's heritage of over a century ago of being a city within a park. We've all heard the old fable about the boiling frog in the story. A frog is placed in a large pot filled with cold water, is very content with not a care were a care in the world. Then someone comes by and fires up the burner. The water in the pot slowly begins to get warmer and warmer. But the frog is not concerned. As he finds the warmth refreshing, the heat keeps gradually rising until the frog has become so high that.
Speaker 0: A lot of groups don't go ahead and move on to our next speaker. Mara Owen.
Speaker 6: I was cut off.
Speaker 3: Hello. My name is my own. Can you hear me?
Speaker 0: Mara, we've got to get you unmuted in chambers. Go ahead, please. Hello. You can hear me now? Yes.
Speaker 3: Wonderful. Hello. My name is Mara Owen. I live in Denver on the 2200 block of South Acoma. And I'm the current president of the Overland Park Neighborhood Association. I'd like to give some additional context around the open letter of support for this rezoning. Neil Shay with Vision Acquisitions first attending our monthly meeting in July of 2019. We requested at that time that he return to another meeting to allow neighbors advance notice for the talk. But the topic would be discussed and for us to send out notes for his presentation so anyone interested could attend. As we do with all of our meetings, we emailed out a detailed met list for anyone who missed the meeting who could find out what would happen. Neal presented again at the September 2019 monthly meeting and requested a letter of support. All 20 members of our organization present at that meeting voted unanimously in support of the rezoning, which at that time was proposed from Etsy to YouTube, with the caveat that we required a good neighbor agreement to ensure the plans presented for three smaller square footage homes would be followed through on knowing that the designation still allowed for the duplex building form at this September 2019 meeting. We also informed Neil that he should reach out to Nunes, since he had not yet done so, which he did thereafter. Shortly in October of 2019, Neil presented to open a another three times monthly meetings in August of 2020, October 2020, and most recently in January 2022 at the October 2020 monthly meeting. Neil informed us of the rezoning had changed from requesting to be to ESU, which would remove the need for a good neighbor agreement to enforce the building form that would actually be constructed as three smaller square footage homes versus duplex. Another discussion was and a vote was taken for the new request and again passed unanimously with 15 members in attendance. As a side note, our organization does not submit letters of support or opposition if there's no consensus at the meetings. At all meetings. Healthy conversation around the proposal occurred prior to any vote, and the following main points were discussed multiple times when deciding to vote in favor. Smaller lots allow for more units overall and support smaller footprint homes which, even if they have the same price per square foot as a larger home, can be more affordable simply because of the reduced square footage, regardless of the eventual architecture. This is especially important since affordability is relative and even prices for existing homes in our neighborhood are well above what most current owners would consider accessible. It fit in to neighbors ideas of our community as a more inclusive and accessible place to live. It also reflected the need to provide more housing in general, and the trend of smaller, new dealer families, instead of providing larger square footage is simply a different way to provide the same number of bedrooms. But more housing options equals more flexibility in the idea of the electric nature of our neighborhood comes from diversity in both people and housing stock, and we are proud to have Victorian style homes situated right next to mid-century modern homes, row homes and duplexes all in the same neighborhood. And this would further added diversity of housing options. If anyone would like more information on the Overland Park Neighborhood Association to read our meeting minutes or we'd like to sign up for our newsletter to stay up to date, please visit. Denver Got word? Anyone and everyone are welcome to attend meetings. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Sean Mulcahy. Right. Do we have Shaun moved into the queue?
Speaker 6: This is Sean.
Speaker 0: Go ahead, please.
Speaker 2: Yes, sir. My name is Sean Mulcahy.
Speaker 6: I live at 1993, South Huron, and I've owned this. I've lived at this property for 16 years.
Speaker 2: I love the neighborhood. I. I oppose. I oppose the proposition.
Speaker 6: I believe that there's enough density here. I'm worried about.
Speaker 4: Traffic.
Speaker 2: And that's pretty much what I have. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Sean. Our next speaker joining us online is Terry Pasqua. Okay. Terry, we have you in the queue. You're going to have to unmute.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 0: Go ahead, please.
Speaker 3: Hi. Thank you, Madam President, and members of City Council. My name is Terry Pascale, and I'm here with my husband, Paul. The Door. We live at six or six Westall Avenue, three blocks from the subject property. And this is our joint statement. Homeowners in the hood for 14 years and active members of the Overland Park Neighborhood Association. Not for ten years. We are for the rezoning in order to promote more discussion of affordable single family homes, four wells with no shared walls, which allows for windows and light on all sides. We would also like to state the obvious process for voting in support of this stunning change was fair, equitable and consistent with its well established and communicated practices. As its former.
Speaker 9: Secretary, I can.
Speaker 3: Attest office meeting agendas are mailed out in advance to several hundred neighbors and detailed minutes from each monthly meeting are also sent out to the same list. Notices are posted on Facebook and the minutes are also posted on our website at the Denver dot org. Those of us who are actively involved with Ana wish that a lot more neighbors would pay attention to such zoning requests, participate in our meetings, become voting members, and to share their opinions when it's most timely and most effective. One comment we've heard from neighbors is their concern of increased density. As far as we know, every new development that has taken place during the past few years has already added to an increase in density. But where we're located next to South Platte River and with the largest open green space in Denver right outside our doors, a little added density in the hood does not affect the overall living experience. And regarding affordability, this rezoning, by the time these small single family homes are built, we can assume a price around 600,000 based on the recent shared will townhomes on the same block, Zillow estimates around 800,000. Still, we expect the new homes to be offered about 200, 250,000 or more below the large duplexes. That would not require any rezoning. As such, affordability is relative and it's not in our control. By not approving this change, the developer will be able to move forward and build a duplex up to 55 feet wide. And if our neighbors are okay with building bigger and more expansive duplexes as tradeoffs for less density than we can understand, but we respectfully disagree by approving this change, it would it would allow for detached single family homes on smaller lots, which would add more variety of choices and more affordability. In fact, we feel that this and also the YouTube rezoning of our some of our large lots would best serve our greater Denver community needs and is in accordance with Blueprint Denver. If you want to support smaller, more affordable and available single family homes, we strongly request that you support this proposal. Thank you for the opportunity to express our views and this joint statement.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Sheryl Peterson.
Speaker 3: Going, General, good eating mothers, president and city council members. I am a homeowner homeowner on South U.S. Street, which is the same block where the developer wants to rezone the too much to increase the density. They are strongly against the city council voting tonight to allow. I see a dangerous precedent set in a neighborhood where city planners previously determined that the large flats in our small 20 block enclave of Overland Park could take up to two dwelling units for side. I have three areas conserved in our neighborhood. The increase of density allows for more cars. More parking concerns. Currently, the zoning allows for the existing single family. Large blocks be redeveloped into two dwelling units. The proposal in front of me tonight is to build three dwelling units, which would increase the density for those two blocks from the existing to the proposed by 300% and increase from the existing two. The current zoning in place by 150%. That's a lot. We live right up against the Platte River. This area is in the floodplain and residents are required to carry flood insurance. More density beyond what is allowed would increase the extreme stress on flooding issues. The precedent would it would set would create others to try to rezone the remaining large swaths 45 feet of water, which would attack the systems in the neighborhood even more. If rezoning is a consideration with the planning department, why are they doing a study to determine if this is appropriate and come up with a plan to present it to the complete neighborhood, including our small area of Overland Park? I've always thought that the city planners have made sound decisions to protect the fabric of the neighborhoods and not make decisions that favor one person over the homeowners. I'm a bit surprised that it has gone through our current system this far. I'm confused by the rezoning.
Speaker 7: Of the Planning Commission.
Speaker 3: To support this and to put it in front of the City Council. Please vote against the rezoning proposal and direct the developer to work within the current zoning. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Jack Ron.
Speaker 6: Am I on, as we say?
Speaker 2: Yes. Okay. Madam President.
Speaker 6: And members of.
Speaker 2: Council, this is a regular sort of question for council. With tremendous demand for housing at generally unaffordable prices and supply side interest in this market opportunity. You're going to find neighbors for and against, depending on what they think the impact will be for them, since the knowledgeable members of the Zoning Commission overwhelmingly recommended in favor of the change. Before you hear, I assume that the general new urban view of how the proposal and the neighborhood match from a planning perspective was behind their informed decision.
Speaker 6: The quasi judicial responsibility.
Speaker 2: Before you again is, I hope, uncomplicated on its merits. I speak for the zoning change because the proposed use agrees with the historic building.
Speaker 6: Forms in the neighborhood I've lived.
Speaker 2: In for the past 40 plus years. Single family homes on single lots. It was the need for greater density, which this zoning recommendation would accomplish to accommodate demand and limit sprawl.
Speaker 6: That.
Speaker 2: Caused the longstanding R one zoning, which this, until the recent zoned form based zoning, came on line to be changed to two units per lot at these addresses, and also supportive of the two independent developers who partnered to develop these properties they currently own and opted to build six homes that by definition more closely matched the immediately surrounding properties rather than the two duplexes addressable under the current zoning. They have reached out to all applicable R.A. and have received the endorsement of the Overland Park Neighborhood Association, largely by appealing to new urban design practices and making American Dream home and property ownership as affordable as possible.
Speaker 6: With modest.
Speaker 2: Dwellings on discrete properties. Six Home owning families are a positive addition.
Speaker 6: To our neighborhood in terms of the.
Speaker 2: Architectural similarity. The zoning would now require the the powerful stabilizing stakes that these neighbors would have in the health of their area, as expressed by the large participation of people testifying this evening and entry price.
Speaker 6: Points that.
Speaker 2: Mitigate the alienation of gentrification. Please support the request to change our neighborhood associations will certainly invite them to become activists in one. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Frank Peterson. And Frank, we have you joining via phone, I believe so. You'll have to.
Speaker 6: Ask us.
Speaker 0: To unmute. Go ahead.
Speaker 6: Okay. Thank you, Madam President and Council. Appreciate the opportunity to to at least share my voice. My name is Frank Peterson. I reside at 1900 South Shore on. And I'm vehemently opposed to changing the rezoning to allow three individual homes on one lot in our neighborhood. This would.
Speaker 8: Create six homes where there are currently.
Speaker 6: Two. That's a you know, if I do the math, it's a 200% increase in the number of buildings and the number of people that will be residing in those buildings. This is not good for our community in overland and in our direct area. It is only good for the developer. No one knows what's going to be built and what it's going to look like. So that's kind of hard to to say that and be realistic. Creating this additional density to our block would create over the top parking issues a crowded.
Speaker 8: Street where there are currently.
Speaker 6: Drive thru traffic issues as it is scheduled to run here on is a cut through for many. This sets a very bad precedent to flood our neighborhood with additional buildings. These are not affordable housing. As the developer said, they're going to be 600 to $750000. So that's really not, in my mind an argument. And the floodplain issue is huge. Thank you very much. That's all I've got.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Pete Helfer. Okay. Pete, you're going to have to mute, please.
Speaker 6: There we go. Yeah. I would like to speak in support of the rezoning application. I own a property a few blocks south on Gallup. They go up and down there. I and I sent a letter to you all down there in that block, in particular, those couple of blocks south of Evans. We've really seen a lot of these scrapes and rebuilds of these of these big duplexes. And, you know, I think that would probably be the standard development tactic for for these larger lots, you know, if they aren't allowed to be, as Mr. Shays sat down, zoned into smaller parcels for some smaller homes and increased for them, you know, to live in units to three, you know, was not that great. And, you know, the city is facing affordable housing crisis. As I said in my letter, I don't think anything new construction is going to be, you know, truly affordable without some kind of subsidy. But this is going to be at the lower end of the market. And my experience with Mr. Dickson is that he's going to make them zero net energy to and, you know, infill density is is kind of on a par with energy efficiency in the structure itself. It's sort of they go together. Otherwise, you know, the option becomes sprawl. You know, one more household has to go out to Douglas County or up to Morrisville or something. Sorry, you know, Erie. So, so I'm in support of this. It's not that great of an increase. And the proposal I saw did have garages planned so they'd be, you know, at least provided some of their own parking. And, you know, and I also like to point out the you know, the city has ambitious climate action goals that are getting adopted and the new green building code that's being adopted, plus all the discussion about looking at Adus citywide. You know, all of these are are you know, you're not going to go buy a 7000 foot house bill or ward and build, you know, one little house on that. The only way to do it is to have, you know, rezoning slightly smaller land to make it where the math even seems close to working out. So that's all. And thank you for letting me call him from my warm living room.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Helene or. Go ahead, please.
Speaker 3: Okay. Hello. Thank you. Members of city council are coming out, being here on this bitter cold night. My name is Helene or I live at Fox and Jewel in the Oberlin North neighborhood. I've lived here for 40 years and loved every minute of it. I oppose the zoning change, and on behalf of the neighbors of Overland North as their president, I would like to mention that we also voted to oppose the change. I have yet to hear a truly compelling argument for the zoning change. Our existing zoning need to see permits two units, either a large duplex or two single family homes currently. That is, in our view, plenty of density that we are absorbing right now in the neighborhood without raising it by a third to three houses and. Increasing density people talk about quite a bit as though it's intrinsically a good thing. I don't agree with that. I think increasing density without true affordability and forgive me. 600,000. 700,000. 800,000. 900,000. Or not in any way affordable. And I'm thinking of all the people who cannot afford to buy a home or even afford the rent in a home on a bitter night like tonight. So this is not really helping the housing crisis, in my view. In Denver. And there are no provisions for affordability in this zoning rezoning and there is no plan. So to me, from where I stand at the heart of my neighborhood that I love, what I see is an attempt to just do zoning by patchwork and haphazard. Here. They're here. They're here. They're and at best, that's what it is. And at worst, I feel like it's trying to change the entire zoning for our neighborhood and sneaking it through the back door. Blueprint Denver is very clear and I'm going to read from the same passage to Sara read from earlier. It's a departure from the established pattern may be appropriate if the request includes a larger area, generally greater than one block, and the intent is to set a new pattern for the area as expressed by an adopted small area plan or significant. If neighborhood input neither of which we have and also. The original planner who looked at this application said it was not consistent with adopted plans or blueprint for Denver, and so that there would need to include almost the entire area, have community meetings where neighbors are in agreement. About changing the zone. We have no agreement. Okay. No. As for the zoning, noone is against the zoning. We have no agreement. We have no plan. This is not how to do zoning. We need a plan and we would be happy to work with anyone to provide a plan for you.
Speaker 0: That's the time we have allotted for each speaker. Our next speaker is Robert Lovell. Robert Greenwood, go ahead, please.
Speaker 6: Robert Lavelle. Hi. And hello. And thank you to all the members of City Council. My name is Robert Lavelle, and I'm in favor of this proposal. My wife and I have lived in our home at 46 West Jill Avenue since 2012. We've benefited from the investments that the city developers and individuals have made in our surrounding community. We love the variety and unique character that our neighborhood contains. In addition to a diverse housing stock, our neighborhood consists of local businesses along Evans and South Broadway amenities such as the Overland Park Golf Course, the South Platte River Trail, and the RTD Light Rail at Evans Station. My wife is the former president or co-president of Optum and myself are both in favor of this rezoning request. The developer has been thorough with the community outreach. He has the support of the Over the Park Neighborhood Association. He's met with us over six times, I think, over the past three years. I drive by the required rezoning request and just as every day he's been accessible by phone and email and willing to discuss the rezoning request with me. I feel that this is a thoughtful approach to development and one which respects the existing character of the neighborhood, which does have small homes, medium sized homes, does have large duplexes. It's a mixture. And it also would increase the density in this area, which is something that the city needs, but that this area can support with the bike path and the RTD nearby. It is a transit rich area. And I the new development will encourage smaller residential units which will be significantly more affordable than the larger slightly out of place boxes, the duplexes that have become prevalent in all new construction. I believe that we you know, this should be approved. I'm in favor of it because it will increase the diversity of the housing stock, which will also improve the architectural and socio economic diversity of the neighborhood, resulting in a stronger, more organic neighborhood fabric. As prices in Denver continue to rise. This is the type of thing that is needed. These are creative solutions to incentivize more attainable housing. And I believe that this rezoning request would result in that more single family homes in the neighborhood at a more affordable price. And for those reasons, I'm in favor of this proposal. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Simon Fellows.
Speaker 6: There we go. This is Simon, fellows. I'm a 1967 South Huron Street. I live opposite proposed rezoning. Um, we've had a great opportunity to listen and meet with both the neighborhood associations and the developer prior to the meeting. There's been a lot of healthy debate around it. There were two concerns that we have. One is firstly that we've been offered, but it seems to me by the developer as a stark choice between very ugly, giant duplexes or these very charming little tiny houses that are going to sit on 3000 square foot lots. Um, we don't have any say in what they're actually going to end up putting up there. But, um, you know, it does seem a little bit biased in the way that presenting. I very much doubt that the choice is between a big, ugly duplex and three beautiful detached homes. Either way, we know the development's going to happen, and we really hope that we can rely on the integrity of the developers in whichever solution is permitted. But we are opposed to three. We think that two is better, and the issue for that for us is really density on that street. Um, directly opposite, opposite us. In the last 12 to 18 months, we've seen six new dwellings go up. There's a further duplex, two dwellings under construction on the end. So in 1974 and 1990, what you're proposing is a further six new buildings on that same street. The net increase to that st in the period over the last few years basically means 8 to 10 new dwellings on the same side of one single street, practically doubling the number of dwellings there in the blink of an eye. We have we we actually think that that like this this gentle densification is not gentle at all. It's actually pretty abrupt. And the additional units that are going in there is further exacerbating that issue. We also understand and again, the the initial outline given by Sarah, I believe it was, was very technical in how it considered the blueprint for Denver. We don't really kind of understand how it fully fit with the blueprint for Denver and that all changes think the changes to the land use to include three three units per lot has been properly considered. Anyway, um we're very concerned about that would set the for the development of the whole area and that that may not have been considered fully enough. As such, we'd like to just register our opposition to the proposed rezoning and thank you very much for your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Laurie Paulson. Go ahead, please. Laurie, you're going to have to unmute. Okay. Laurie, you're going to have to unmute. Okay. You're unmuted, Laura. Go ahead, please. Okay. We're not able to hear Laurie. And so. Are you able to hear Laurie in the Zoom platform? Okay. All right. Or have you check your audio, Lori, and see if we can get you back in the queue. Next we have. Bryan Montoya. All right. And it looks like we don't have. Bryan Montoya as an attendee. And so we'll go ahead and move on. Then we have Estancia Montoya. And I know we've got a stent in because we had seen her.
Speaker 3: You'll have to. Hello? Can you hear me? All right. And actually, I do have three on my way here with me. She could speak after. She can have her time. Something must be going on with your side. But I'm opposed to this zoning change. I think that if this is something that we think needs to be done in that is needed to be more density and more planning for our neighborhoods, then it should go through the proper channels instead of going through a back door, as it's been said before. I know the opener said that they had like 15 to 20 members for this, but let's just look at like 15 to 20 members is about 1 to 2% of what our neighborhood is also nil. The developer said that him and his team, I believe, have been out and about the neighborhood. I've lived in this neighborhood for 40 years. It's a five block radius. We are surrounded by the Platte River, the oldest golf course west of the Mississippi and the Santa Fe Highway. And then. There's only two ways to get into this neighborhood and in or out of this neighborhood. The density that Simon just brought up, especially on Huron Street, is has doubled. And going from right now, Neil can build two houses. So I kind of feel that is he's saying, hey, I can either build these two big houses or let me have these three little ones. If he truly cares about the characteristic and the good of this neighborhood, then he can continue to build the characteristic houses that he wants and build two of them and still, you know, be true to the neighborhood. I've personally walked around this neighborhood recently in the last couple of weeks to speak to our neighborhood to see who's known about this. And it was a surprise to me that so many people did not know about this zone change or had a full good understanding of what was really going on. So I don't really feel that Neil's team has truly gone out and about, decides going to open and maybe noon to let them know. But nobody's come around to any of them. And I spoke to I believe you guys have a probably about I know I seen there was like over 45 letters against this. So I'm just asking that city council, you guys were voted in by the community and the community is reaching out to you, letting you know that this is not a good decision for our neighborhood and that if we want to go down this route, let's go through the proper channels. Let's not go through this backdoor of trying to get this changed for one or two lots. I live this neighborhood and going from, you know, 2 to 3 on one lot is going to just the density is going to be intense there. We already see the density from the new apartments that we've embraced in our neighborhood. In a five blocks neighborhood, we've embraced two apartment complexes. So I'm just asking that city council listen to the community and vote against this rezoning change and allow Neil to continue to build either two small homes or a duplex.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Estancia, for your comments. And it sounded like Bryan Montoya was with you as well.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Can I give her the phone?
Speaker 0: Yes. And if she can, just make sure and introduce herself. For the public record. We appreciate that.
Speaker 3: Hi. My name is Brianne montoya. I have been a member of both O'Connor and Noone. I am currently a new member and I feel that it is more community based and O'Connor has been more of a high real estate agent, developer, member base. If you notice, the people that support this zone change are not individuals that actively live in the neighborhood but may own a property there. There are many homes that are being built currently. I, you know, I know in Reunion and in Brighton there's homes that are being built for $400 housing, which are more affordable than the ones he's proposing and that that are. It feels very privileged for Neal to not abide by the laws of the land and want special privileges to monopolize on the area which he won't be occupied. I grew up in this neighborhood and watched the traffic has increased, which near a park is a hazard for kids and people walking their dogs. But it's also just like a parking hazard and the fact that this neighborhood is developing. No matter what, we could still control how much it increases over time. And so I just I opposed and this was. I oppose and asked the city council to not support this privileged very. You know, back door type of monopoly. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. We're going to go back and see if we can get Laurie Paulson into the queue before we move on to our next few speakers. And Laura, you're going to have to unmute yourself. Okay. Go ahead, Laurie, please. Okay. We're not hearing any audio. And so we've tried a couple of times there. Laurie, I'm sorry about that. We're going to go ahead and move on to Emily Granado. Okay. It doesn't look like we have Emily with us, Cathleen Dugan.
Speaker 3: Can you hear me okay?
Speaker 0: We have Kathleen with us.
Speaker 3: I am Kathleen do again. I live in 1947, so a lot of street and I have been here since 1998. I adamantly opposed the rezoning of this neighborhood of those particular two lots, 1974 and 1990, South Huron. Well, I would love to see affordable housing. I would love that the growth caused by Neil, the developer, is not affordable. And that is the proposed cost, the expected cost. Now, what it will be when the project is absolutely actually finished is a whole different story. In addition to the lack of affordability of housing, the density brings increased traffic. We already have significant traffic issues in this little neighborhood of ours. As Simon mentioned, we have people coming through. We also have golf course traffic. And I don't know about the rest of the neighbors, but there have been multiple times that I have felt like my life has been risk because of people speeding down the road. But the increased people comes the increased traffic turning into the neighborhood is already difficult with the new apartment buildings that we've had. There are so many reasons, in addition to everything else that everybody else has said in opposition to this, I am against it and I would encourage the City Council to vote against the rezoning. Thank you. That's all I have.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And our last speaker this evening is Laurel Guardado. Go ahead, Laurel. Okay. We're getting more moved over. Do we have? Laurel moved over. Go ahead, Laurel, please. Okay. For whatever reason, we're not able to hear the audio for Laurel. And so you're going to have to unmute. Laurel, please.
Speaker 3: Hi there. Good evening.
Speaker 0: Go ahead.
Speaker 3: Madam President, thank you for your time. I apologize. Okay. I didn't realize I was going to be speaking, and I had sent an email earlier. Yes, I born and raised in Overland North. And I you know, I have witnessed firsthand a. And you know, just how there are more and more people. And I'm just concerned with. The gentrification issues that we have. I know. People won't be able to afford these homes. And that is my main concern this evening.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you, Laurel. That concludes our speakers this evening. Questions from members of Council on Council Bill 20 20016. Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Madam President. And thank you to all the speakers who spoke tonight. I have a few questions probably for Sarah and then also maybe for you, Nate.
Speaker 9: So this is.
Speaker 7: Technically a down zoning. And so how often do we have something like this?
Speaker 5: That's a great question. I think it's hard to say. I don't have a number in my head, but I'll just reiterate that we evaluate rezoning requests as they come in. And with evaluating this one, we look at lots of the small area plan guidance. And even though it may be considered a downsizing per say in terms of single family units, there's still the opportunity for additional units to happen or additional housing to occur in the area.
Speaker 7: If this is approved tonight and say then the owner changes his mind and wants to do something different or sells it to someone else, could they then reason it back to the original sound district, the ETU?
Speaker 5: Another great question is that so if someone came in with that proposed rezoning request, I think we would evaluate it as it is, considering that the surrounding zoning is predominantly it's you see that zoned district already? I would I would say that there would be a likelihood that it would meet the criteria.
Speaker 7: Okay. And so it seems like most of the neighbors who are opposed to it were concerned about the number of units. And when I look at your PowerPoint, you've got I don't know what I did with it. There it is. It the current zoning would allow for duplexes and ADU. Is that correct?
Speaker 5: Yes.
Speaker 7: So on each of the existing lots under the current zoned district, could they actually have three units, a duplex plus 182?
Speaker 5: Yes. So unfortunately with the duplex, adu use aren't allowed to be built. So the maximum amount of numbers that could happen today would be four units would either be a duplex on each side, so two units on each, or it could be a single family home and an Adu. So kind of any combination would still equal a maximum for for today. That would be a ladder.
Speaker 7: Or a tandem house.
Speaker 5: Yes. Or tandem house.
Speaker 7: Okay. And then a lot of the neighbors mentioned a lot of other new development in the neighborhood. The last speaker spoke about spoke about gentrification. Do do we know have any of those been rezonings or people just scraping houses and building larger houses? Do you imagine that?
Speaker 5: But I would like to say, at least in the neighborhood that we're considering now, pretty much all of that new development has been under existing entitlements, under the existing zone districts of E2. So I think people mentioned a lot of duplexes going up, which is already loud today. Mm hmm.
Speaker 7: All right. I think that's all I have for now. This is a very interesting proposal. And I will save my comments for later. Thank you.
Speaker 5: Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Councilmember Black, Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 6: Yeah, thank you, Madam President. I agree with Councilwoman Black. It's a very interesting rezoning application. So if this passes, is there any additional procedure or process or paperwork needed to divide into the three lots?
Speaker 5: Yes, there would be a process for that to do us a lot of amendment.
Speaker 6: But this zoning would require that to be done.
Speaker 5: Yes. That well, depending on what is planned for the property. So with this rezoning, it would be zoned to ESU a. But the property owner could still build a single family home on the entire lot if they wanted to. So it would allow the single family house. But on the minimums, a lot size. It doesn't have a necessarily like a maximums, a lot size. So they could just not do a lot amendment and do a thing like one single family home or potentially, I think two single family homes.
Speaker 6: Right. And then they'd be able to again build two homes and two way to use.
Speaker 5: So the idea is would not be allowed under this.
Speaker 6: Proposal because of the zoning laws.
Speaker 5: Yeah, it is the only the urban house building form.
Speaker 6: But you said they could build two houses.
Speaker 5: Single family houses. If so, that would involve the same idea of the Zomlot amendment. So I think when we looked at this evaluation that's looking at kind of the full potential of what could occur under the proposed zoning. So I know I talked a lot about, you know, the potential for three units, but that is just the potential of what could happen in terms of maybe the maximum number of units that could occur.
Speaker 6: So they're not required to divide the lot into three, 3000 square foot units. So they're allowed to.
Speaker 5: Be allowed to with the smaller lot.
Speaker 6: Size. Okay. Thank you for that. I hate to put you through this. Could you go to slide 18, please? Don't try this at home, kids.
Speaker 7: Hmm.
Speaker 5: This is just the right one.
Speaker 6: Yes, it is. So the future place says predominantly single in two unit uses on small or medium lots. And when you were talking about this slide, you said it. Gave plan support for three. And I'm just trying to understand that.
Speaker 5: So under the proposed zone district it still would be single unit uses. So it would still allow the single unit use, so it'd be the single unit use which would allow the single family homes, I guess.
Speaker 6: Gotcha. Thank you very much. I this is something I doubt you've figured out. I'm wondering, you know, there's a few people talked about concerns over the loss of green space. And I'm just trying to figure what the difference is if someone builds a big duplex on the site or, you know, it's divided into three smaller homes.
Speaker 5: I didn't personally do an analysis of that, but I know there is a requirement of kind of the zone lot coverage or a maximum coverage that can happen on that.
Speaker 6: So I would have to say, yeah, but we don't know the square feet of that. Okay. The on the homes that could be built and this may be for Mr. Shay. I'm not sure. I'm just wondering about the size of the homes. Would you be able to go on a 3000 square foot lot? Can you map Max out on the height? The allowable height is a 30 or 35 on on a.
Speaker 5: It believe, leave us 35 feet or two, two and a half stories for that area. I would have to double check.
Speaker 6: Do you know if that narrow width allows you to max out that height? Trying to figure out what what type of square foot gets built?
Speaker 5: That could be a great question.
Speaker 6: Mr.. Shaking You answer that question, sir.
Speaker 5: And I'll just reiterate that we don't necessarily evaluate the development itself, just the proposed standards.
Speaker 6: I understand.
Speaker 5: He might be able to answer questions.
Speaker 6: On. Thank you, sir.
Speaker 0: And sir, before you leave the podium, would you, if you wouldn't mind, introduce yourself for the public record before Mr. Shave, and then he can introduce himself.
Speaker 5: So I'm sick, of course. Senior city planner with community planning and development.
Speaker 0: Great. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Councilman Cashman, could you repeat your question?
Speaker 6: Yeah. So you talked about if you build the big duplex 55 feet wide, they'd be, I think you said 900,000 apiece, something like that. And I'm wondering what kind of size gets built on a 3000 square foot lot? How big a home you can build on that?
Speaker 2: Gotcha. Okay. Realistically, it could go 1600, a little over 1700 square feet. It's an interesting question because we've been tracking an initiative that I believe has been discussed recently in this council, and that is the Expanding Housing Affordability Initiative. One of the interesting points of that initiative is there is a linkage being that's going to be potentially charged to developers for these smaller projects. And the interesting thing about it is it specifically mentioned 1600 square feet as a differentiating factor if units that are 1600 square feet or below are built. The linkage fee is $4 per square foot, and that fee goes towards the building of affordable housing. However, if it's above 1600, it goes to $7. So this initiative is really kind of focusing on the intent of building smaller structures. So I think 1600 I can't say for sure if that's where we'll land, but I think it's an interesting target to try to meet, especially if this initiative passes.
Speaker 6: And is that two and a half stories?
Speaker 2: Yes, that could go up to two and a half.
Speaker 6: You would be okay. That's. That's fine. Let's see if I have anything else. Well, now, that's all my questions. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. And Mr. Chair, would you introduce yourself for the for the public record as well?
Speaker 2: Yes. Neil Shay, the applicant. 1625 South Lincoln.
Speaker 0: Great. Thank you, Councilmember Flynn.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Madam President. Sarah, is it is it really a down zoning if in fact, we're creating an entitlement for 50% more user units? It seems like an up zoning.
Speaker 5: So, yeah. I'm Sarah, of course, senior city planner. And I think this down zoning is a very interesting question. I think it could be depending on how you define that. But I'll just reiterate again that this the proposed district would allow only single family homes. Right. That could allow up to two additional units. I'm just not today.
Speaker 8: Okay. Can I ask you to as just speak a little maybe raise the mic? I'm having a little trouble. Everybody speaking softly tonight. Org's my tonight is I either take your pick. What's the you know the front footage of these lots I believe the lots in this subdivision are 25 feet and these are three lots. Each of these two addresses are three lots. Three lots on the subdivision. So they'll be 75 feet. Am I.
Speaker 5: Correct? Yes, I think the frontage is around 75 feet. So they would meet the minimum frontage requirement for a potential zone, not amendment for three units on each line.
Speaker 8: Right in askew, etc.. Yes. Right. And so I wanted to follow up on Councilman Cashman's line because I'm not quite sure I understood the answer. Maybe Neal can help also with the side setbacks and the bulk playing when you're putting the bulk plane in the side setbacks, etc.. Could you really go two and a half stories on a 25 foot frontage?
Speaker 5: That might be a question for Neil. I don't.
Speaker 8: Know, Mr. Ashby. Have you plotted that out within the building envelope for ESU? A. That seems awfully narrow. I say this as someone who grew up in a little stone house on a 25 foot front lot right now.
Speaker 2: That's an interesting question. And Kevin, my partner, and I were discussing this with a duplex. Mom, two and a half stories is probably a lot more attainable.
Speaker 8: Because you're right, because you have no side step back between the two.
Speaker 2: Rec and you can actually go up to 35 feet. I don't think we'll get to 35 feet.
Speaker 8: But you think you could do two and a half stories on a 25 foot line?
Speaker 2: I think you could potentially get there. But like I said, it's really more the actual height. Two stories. Absolutely. How much use that half stories we're going to have could be pretty marginal.
Speaker 8: Sounds like a two story shotgun shack.
Speaker 2: Well, the idea is to have these is attainable and accessible.
Speaker 8: Okay. Let me see a Sarah. I'm having some difficulty accepting that this is consistent with adopted plans. And so maybe you can talk a little bit more about that. The evidence station area plan recommends a minimum lot size of 4500 square feet. The current zoning doesn't even allow that. The current zoning is 5500 square feet, minimum lot size. So without a zoning change at all, we could not even build two single family units on a split 9000 square foot lot. Is that am I correct in that?
Speaker 5: Not to repeat yourself.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 8: The current zoning e t you c urban edge ten unit c the minimum lot size is 5500 square feet. So we have two 9000 square foot lots. It seems to me that without a zoning change, the owners could not even build, could not split the lots and build two because it would only be 4500 square feet. So I guess my question is, was the owner advised perhaps to look at E. S U b, which would allow a minimum loft size of 4500 rather than A, which is 3000?
Speaker 5: Yeah. So again, it's there, of course, your city planner all kind of go back to, I think, what Mira Owen had said earlier through her public comments, or they had mentioned that originally the property owner had came to I had come to a and was thinking about rezoning into a different zoned district. And I think that was the one that you just mentioned. So E2 B And they were going to acquire a good neighbor agreement with that. And the good neighbor agreement was to require single family homes and not two unit or duplexes. So that I know was the conversation was already brought up, but the rezoning request that came in was for ESU. So, you know, we're not out there recommending what people should apply and to all evaluate what request we actually get from the applicant. And then when referring back to the neighborhood plan guidance, I'll reiterate that this was not necessarily a straightforward case. There's not there's some applications that come in that don't have a very clear path. There's others that might have a very clear path. And so when evaluating this rezoning request, we looked at sort of the plan guidance in its entirety. So looking at what does Blueprint Denver say is a city wide plan as well as the seven station area plan? And how is this application consistent with it? So with the minimum 4500 square feet that you mentioned and even station area plan, it described that as the existing conditions. It didn't necessarily describe that as a requirement for proposed rezoning. So that kind of zone lot size was taken as a suggestion, in addition to looking at the densities that it recommended and the recommendation of allowing for a variety of housing types or a diversity of housing types. So looking at the combination of the plan, recommendations and strategies, that's what was found that the rezoning request could be supported by the plan guidance.
Speaker 8: Okay. That doesn't seem. That doesn't seem. Reasonable. From what I'm reading on Evans Station and Blueprint, it's in the recommendations that that small single family lots 4500 square foot minimum was even in the presentation and then in blueprint as I believe Helene or was saying let me go over the blueprint says a departure from the established lot pattern may be appropriate if the request includes a larger area generally greater than one block. This is only six. Subdivision lots within that entire block on two parcels. And then where the intent is to set a new pattern for the area as expressed by an adopted small area plan. The adopted small area plan says 4500 square feet or significant neighborhood input. So I'm having trouble accepting that, that this is consistent with that these adopted plans either blueprint, horse or even station. But I appreciate the explanation. If single family homes have been the historic pattern and many of the proponents, the supporters of the request say that taking away the entitlement for duplex because they're all turning out way too big way to gentrifying it. And this is the reason they support this rezoning or any idea, you probably weren't around in 2010, the citywide rezoning, but why was this zoned for duplexes in in their entirety at all, if that was the historic pattern? Do you have any view toward the the historic reasons for that?
Speaker 5: I can't honestly speak to the zoning today, but I can speak to the fact that Blueprint Denver, the citywide plan, had, you know, extensive outreach and coordination and came up with the recommendations it has today. But looking back to the zoning, how the zoned and I you know, you could speculate that potentially it's because it was within proximity to a light rail transit station and other public amenities.
Speaker 8: Mm hmm. Okay. Thank you, Madam President. That's all I have.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman Flynn, Councilor Pro Tem Torres, thank you so.
Speaker 3: Much. Two questions I have actually for Mr. Shay.
Speaker 9: Hi, Neal.
Speaker 6: Hi.
Speaker 9: So the resident who lives in between the two properties, I didn't see their name.
Speaker 3: In either the support or opposition lists. What was the engagement.
Speaker 0: With with that.
Speaker 9: Resident.
Speaker 2: Mr. Phelps? Actually, initially. Can you hear me? Yes. Initially, he was going to be part of the rezoning. He is in support of it. I think he's been out of town recently. An important distinction on his lot is it's a much smaller lot. It's 60 to 50. He could only do he couldn't do three of these single family homes. He could only do a duplex. If I remember correctly, it's smaller than a 60 to 50 lot, which is actually the predominant lot size that most of these duplexes have been built on. Currently, there are a number of these larger 9000 plus square foot lots like ours. I've yet to see one of those lots to be utilized yet, but the point I was trying to showcase is due to the sheer size of our lot in the 75 foot frontage, you could go 55 feet wide on a duplex, which allows for much larger from square footage. But to your point, Mr. Phelps is a supporter. I can say that because I talked to him. He was part of our rezoning, but he was never planning on redeveloping himself. So we decided to drop him out of the rezoning.
Speaker 3: Got it.
Speaker 9: So we received a not a lot of letters of support.
Speaker 3: Fielded by the town.
Speaker 9: Since it seems like maybe a property manager.
Speaker 3: Bianca recently. Are you familiar with that effort?
Speaker 2: Yes, Bianca. She actually works with my partner. Kevin helps him in property management. So she did a lot of outreach for us as well.
Speaker 3: Okay. I think I saw, uh, two, three, four, five, six. Eight letters come through there, and it looks like they were all renters. I got a little concerned, or at least a flag was raised. Were those folks.
Speaker 9: Compensated.
Speaker 3: For writing a letter of support?
Speaker 2: Absolutely not. Now, we were very transparent with what we were doing. And as foreigners, a lot of these folks would actually like to be homeowners someday. So I'm offering a more entry level product in a neighborhood where they're already live. They could potentially be buyers for us in the future. So we were very transparent with what we were doing. There was no coercion. They gave those letters of support on their own volition.
Speaker 3: So nobody was offered $100 off of their current month's rent?
Speaker 6: No.
Speaker 3: To support. Okay. Thank you. No more questions.
Speaker 5: Okay.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Counselor Torres. Councilmember Sawyer.
Speaker 9: Thanks, Madam President. I think most of my questions have been answered and asked already by my other colleagues, so thanks for that, guys. Curious what the no vote was from planning board.
Speaker 5: Hi, sir. Of course, again, senior city planner. So with planning board, the no vote was sort of a disagreement that we don't necessarily have a requirement for the zone law amendment. So they were considering the fact that I think the point that Councilman Cashman was bringing up, the fact that they could raise on the property and then still just build one single family home, they were a proponent of kind of CPD and others exploring other processes where if a rezoning case came in like this, that there could be potentially a requirement of a zone lot amendment or or something like that. So they were, I think, identifying maybe the issue that it's not necessarily guaranteed that there will be six units or increase in housing. And so that I think that was the premise around the No Vote Planning Board.
Speaker 9: Got it. Okay. Is there a good neighbor agreement in place for this?
Speaker 5: No, there is not.
Speaker 9: Okay. So I guess I understand how it would work logistically on the corner a lot, but. If this were to if there were three single family homes, if something were if this parcel on the mid-block were to be lot split and three single family homes were to go there. How would they be accessed without essentially being at home?
Speaker 5: So the houses would be able to be built on the minimums on the size of 3000 square feet, and they'd have to meet all the minimum requirements for the building form standards, so they'd have to meet everything for the urban house building form. There is alley access in that area, so they'd still have access to the front street as well as alley access from the.
Speaker 2: Back, I believe.
Speaker 9: Got it. Okay. I think I understand now access makes makes it a little more clear. Okay. Last question is about the established pattern of lots. So I think, you know, this is unfortunately one of those situations where we have a rezoning that's coming through where an updated area plan and the NPI process would be fantastic. Here to give guidance to what's happening, unfortunately, this neighborhood doesn't get it or hasn't yet been part of the process for an NPI. So the plan is kind of old, right? The Avon Station area plan from 2009 and I think the one before that was. 1993.
Speaker 6: Yes.
Speaker 9: Okay. So I guess the established pattern of lots, which is and you mentioned it before, but I just need a little bit of clarification. Are there other parcels in the area that are zoned like this? Yes.
Speaker 3: So are we looking.
Speaker 9: To zone to the light blue or the kind of medium blue?
Speaker 5: The darker blue would sort of be that idea like to look to the darker blue for a pattern of smaller than a lot. So the darker blue is 4500 square feet or less. And for this I'll just point out that all the single unit uses are the ones that are colored in. There are other lots that do have that smaller and a lot size, but they're a different use. So they're two you don't use.
Speaker 9: Got it. Okay. So everything that's not colored in is duplex, essentially.
Speaker 5: Probably duplex or not many families or single unit use.
Speaker 9: Got it. Okay. That's it for me. Thanks.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Councilman Sawyer. Councilman Herndon.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. I have one question for Sara and one for Mr. Lucero. Now you would. You're wondering why no one's asking you a question. So I got you on deck, sir. There was a statement about backdoor deals, and there was some sinister plot that this applicant did not go through the regular chain of processes planning that any other applicant have. So I just want to put that on the record. Was there any way that this application process was different than any other person that applied for a resounding no? Okay, I knew the answer. I just want to make sure. Thank you for that. And they this this was coming up in the comments as well. Precedent, if you vote, this precedent occurs. And let me just say this. This statement that I'm about to make is incorrect. I am in no way obligated to vote on a future rezoning based off a way that I voted on a path rezoning. We judge them on their own individual merit. Is that correct?
Speaker 6: Good evening. Members of Council. Nate Lucero, Assistant City Attorney.
Speaker 2: Councilman Hernan You're absolutely correct. Each rezoning is based on the merits of that particular case. Great. Thank you. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Herndon. Councilman Clark.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Council President. I just wanted to I know we're in the questions section and wanted to respond to a couple questions that were asked, if that's okay. To Councilman Flynn, the question on the the history of the zoning, much of this area Plat Park Rosedale I believe Councilman Cashman can correct me on that was was Park Overland all stem from the the R to not the R one zoning prior to the zoning change. There were concerted efforts in Plat Park and West Fischbach to move away from that. You still see that on some of the corridors like Pearl Street where it's where you get some t you. But largely they were rezone because there is a pattern of embedded duplexes that have been there for years and years and years within that and in overland that was not change that the.
Speaker 8: Original proposal under.
Speaker 6: That was to keep everything to move everything that was R2 directly into t u. And there was a massive down zoning as part of that process in 2010 that took a lot of R to and made it askew. But this area did not. And then Councilmember Torres, I had the same concern when I saw that email this morning. So I did email that property manager specifically asking that, and she did forward me the rest of the conversation she had with that individual. They were having two conversations. That was one was, hey, this is the project in the letter that was very similar to what was seen in some of the other ones that was sent. And then there was a conversation about rents and late fees and all of that that got conflated into one because I had the same concern . So at least what I was told and shown through the email was that there was not a compensation attached to any of the letter writing, that those two things were the were both happening in that email and we didn't see any of that because it was more personal information about rents than there was taken out. Well, that part would not. So. Just wanted to make sure that since I had that information operation forwarded that around and even think of it as I was concerned as I immediately emailed. So thank you, customers.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Clark. Councilmember Sandoval.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Madam President. So I just have a couple questions. Do we feel like it's blueprint for use or do we feel like it's the intention of Blueprint Denver to have a variety of zone districts? I can say it a different way. Since I've been here, I have always been told for the past ten years CPD does not support quote unquote spot rezonings and which creates a spot on the map that's very different than the current zone district. We've been we've been shot down in northwest Denver numerous times. How is this not a spot zoning?
Speaker 5: Hi Circus City senior city planner. So to get to your question. So when we're considering rezoning requests, we evaluate them as they come in and we evaluate them against the review criteria. And this case, again, I'll reiterate, was not necessarily straightforward and it was extremely vetted to discuss how it met all the different criteria. And in the end, it was found to be consistent with the criteria.
Speaker 7: Okay. So one other question. About six months ago with CPD looking at starting a process that would talk about getting rid of single units in the districts in Denver.
Speaker 5: I'm not sure if I can speak to that or what that conversation was or who was with. But if you have any questions about the rezoning itself, I can answer those.
Speaker 7: It was this small, it was a working group. Instead of doing the addus and the equity and rezoning we're supposed to have, it's called the residential infill project. And so I think that if you can't answer it can even answer that question because that's something that has been talked about at CPD for a very long time.
Speaker 6: Hello, Councilwoman Sandoval. And good evening, councilmembers. I'm a barge with community planning and development. Yes, you're right about the residential infill project. Being a broad look at blueprint, Denver's recommendations around expanding housing options in lower scale.
Speaker 5: Residential.
Speaker 6: Neighborhoods across the city, that it doesn't specifically say there should be no single unit zoning. It just talks about expanding housing options. And we do still want to look at how we might implement those recommendations in the future. We paused that project because we had so many things going on, group living and other things were happening. There was just the much of the community.
Speaker 2: Sorry, you'll be able to hear me better if I take this discussion.
Speaker 6: We were just hearing from the community that it was hard to participate in all the things that were happening and from council as well. So that was on pause.
Speaker 2: But those recommendations are still adopted in Blueprint Denver and we would like to look at it in the future. And if and when we do, if that.
Speaker 6: Means that there would be additional housing.
Speaker 2: Options available in whatever.
Speaker 6: Zoned district the property is.
Speaker 2: Zoned, including this one.
Speaker 6: Then that there would be in the future. But for now, we're just looking, as Sarah said, at this one zoning application that we have before us.
Speaker 7: Okay. Um, one last question for you or sir, in this particular zone district. In its current form. In the current zone district, could you build a single family house and an detached accessory dwelling unit? If the owner was the owner. Not the. You can't do that with the current developer. Or can you.
Speaker 6: Sir? Can correct me if I'm wrong, but the t use zoned district would allow a single unit detached house with an accessory dwelling unit. And the current rules about that say that the person that is operating the accessory dwelling unit has to live there.
Speaker 7: Even in the T's and zone district.
Speaker 6: Oh, I'm sorry. You're right that.
Speaker 2: You're very good with zoning.
Speaker 6: So that is a use limitation that doesn't apply in that zone district.
Speaker 7: Okay. So currently right now, these lights there could still be it'd be smaller because the zone might dictate the outcome of the accessory dwelling unit, but a bigger zone that actually allows for, I think, a maximum accessory dwelling unit for a thousand. So you could have a single family home and an accessory dwelling unit on the in the current entitlement. Is that correct?
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 7: Okay. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Sandoval. And thank you for those answers. See no other members in the queue for questions. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 22, Dash 0016. Councilmember Clark.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Council President. First, I want to give a big thank you to Sarah. And I know as we heard, this was one that CPD looked a lot at. And as we've heard up here, it's an up zone. It's a down zone, it's single-family, but it's more density. And and I appreciate CPD is really digging into this proposal and taking a look at it and in all the work they put in leading up to here. I want to thank all the people who who showed up on Zoom and came down here to speak. There are a lot of people who spoke for and who spoke against people who I know, people who I respect. And we've got, you know, a builder who hasn't put down on the gas pipes in a very long time, which is also, I think, not voluntarily before the building code gets there. So we've got a lot of really amazing, awesome people with years and years of of life and commitment to this neighborhood on both sides of this. And I think that's part of what makes this so complicated. Right? It was creative. That's why CBD had to take a look at it from a lot of different angles, because it was a creative idea and possible solution to what a lot of folks have said to me in the neighborhood who are on both sides of this tonight and that they don't like at all the curve what's currently happening. Right. The current entitlement, what's what every single lot in this community could be tomorrow with no city council vote, no public process. These huge duplexes coming as something that is is very frustrating and is not in the context of what is currently on the ground in the neighborhood. I know when we talk about rezoning, we talk about the context of what could be there, what that entitlement is, what the zoning is. And we often have a big disconnect. A lot of people also see this on Speer Boulevard in my district where we've had zoning since the fifties and sixties. That allows eight and six and ten storeys, and yet it's been single story. And all of a sudden the economy is right, apparently. And they're all being torn down and going up, you know, six, eight stories. And they're saying, wait a second, what happened? The Old City Council didn't get a vote on that. That's their use by. Right. And so I think responsive to by the applicant to this feeling that this is not what the community wants. And then looking at that play of, okay, so what what's how do you solve for that, right? How do you take a t you district in an area with an adopted station area plan that is within the station area plan for light rail that calls for a level of density, but also try to see if there's a way to preserve that historic character that's called for in the 1993 plan when it comes to single family homes. And so I just want to say thank you to everybody who took time out of their day to be here, who's been a part of this conversation in the community, because I think it's a really important conversation and I think that it is shines an even brighter light on why we need to accelerate NPI whenever we can and why this area did get identified. Hopefully you will stay there as one of the next three areas that will have a neighborhood planning initiative because it desperately needs that. We need to have this conversation about what does this look like? Because development is not only coming, it is here. We heard from one of the speakers that there are six or eight new units on one half of a block there because of the underlying entitlements and because of what's currently there. I just want to before I dove a little deeper, I want to point out a couple of things that were said that I think, you know, often there's that push and pull between what's there right now and what I want versus what could be there and what might be there under this. And those aren't always the same conflicts. And so I think sometimes we were hearing things that were saying, Hey, I don't want that. So I'm no on this zoning. That would also be that way or maybe even worse under the current entitlements we heard in in the emails in today talking about green space and flooding now to you allows you zero space shared wall in between two units where single family well there would be more of them there is spacing in between so that doesn't as we heard not necessarily mean that there's any more green space there might be less green space under the current zoning than under what is being approved and what single family homes we heard are allowed in this to you. There aren't a big enough lot size that you couldn't realistically do that. And so what we are really looking at is something that will be developed like the rest of the neighborhood is right now that's under construction into duplexes. We're not seeing people build single family homes, even though all of those that's an allowable use or a change that would make it as you and would require it to be single family homes. You couldn't build the duplex anymore. And I think that that's why there's this tension. There is a group in the neighborhood who really feels like preservation of that feeling, of that context, of that character, of single family is what's really important to preserve as development comes even at the cost of a few more people on each block, certainly, than there is now. But even then, there would be under to you versus other people saying, hey, if everything in the neighborhood were to go down and you replace it with two units, that's a lot more density. And I'm not I'm not there to say I'd rather have single family and more of them. I'm I'm barely dealing with the fact that this is a dramatic change for a block I've been on for 40 years to to double the number of units that are on it. So. All of that. Having been said, I really have struggled with this because and I've been watching this now play out in neighborhood.
Speaker 8: Conversations for.
Speaker 6: I think, over two years. And I really I really felt in the beginning, like this was a creative solution and that the the community was behind it. You heard from Opie and who voted unanimously and was involved very early and came out, said, yes, here's a solution. We instead of these massive duplexes that are enormous in square footage and are even more expensive than everything's expensive, as Councilman Herndon pointed out in committee, the existing structures that are in that neighborhood are not affordable right now with no change, a new no new development, and not the added cost of all the building materials. And and so watching that and seeing that creative solution and seeing how does this actually fit into the criteria? Can this can this work or not, even if that's what the neighborhood wants? Well, do we have plans that would support it? And then in the later stages that has converted to CPD, taking a look at it from a lot of different angles and saying, Yeah, you know what, we think this could work and providing plan support and planning board supporting it. But at the same time, another group in the neighborhood saying, you know what? This isn't what we want. And I think that that ultimately is the crux for me, is this is even if we can shoehorn it in to plans, it's not what the plan drew out. Right. The plan didn't say, hey, this could should be either single family with a super small lots or duplexes. We didn't have that conversation. I mean, to have that conversation, certainly not in 1993. And we didn't have that conversation when the oven station area plan was there. And I think that had this been able to catalyze that community conversation and been brought forward with broad community consensus, never going to be unanimous and everyone agreeing. But but really, the community saying, yes, I understand the tradeoffs. And this is more in line with what that vision was. Even if that's not specifically how the plan envisioned it, then I think that argument that this meets those plans and is something that meets the criteria for us to vote on rezoning is there. But in the end it didn't. In the end we got, you know, a lot more people reaching out, saying that they were opposed to this than were supportive of it. And I think that that means that really I think that this could be a vision for the neighborhood. And again, I appreciate all the work that went into trying to look at something that a group in the neighborhood was saying, this is we want something different. But it's it's shown that we are ahead of that NPI process that is coming in the next 18 months that has that were that conversation has to be had and it has to be had, you know, with a bunch of people who don't agree on the vision right now for where their neighborhood is to arrive on, what is this going to be? Are we going to preserve single family and increase density, or are we giving up on that single family character? And we have the density from the duplexes. And so because of that and that failure to really coalesce the community around a creative solution and a creative vision, I don't think that there is enough plan support here to say that this is what the community wants and what the vision for this neighborhood was without that existing community support. And so I think this is really hard, really hard one for me. And I think in the end, unfortunately, I despite the fact I think a lot of people really do want this in the neighborhood, and I think that that vision could catch fire and could get there. When people really sit down and start grappling with what that's going to be, we're going to need a broader and deeper community conversation, I think, in order to get there. And and without that, I'm going to have to vote no today on this. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Clarke. Councilmember Flynn.
Speaker 8: Well, thank you, Madam President. A couple of things were said during the presentation that kind of reinforce how I'm going to vote on this. Sarah had said in response to one of the questions here that we don't evaluate the proposed project in a rezoning. We just look at the application and the plan, support for it, and the other criteria. But most of the support for this from those who testified in favor and from the owner, the support is all based basically on the project. And we've we've styled the zoning request around what we want to build rather than determining whether the zoning itself or whether it should be changed to reflect any adopted plans and whatnot. I agree with Councilman Clark. This you know, this this rezoning would result in an outcome that both sides at least would like in part. And that's kind of to put a damper to kind of put a stop to the construction of some of these outsized and very expensive duplex boxes that we're seeing that are driving up property values and driving out older owners who might be sitting on on smaller bungalows or wood frame, single family units that, you know, that are worth a lot more than than $450,000. And and and the dirt they're sitting on is worth more than that. But we have to evaluate not the project here, but the request and whether it's consistent with with current adopted plans. And it isn't. And I can't ignore that, even if I would prefer stopping overdevelopment under the present zoning of a twin unit that allows three quarter million dollar duplexes to go up and eventually drive out the, you know, the family for 40 years next door in a little bungalow. So I don't see it as consistent with adopted plans. You haven't station area plan says minimum lot size 4500 square feet. Blueprint says departing from the established lot pattern requires two things that we don't have here. The request should include a larger area of at least a one full block. There should be and there should be an expressed intent to change that pattern, either in an adopted small area plan, which we don't have. In fact, we have 4500 square foot as a minimum or significant neighbor neighborhood input, which we also don't have. The presentation tonight showed us that the established lot pattern in this neighborhood is that 96% of the lots in this neighborhood are 4500 square feet or larger. The 4% that are not are generally split lots sitting on alleys or tandem house sites, 85% of the lots or 5500 square feet or larger, which fits under the current zoning . The appropriate zoning for this neighborhood most likely is ESU or t, u b, which would allow development on 4500 square foot lots and would implement literally implement the the adopted plans. So with that, I will also not be supporting us tonight. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Flynn, Councilmember Sandoval.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Madam President. And I would just like to thank Sarah for all your hard work. This is a tough one. I, I use this term. I find myself in a pickle often in city council where it's not just one way or the other. There's a lot of gray area sitting up here as a council member, and I have to wade in that gray area often. And so I say to my friends, I find myself in a pickle, which is where I find myself this evening. With that, I do not believe it is the intent of Blueprint Denver to have different zone districts splattered with among the others for almost ten years ten years. This June I have been working for this city and I continue to hear from CPD about the intent of spot zoning. And my neighborhood is obsessed with this term in certain areas where they won't even support an accessory dwelling unit because they feel like it is a spot zoning even within the existing zone law and the blocks establish a pattern of smaller zoned lots, and it's a conflict that I'm constantly living with in this term of quote unquote spot zoning, which I don't even like, but the public does use and my neighborhood does use. I feel like our residential zoned districts or residential low zone districts need some more flexibility, and I think that needs to have a discussion. And that's, I think, what the residential infill project will look at is this same exact process that we're talking about in this same exact issue. And I also believe to Councilman Clark's comment that we are bringing the cart before the horse. That this area is in desperate need of a neighborhood planning initiative. And I truly believe all neighborhoods need a planning initiative. And that's why I will continue to support having neighborhood planning initiatives in our neighborhoods and not always supporting them in our downtown area, because we end up pitting neighborhood neighbors against each other because there is no plan guidance except for a really, really high level plan such as Blueprint Denver. And with that, I will not support this rezoning tonight, but thank you all for coming out.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Sandoval, Councilmember Black.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Madam President. As I said earlier, this one is. Unusual and it's still not black and white for me. I do really respect CPD in the work that you do and when you recommend something I listen. Recently in the past few months, you brought up the reasoning that you didn't recommend. That doesn't happen very often, but the fact that you all decided this, though challenging, met the requirements really means a lot to me. I understand what everyone else has said tonight. Interesting that Councilman Flynn said that he thought the support was based on this proposed project. I think that's probably true. I also.
Speaker 0: Think.
Speaker 7: That the people who are opposed to it are opposed because they don't want any development. I don't think anyone is in support of a giant duplex on both of those lots. And so we up here hear a lot of people come for public comment because they don't want any development whatsoever. And development is inevitable in our city. Some neighborhoods near where I live, University Hills in particular, they're tearing down similar kinds of houses and building 4000 square foot single family homes. So houses that were once affordable are now not affordable at all. And it has completely changed the character of the neighborhood. It's changed the character of the school. So I think this is a creative solution. And I am going to support it tonight. I again, I don't think it's a black and white. I do support more units. We need more units. And I appreciate that these are.
Speaker 3: Lower.
Speaker 7: Price point than what would be built in for units that were in duplexes. So I will be supporting this tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Black. Councilmember Herndon.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. This is definitely be an interesting for for a Tuesday. And it's so I will be in support and I will get a little bit into it because I do believe that the criteria was met and hearing opposition from the speakers. Rarely did anyone talk criteria. They talked traffic. They thought density to is enough. And I appreciate my colleagues who who did get deeper with their questions. I did not hear as I was listening how that criteria was not met. And I will do something that I've rarely done and talk a little bit about the development, because that's what everybody else is talking about as well. I think Blueprint wants us to get it right. And I sympathize when there are neighborhoods that don't have neighborhood plans. I mean, Council President Gilmore, myself, our mom, Bella, that was one of the first ones, far northeast councilman sorry, East Colfax, 1990s. And I'm glad that that was first. But these neighborhoods are changing. And until we can get it, let's make decisions that will preserve the character of those neighborhoods, because we always hear that character of neighborhoods . And I remember the conversation, Councilman Clark, we talked about affordability and pricing. And I have Zillow on my computer right now. And I looked it up, you know, 1990, Huron is valued and I get it. It's Zillow, but it's value that 581 that parcel 1974 for 75. So that's over half a million dollars. And across the street on Huron, I'm looking at three homes that are valued at 689. 647. 624. And so how can we help with the character of those neighborhoods so we can not make a decision or vote no status quo? And we know there are going to be units that are going to be built at a much greater, higher price point. The neighborhood that that street is going to change. Or we can make a decision that has been discussed with the applicant and the neighborhood. At This is what I want to build at a 600 k price point. Which is aligned with what I'm looking at right now. Single family homes. I believe that's a decision. That the neighbors would get behind. We've heard it, but there are people are not. And as Councilman Clark says, you make a decision, you're going to you know, you're going to upset people. But I believe the criteria has been met. And as I look at what would come from this decision of supporting the criteria, I believe that helps in line with what neighbors want, maintaining character and trying to keep our neighborhoods as affordable as they can. So I, I get the tension back and forth, but I will be in support today. Thank you, my president.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Herndon. Councilmember Hines.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Council President. I I don't want to repeat that. A lot of the stuff that my colleagues have said. I do want to talk about two things. Blueprint Blueprint talked about how our city is growing and how we should shape the growth of our city. We've gotten we've secret out Denver is now a destination. We've added 130,000 people to the city of Denver in the last ten years. Blueprint Denver talked to the state demographers office and assumed that we would get an additional 200,000 people by 2040. And this was passed in 2019. A week or two before we took office. And but the idea was that we would grow by another 30% in population in the city of Denver by 2040. So I, I agree that my colleagues have mentioned that, that a lot of people talked about parking in in opposition. And that's not want of one of the criteria, honestly. But but we have we have to have that discussion anyway about how we get around our city. And if we don't think of ways that, that we can add density, smart density, then then we'll have issues with with being able to get around our city. I mean, I hear a lot of complaints about parking and traffic in my district. I think ours is the densest district in the city. We certainly have the densest 3 to 4 densest neighborhoods in the city in my district. And a lot of people like to visit my district, too. So they live there. People visit there as well. And so we get a lot of issues with parking. I want to thank the applicants for for considering ways to add additional density so that we have density throughout the city because in District ten, we're getting. 630 story buildings in Golden Triangle, multiple. Multiple of them will break ground in the next few months, and that's that. Sandwiched between them is an 11 story building and a 17 story building, all in just a two block area. So while District ten is taking a lot of the density and it should, because it's in the city center, we have to think about making making sure that that the city grows in a smart way. And and so I'm really happy that that District ten is taking some of that a fair amount of that density, because it creates that 20 minute neighborhood where people don't have to use cars at all to get around to where they want to live, work and play. And I guess the only other thing that I wanted to say is District ten also has neighborhoods that have never had a neighborhood plan, a plus areas never had a neighborhood plan, country club has never had a neighborhood plan. And and so, you know, there are people who are very interested in neighborhood plans that have never had one. And we've had a lot of discussions about neighborhood plans because the central area plan was in four of my neighborhoods. So I see that. And then I also recognize that my colleague, Councilmember Clark, is very close to the conversations and has has really done a lot of the hard work to try to work with the neighbors, more so than I have. And and I also recognize the pain of neighborhood plans, first of all, going through the neighborhood plan, because the central area plan and also the pain of not going through neighborhood plans because of other areas, particularly in Alamo policy, where they're 12 storey apartment buildings going up. So I also recognize that we need to be smart and methodical and in our implementation of of of building our city. And so I'll just leave it at that. Thank you. Council President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Hines. Councilmember Sawyer.
Speaker 9: Thanks, Madam President. I won't repeat what my colleagues have said. I think the issue here is that we're damned if we do and we're damned if we don't. If we do vote yes, we maintain single family homes and affordability, which is the goal of our community. We hear that from our residents all the time. If we vote no, it will be a duplex, you know, that is large, that is overpriced. That is something that we hear regularly we don't want in our community. So I really wish that this was consistent with adopted plans because I want to vote yes. But it can't, legally speaking. This is not consistent with adopted plans, and that means I am required to vote no under our criteria. And that's a shame because this is an awesome project. It's a good idea. It's a creative solution. Thank you, Neal, for that. I want to vote yes, but I can't. It is not consistent with adopted plans, and there are five criteria that we have to vote on. And one of them is consistency with adopted plan. So I it's such a shame, but I have to be a no tonight. Thanks.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Council Member Sawyer and I am not seeing anybody else in the queue. I will go ahead and round out the comments before we vote. I want to thank the community members who joined us tonight and testified during the public hearing and. Neighborhood plans are great, but neighborhood plans are just that. Their plan and they roll up into the other plans that we have with blueprint being that ultimate plan. And when you really talk about what we need in our city. We need density. We need gentle density. We need to allow more people to live in our neighborhoods. And it's not always going to be in the same single family home that was on that lot that you went by growing up. It's our city is changing and we need places for people to live in our city. And when folks talk about the character of neighborhoods, it's sometimes hard to tease out. If it's the character of our neighborhoods being code for we don't want anybody else in our neighborhood or we want to see the same brick. And the same look of a neighborhood. It's really hard to tease that out. But all hearken back to what Sarah said at the beginning of her presentation was that this is the same density that is allowed today in a slightly different way. And I also have to respect. Nate Lucero and our lawyers within CPD that they're not going to bring us something that could be legally challenged. Because I, I trust what they do. And I've known Nate for a long time, and he has never given us bad advice. And then again as well, the planning board, if this was so inconsistent or so egregious, I would have thought the planning board would vote it down. The planning board approved it 8 to 1. And so in good faith of all of the work that has gone in and with the Overland R.A. supporting this rezoning, I believe, although it's not exactly what folks would want to see, it does meet the criteria. And I am a yes on this tonight. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 22, Dash 0016, please.
Speaker 5: See tobacco.
Speaker 0: No. Park?
Speaker 8: No.
Speaker 3: Flynn.
Speaker 6: No.
Speaker 0: Herndon.
Speaker 3: I know. Cashman. Kenny Ortega, I.
Speaker 7: Sandoval No.
Speaker 0: Sawyer?
Speaker 9: No.
Speaker 3: Torres No. Black eye. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results. Eight Nays. Five I's, eight nays. Council Bill 20 2-0016 has failed. It only has five eyes. And so we want to thank our planners who joined us here this evening and the community members who stayed with us. And we're going to go ahead and move on to our last hearing of the evening. Councilmember Ortega, will you please put Council Bill 20 2-0093 on the floor for final passage?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 1974 and 1990 South Huron Street in Overland.
Approves a map amendment to rezone property from E-TU-C to E-SU-A (two-unit to single-unit), located at 1974 and 1990 South Huron Street in Council District 7. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 1-4-22.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_02222022_22-0093
|
Speaker 0: And we're going to go ahead and move on to our last hearing of the evening. Councilmember Ortega, will you please put Council Bill 20 2-0093 on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 3: Yes, Madam President, I move that council bill 20 2-0093 be placed upon final consideration and due process.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Has been moved and seconded the required public hearing for Council Bill 20 2-0093 is open. May we please have the staff report? Hello, Councilmember Kenny.
Speaker 9: Good evening, colleagues. Playing the role of a staff member today. I am going to drive the PowerPoint. We are going to Co-Present. And so Councilman Sandoval is actually going to kick us off.
Speaker 7: Good news. And good evening, everyone. Thank you. And thank you for hanging with us. So Councilman Kenny and I are bringing forward an ordinance to reestablish the Board of Adjustment. The zoning code was created in 1923. It was about 15 pages. It talked about height, setback, lot coverages and permitted uses. Now, the zoning code is very complicated. It's about 1500 pages. It talks about building firms, alternative standards, expanded state regulations and modernized community objectives. Next day, this bill will do modernization of the board structure. What's included in this bill is professional preparation for the role. They will be the Board of adjustment. Members will be well trained, they'll be legally prepared, and there'll be consistency, consistency for the community. And we want to make sure that we provide gratitude for the current Board of Board of Adjustment members. They serve a vital role in our zoning code and meet every other week. And it's a very complicated code. I hope I would like to remind all of us that we have two zoning codes in Denver. We have former Chapter 59, and we also have our current 2010 zoning code.
Speaker 9: Councilman PANITCH So to go into some of the details about the bill that's before you tonight, the first change that will be making is to how the appointments are made. The appointments in the bill before you will be split with the council making two appointments, may you're making two appointments and then one appointment being a joint appointment . We will also split the alternate appointments and the alternates are very important in this sport because currently they are meeting every week. So it's a demanding role in the alternates to serve regularly. You know, the real rationale behind splitting these appointments is we really have distinct roles. We do make zoning laws here in this room and we are that land use authority, but all of the land use decisions on the implementation side are made by the administration. Right. They make all of those day to day decisions, the recommendations that came before you today. And so it's actually really important that we both have a role in appointing this board. And it actually forces us to work together as a member of this council's boards and Commissions subcommittee with Councilwoman Black and Councilwoman CdeBaca on the boards where we have appointments that overlap with the mayor. We coordinate more with the administration on what the qualifications are, making sure we represent the city. It brings a little more scrutiny, and that actually helps us with recruitment, since you have both branches recruiting for the board. So there's a lot of strengths to that. You can see some of the precedents for this type of split appointments in other boards, the boards of ethnic nominating, the Civil Service Commission, the Citizen Oversight Board. We have at least 13 boards that split appointments like this. So it's actually quite common in our own city. It's also a best practice. One of the things we did for each of the things we looked at in this bill before you tonight is to ask what are other cities doing, particularly those that have modernized the same language that we have from from 100 years ago? And so of our ten cities, six have mayoral and four have council appointments. So qualifications it was actually surprising to Councilman Sandoval and I we didn't realize there were no requirements for who would be qualified to serve on this board. Other boards in Denver, the audit committee, the building code board of Appeals landmark. These are really common things when you have a technical board to have some technical qualification requirements. So this bill before you tonight will require that one member at least be an architect. There could be two. Secondly, that that person, a person that either has one of these either urban planning, construction, engineering or development, doesn't need to have multiple doesn't have to, but has to have one of those backgrounds. So it's a broad range of flexibility for those that are recruiting for the board. The third requirement is for an attorney. An admin law is the preference so that this is not about having a land use lawyer on the board necessarily. That's what you U.S. team does, right? Madam Hernandez, they there's a particular attorney assigned to this board to be their attorney. But this is about seeing that the board runs the meeting and they need to have an eye towards things like due process. They need to have an eye towards how they take testimony and evidence. This is a board that takes evidence. It's an appeal process. It is it is as close to judicial as you can get without being a judge. And so having an attorney there that can just have an eye towards that maybe and help as a member of the board to keep a culture that has high legal adherence to the not just the the board of adjustment criteria itself, but also to other legal principles like due process and consistency that are really important. And that could make us as a city liable if the board violates them. So that's really important. This board is a part of the city, and if they violate any laws, the liability falls to us as a city. So having a really good, tight process is really important. So those are the three named criteria, at least one member with each of those, then any remaining members must have a demonstrated interest in land use and zoning. In the past, members have been appointed to this board without experience. That's not a great first experience, right? This is a technical decision making board. They should have some background in zoning. It doesn't mean that they are a practicing professional. It could be that they have been engaged in committees as members of the public. It could be that they have academic background, but they need to have some background in zoning that's demonstrated. So there are a lot of precedents for this in other cities as well. And again, in many cities there is actually a movement away from making these day to day decisions by volunteer boards because codes are so complex because there is a need for consistency. Many cities have moved to professional hearing examiners or having staff make more of the decisions. But of those that still have boards doing this day to day work, there's a number of them that you can see listed here that have requirements. The third change the ordinance is making is to the training we listed out here, the zoning code, legal procedures, the stuff I just talked about in terms of due process, adopted plans. Right. That even though this board is not making policy, it's important for them to understand the policy behind. What it is that they are making decisions on the implementation, appeals for diversity, equity and inclusion. This is a value of this city, the value of this body. And it's important for this board to have training and understanding how their role in particular, you know, needs to be aware of these things. And then the legal network. Right. Many of these federal laws did not exist when this board was created. The ADA didn't exist. Civil rights laws didn't exist for housing didn't exist. They do today. And this board needs to understand how they need to be thoughtful about the types of questions that they ask me, the type of evidence that they're receiving, and making sure that they're compliant with all of those laws. So, again, precedent here, we don't have as much in the city as I might like. If I had two more terms, I might work on some training requirements for all of our boards and commissions. So that's something for those of you who continue on this body might want to think about or the administration that comes next. But we're here today and we should, you know, make sure to fill this gap with this board while we're here. It is a requirement in other cities, Austin being the most robust for all their boards, but also some examples that are just for analogous boards to do zoning. So those are the three main requirements that are changing in the structure of the board. The board will be reestablished with these criteria. And, you know, we've been asked about that question. And the idea here is to have a firm foundation where everyone gets the same training at the same time and they can operate as a uniform board and that we can make sure we have the right balance of all of those qualifications. There is precedent for this in the city in terms of both. Our Sustainability Commission was reseeded as a whole for a new era of our sustainability policy. Our housing committee was reconsidering constituted as a whole. So there is some precedent for this, which is setting a strong foundation. So we do some cleanup in the bill as well. I want to first just remind us, we had a good conversation at committee. The people who might be appealing a decision to this body could be a homeowner or a property owner, and it also could be a neighborhood person. The criteria for an appeal are applied the same no matter who you are. And so what we want to make sure is that those criteria are very clear and they match the intent of the ordinance. So there is some cleanup about the standard of evidence for finding that there was an error. Just as a reminder, these types of appeals are a very small number in front of the board, you know, three, four or five in a year. The vast majority of things they hear are variances. There is not a standard of evidence for a variance. There are a set of different criteria. We're not changing any of those criteria in this bill because they all live in charter. But the criteria for what defines an area for that small number of appeals. We're just changing the language to better match the intent of the ordinance, calling it clear and convincing evidence. That's a term that's used legally to kind of mean deference to the decision maker, which the ordinance does call for. It says that the zoning administrator, we should have deference to her. So so this just matches that language up. And again, that will apply if a developer thinks they were denied something that they want. That will be the standard they have to meet. The same as if someone doesn't agree and a permit was issued, everyone will be having to meet the same standard. Cleaning up the definition of unusual conditions. This is for properties that can't meet the zoning code because maybe the lot size is strange. Maybe there's a river or a natural feature that affects a lot and makes it difficult to do the setbacks or things the way that the normal requirements would be. Or maybe the property itself is is non-conforming and unusual. This unusual conditions included some financial language right in the middle of it. It kind of muddled things. There's a separate section of the ordinance that covers financial things. You can't get a variance just because it's more expensive. That's not an excuse to get a variance, and that's covered elsewhere. It doesn't need to be covered in a section just about the physical criteria of the site. We're making a standard term for the alternates. They had a term somewhere between one and five years in the code. It was a little unusual. The attorneys had not seen a lot of maybe appointed between one in five years. We picked three years. So it's standard for the alternates. And then we also just clarified the attendance criteria. If someone is absent for more than a third of the meetings, that's the current standard for their to be in attendance issue. We made it the same as it is for this body and the same as it is for all other boards and commissions, which is more than three unexcused absences. If you have a serious illness, you can be excused. But if you don't show up. If you don't. Have an excused absence by the chair of this board. You shouldn't miss more than three meetings, and that is standard in many boards and commissions, according to our research. So that is the end of our staff presentation. And I will be available. We'll both be available to answer questions. And then after the hearing. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Councilmembers Meech and Sandoval. And this evening we have seven folks lined up to speak. Our first speaker is Shawn Johnson. You can come up to the podium and if you wouldn't mind introducing yourself and your city or address whichever you feel comfortable providing.
Speaker 2: Hey. Hey, y'all. I'm Shawn Johnson. I'm from Denver. I live in Councilman Sandoval's district. I'm here to speak in favor of this bill because it makes sense, especially as a first steps towards remedying some of the longstanding issues. Denver residents who have a who have had to present in front of the Board of Adjustments have experienced. It may come as no surprise to those families which have witnessed the board inexplicably reject accept request while also overseeing approving the destruction of some of Denver's most beautiful houses and neighborhoods. Doesn't require any qualifications of or training. I watched testimony from the PowerPoint presentation of this bill and heard how a bill may be a way member testified, how they applied were notified, they'd be appoint, they'd been appointed and were adjudicating cases the next day without even really knowing what's in or required of their powerful position. That's a serious problem because these members hear serious cases that have serious implications on families and businesses and Denver. In my family's experience with the bill, the way we went before them, seeking an additional 95 square feet for the footprint of our EDU project, a new project plan that had been approved. Our city councilperson had been promoted and improved our neighbors. This was a development plan that was aligned with the city's vision, aligned with our district's vision. The additional square space was going to allow our family to enclose the stairway up to the living space so that we could install a chairlift for my mom who was disabled and . At that was trying to recover from me and at the time was trying to recover from a serious health setback. This minimum request was submitted with numerous letters of support to the view away from the Social Security Administration detailing my mother's disabilities. My mother's personal doctor attesting that this housing would be beneficial to her health care. We presented letters of support from three of the four R.A. organizations listed that they'd contacted about our project. Letters from our direct neighbors. Letters from our R.A. in Specific Submitted, which included a unanimous vote by our local neighbors who supported our project. A letter from Denver's Blueprint Task Force member who represented our area as well as our own city councilperson. The bill away, rejected or ignored all of this input. My story may be egregious, but it's not singular. Most people building here in Denver have their own unfortunate story of.
Speaker 0: Dealing with fraud. That's the time we have a lot of the for each speaker. Each one has 3 minutes.
Speaker 2: Was that.
Speaker 0: Yeah, it was. Yeah, it was.
Speaker 2: I'm sorry I didn't get to.
Speaker 3: That, so I.
Speaker 2: Wanted to brief the guys, but I didn't want to say that I was thankful to the bill or to the city council and I'm sorry for going over time. I didn't know there was. I would have.
Speaker 0: We can we can call you back up if somebody has a question. So go ahead and please stay. All right. Great. Thank you. On line, our next speaker is LeAnn Anderson.
Speaker 3: I can hear me. Can you hear me all right? Yes. Awesome. So I just want to say good evening and thank you for the opportunity to speak to you tonight. As you said, my name's Leon Anderson and I am a Denver native and neighborhood advocate. I had the opportunity to present to the BOA on several occasions and have been on both sides of the border decisions as the zoning and land use chair and co-chair for Park Hill. Engagement in the IPO process was why I applied to become a member of the board. I was appointed to serve on the Board of Adjustments as an alternate board member in March of 2019. I'm concerned that as drafted, this bill has the potential to exacerbate the issues the bill is attempting to address. The approach seems counterproductive, unseating the current board in its entirety and replacing them with new board members who may have no knowledge or limited knowledge of the process, has the potential to increase inconsistencies and result in increased complaints from constituents, as well as increased legal liability for the system for the city. New people. Members with the same criteria will likely result in limited process improvement and may very well likely make things worse. I urge you to reconsider the proposal to reestablish the Board of Adjustment Striker from the bill and to focus on modernizing the VOA criteria to meet the needs of a growing city. The current board members have diverse backgrounds and personal experience. Board member terms are staggered and allow for the desire for board member updates to occur naturally over the next two years and allow the necessary time to vet the needed body process. Improvements and training of board members to be. The bill itself provides legal authority for the Board of Adjustment members to be trained to better prepare them to serve in the role and application of the BOA criteria. I also would urge you to require, in the composition of the board in Section E of the bill, to require at least one member to be a neighborhood advocate . Persons who have served on their registered neighborhood organization acted as a zoning or land use chair or co-chair, and presented cases to the Board of Adjustments. Boots on the Ground Experience. And I would also ask that you would consider to add a number five to require all members of the Board of Adjustment to have a demonstrated interest in zoning and land use. I urge you to focus on updating the bio criteria. First and foremost, implore and analyze which VOA approach is best for the city and city and county of Denver, and ensure all citizens are able to serve on the VOA and methodically implement those changes in concert with the.
Speaker 0: Time we have allocated for each speaker. Our next speaker is Amy SIEGEL. Trying to get you moved over, if you could. Oh, there you go. Go ahead, please. Hi there.
Speaker 3: Hi, Madam President. My name is Amy Segal. I live in Berkeley neighborhood in northwest Denver. I'm actually speaking on behalf to promote the change to the procedures and processes of the Board of Adjustment. I do believe that it needs to be overhauled as it is not representing the community or the needs of the residents. The VOA members don't have any special training, which I think is important, and we've had first. I have knowledge of how the system does not work. And as an attendee to some of the zoning meetings and also appeal, we have found a lot of inconsistencies that have proven to be detrimental in decisions being made. There were sign up sheets at one of the zoning meetings and the people who came in were not living in the district and were able to sign up, which was inconsistent. They didn't have any proof of residency and where they lived and if it was in the affected area. They should take into consideration the blueprint. Denver in some of the decision making. The experiences that we had were very. Detrimental as far as decisions being made and having alternates on the board and one of our board members recuse themselves. So when 50 residents showed up for a hearing, paid parking took off work. We didn't have a full board there. So those processes did not work in order to have.
Speaker 2: An.
Speaker 3: Alternate. And when the alternate did listen to the recordings, it was an antiquated recording. They could not hear nor understood and did not get a clear picture. And while three members of the board voted in favor of our appeal, the alternate voted against, and we were not able to see that through. My career is basically in commercial real estate and having people on the board that have zoning knowledge and. Experience would be beneficial not only for these decisions but for residential, commercial and anything else that takes place in the district. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Our next speaker is Frankie Schulz.
Speaker 6: The as Henry.
Speaker 0: Yes. Go ahead.
Speaker 6: Thanks. Good evening, everybody. First of all, I just want to say thanks for your service. I know it's a thankless job sometimes, and I appreciate what you guys do for the city. I also want to thank the council members that are that that called me back when I reached out about this particular case. I've been honored to serve as a as a volunteer seven years on the Denver Planning Board and as my ninth year on board of Adjustment. And just a quick clarification, Councilman Sandoval, that we meet every week, not every other week. So just a note to listen to in my testimony that we meet every week, 9 a.m., and everybody's committed that i'm the testimony that i'm going to give right now, although it may not make a difference tonight, i'm clear about that. But I wanted to make sure I got it on the record.
Speaker 2: It's not really so much about me.
Speaker 6: At this point because I'm off the board very shortly, but it's about my colleagues that I work with every week. I'll also say that I. I support this legislative change. I support the equity component. I think we had more of it and a couple of people got off. That did change that dynamic some. I agree with the training. Different backgrounds. Streamlining the criteria, which is important, and I'll talk about in a minute. Here's the challenge. When we're in there, it's not.
Speaker 2: Easy. We have criteria.
Speaker 6: From the city that we have to follow.
Speaker 2: But each case is different. And if we if we vote against the case, those people aren't happy. And then they call council, they call the mayor, they get upset and calls names. And I'm sure you guys understand that with things, that decision you guys make.
Speaker 6: So that's a real challenge for us. And I'm going to play onto what Lianne said, that one of the biggest things, the focus should be around this, especially when I listen to Councilman Kennish and a lot of the the reasons for the change, they seem.
Speaker 2: Very.
Speaker 6: About the people that are on the board as opposed to as opposed to the criteria.
Speaker 2: The criteria is what's heart.
Speaker 6: Hear sometimes because we have to follow a criteria. I'm running out of time. So I got to be quick here. There is a case and Mr. Johnson was there. I challenge anybody to look at the time, to look at the details of that case, because it's not exactly like he said. And to be honest with you, I voted for it, but still got dragged through the wringer on a bunch of investigations of how we are. We're prejudiced to the different cases. So, you know, it's a tough thing when somebody doesn't get approved. I get that.
Speaker 2: We do our best to grant a variance.
Speaker 6: When it's needed for minimal minimal for for minimal thing they need to do to get that variance. And that stairwell and closure was not the problem on that. But but furthermore, what's more important is that the that I, I also I also want to say this. I would challenge the knowledge of our board, which a lot of it was learned the hard way. And I'm for the training.
Speaker 2: But a current understanding of the zoning code to anyone.
Speaker 6: Including everybody sitting on council.
Speaker 2: Because we have people that dig very deep.
Speaker 6: And and know a lot about zoning. I'm fine having formally trained. I get that. Okay.
Speaker 0: Thank you. So that's the time we have allotted for each speaker.
Speaker 6: You got it. Thank you. Somebody asked me a question because the only thing.
Speaker 0: Thank you. We're going to go ahead and move on to our next speaker. We've got Joel Noble.
Speaker 2: Good evening.
Speaker 0: Counsel. Go ahead, please, Joel.
Speaker 2: It. Can you hear me all right?
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much. My name is Joel Noble. I live in the Curtis Park neighborhood within the five point statistical area. Although I do volunteer as on a number of roles, I am speaking tonight only on my own behalf, and I'm here to speak in favor of this first step to reestablish and modernize the Board of Adjustment for Zoning Appeals. As a community member, I've paid attention to the Board of Adjustment for many years, going with my neighborhood on matters, having peer to peer input with others, whether they were someone bringing an appeal such as a variance or responding either for or against as a neighborhood. And I've seen a lot of cases. I've formed a lot of opinions about how things work and been able to help folks through this process. So when I heard this came up, I had a lot of questions and I want to thank Councilwoman Keech, Councilwoman Sandra Ball and Tina at our zoning administrator for spending time with me to answer all of my questions as the final decision makers on these important appeals, most often for variance, sometimes for other matters. It makes sense to me that we update the appointment qualifications and training requirements for this board, as well as the important clarifications that Councilwoman Keech talked about. It's my understanding that existing Board of Adjustment members will be invited to apply along with other applicants, and, and I hope they will be considered. My my understanding is also that beyond the action considered tonight, there's a second step and this gets what I think both the existing Board of adjustment members earlier spoke to modernizing the criteria especially the with the variance criteria, we put the board of adjustment in a very difficult position. And on the one hand, we need the intent of the zoning code to be upheld and we need it to be flexible when there's a true hardship. But I think the criteria we have written in the zoning code for hardship, other than specific cases of personal disability or a very unusual light configuration, pretty objective, are very challenging. And I can understand that the Board of Adjustment has to find their own way because we collectively as a city and then the criteria we give them don't give a lot of guidance. And so I'd like to see this next phase, and I've given a lot of input to the sponsors as to things that might be covered, results in a clearer process that everyone understands better, including the public, that the same facts will reach the same decision reliably because it has transparency and clarity . But this as a first step I think the council sponsors are bringing forward.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Jonathan Capelli.
Speaker 6: Okay. Everyone hear me? Hello.
Speaker 0: Go ahead, Jonathan.
Speaker 6: Okay, great. Thank you, Madam President. My name is Jonathan Capelli, the executive director of the Neighborhood Development Collaborative, a coalition of 19 affordable housing organizations serving about 30,000 households across metro Denver. I am speaking today in support of S.B. 93, and there are three main reasons why we support this bill. One is the professionalization of the body. And two is the enhanced training requirements. And three is a sort of rebalancing of appointment power. Professionalization is really important because our land use policies are very complex and the only way to demystify complexity is with knowledge. It's also really important, though, to balance expert knowledge with community voices. So we're pleased to see that the bill's.
Speaker 2: Sponsors ensure a guaranteed mix.
Speaker 6: Of subject matter experts and informed laypersons. We also think these measures so we think that these measures will then lead to the flexible and nuanced guidance of the creation of our built environment that the city needs. We need the members with the technical expertize.
Speaker 2: To interpret both the spirit and the letter of our.
Speaker 6: Code and other documents in order to ensure that the values coded within are reflected in their decisions about it. Land is getting scarcer, costs are rising, and this causes development proposals by necessity to become increasingly unorthodox. So a wise and informed interpretation of a variance request is an appeal that's necessary to ensure that affordable housing and other community benefiting uses essential to the city are actually created. We also feel that training is incredibly important, as others have spoken, to ensure that both members are up to date on the complex, legal and zoning concepts that the code is replete with, and also ensures that BLM member, VOA members of the future understand the impact of their actions on things like racial equity. Land use decisions have arguably had the single greatest impact on the history, on the history of how our country and the city have become less of a melting pot and more of a sort of a cafeteria trade all divided up. When it comes to people of different races and ethnicities and incomes and how they're distributed across the city. Finally, we also appreciate the balance of government appointment power. We thank the current VOA members for their volunteer service over the years. Sounds like a tough job. However, today, simply put, we have election season approaching, so having such a consequential quasi judicial branch that's decided only by one branch of government without any stopgaps places it in danger of being politicized over future administrations. So these proposed changes will finally let the body match the precedent of ten of our peers, cities, and most of Denver's other decision making committees in their practice requiring cross cross-brand split sort of appointing power. So in short, we see that this unifying way decision making landscape that the VOA will face over the coming years is more complex than it was in the fifties and never more consequential. So to rise to the challenge of the future. We do ensure it has a diversity.
Speaker 0: This time we have allocated. We're going to go ahead and move to our last speaker this evening, Brian Connelly.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council President Gilmore. My name is Frank Connelly, as many of you know. I'm a land use planner and land use lawyer with the firm of Otten Johnson here in Denver. And I'm also a Denver resident. I in addition to my day job, I teach land use law at both the University of Colorado Law School and at the University of Denver Law School. And the function of the Board of Adjustment and Variances and Appeals are one of the first things that I teach in an introductory land use course. So the function of the Board of Adjustment is very important and very fundamental to land use law into the function of zoning in our city . In my day job, I've had the opportunity to appear before the current Board of Adjustment and Prior Boards of Adjustment on many occasions. And they they do perform a very important role. And I think that the current members of the board have done a remarkably good job of performing that role. Despite the challenges of the role, as you've already heard about this evening. I am in support of the changes that are proposed by council member candidates and council members and of all. And it's really for two reasons. First, I appear before decision making bodies, including city council all around the state, and I've observed that decision making bodies that have a robust training regimen as part of their their process, I think perform their functions in an incredibly professional manner. And so I'm very supportive of the notion of additional training for Board of Adjustment members. I think it's incredibly important given the challenges of that position. And then secondly, I think the fact that we would introduce some requirements that Board of Adjustment members be well credentialed in the area in which they are required to make decisions, I think is a good move. Certainly the other boards in the city that council member mentioned that have credential requirements, I think those boards function very well and those board members bring an important perspective to their decision making authority. So I do applaud the sponsors of the bill for taking this additional step. I agree with some of the other speakers regarding the need for modernization and some of the criteria. I do think the current board members for their service and they've done a good job and I am in support and urge council to.
Speaker 6: Pass this bill. Thanks.
Speaker 0: Thank you. That concludes our speakers questions from members of Council on Council Bill 22, Dash 0093 Councilmember Sawyer.
Speaker 9: Things on a President. I have a couple of quick questions, but first, I wanted to just allow there was two speakers that couldn't finish. So you're one of them? Yeah. And then I think there was one on line as well. And I would love to just maybe give them another minute to just wrap up.
Speaker 2: I really don't think it's an end or a five year anniversary. And we decided to come here to.
Speaker 9: Happy anniversary.
Speaker 2: And to speak on this issue instead of just going out to dinner and have something wonderful.
Speaker 0: So I do it in a do reintroduce yourself for the public record.
Speaker 2: My name is Shawn Johnson. I'm sure you all familiar with my family's story. I'll try to send you the videos of our hearing. I've tried to contact you. I've tried to speak out. Our family is not trying to demonize any members of the body who try to speak tonight. We think it's important that the city be prepared. As especially as Councilwoman Candace pointed out there, there's a liability issue here that these members are representing the city and that they are not familiar with housing laws, equity laws. The vision of the city, the planning, development of different communities. And that they are not even in the position to sort of here pay attention to are required to adhere to the input that they get from particular communities. This is a simple bill that just makes sense. And I'm really proud of the City Council of Denver for hearing an issue that is not just my own. As I tried to reach out to everybody that existed when this was happening to my family, because it meant that we were going to be displaced from our home and potentially displaced from Denver. While only trying to create a safe, healthy spot for my mom, for our family. That was a huge issue, one that we couldn't ignore. And as I reached out to everyone, almost every department, almost every individual that I spoke to could speak to an issue with this boy and how it functions. So I think that this was a really productive thing and a great thing that you all did to address an issue that is affecting residents and particular developers, everyone in this city. And it's simple. It's asking that people who have a huge power, a huge influence in our city, be trained and be qualified. That's not that's not huge. It's not controversial. These are basic things. And I hope that you guys will support this bill and support the deadline that would require a new board to be set, because the current members are, I think, jeopardizing not all of them. I don't want to say that, but there are members on this board who are jeopardizing this city. Period. I mean, they're jeopardizing the city. The consequences that can come out of their decisions are jeopardizing. The city are going to take money from this city that could go to other issues, important issues, creating housing as opposed to the potential lawsuits and liability that might exist. So I think this is a simple solve, especially as a first step to to start to create change and to start to create a progress that's going to be important for our city. And I thank you for the additional time. I don't want to say too much, but I I'm thankful. It's not a lot of times that you have a problem and you see your government, you see your city immediately sort of respond to it, I think, in a kind, generous way. And this was, I thought, a gracious way to sort of address the issue while also giving the members of this board an opportunity to sort of step down without anybody in particular being called out, anybody in particular being told you have to go for this reason? It's just a gracious way for our city to move forward and in a progressive way, in the right way, and that aligns with our values. Right now, the VOA is even allowed to align with new values that our city is putting forth. And this is a great thing to do, and I hope that you guys will support it because it's it's simple as asking for them to be qualified and for them to be trained.
Speaker 9: Awesome. Thank you so much. And I believe there was a gentleman online as well who had a few more points I think you wanted to make. Maybe it was Frank Schultz.
Speaker 0: We yep. We've got Frank.
Speaker 9: Schultz thinking.
Speaker 0: Of moving in.
Speaker 6: I really, really appreciate you. Let me at least get these closing statements and obviously being on the board for nine years. I've got a lot to say. And but I did say I supported this bill. And the point.
Speaker 2: I didn't get to yet was.
Speaker 6: Is that you got all these people that serve that that have worked really hard and don't have a prejudice bias at all. They look at the cases. They have tough decisions to make. They try not to play in the gray.
Speaker 2: But as even Ms.. Sawyer said earlier that we have to look at each case individually. And I'm telling.
Speaker 6: You, from knowing these people for a long time.
Speaker 2: They're all good people that are.
Speaker 6: Judge in these cases because of color, because of sexual orientation. They're judging them because of the stuff that's in front of them.
Speaker 2: And maybe we had to learn the hard way.
Speaker 6: Of how to of how to understand zoning, how to understand the different what we can and can't do and the criteria. But well, I've been on there a long time.
Speaker 2: And if training is we I support the training, you know, but we should have.
Speaker 6: The opportunity to do it. I know we can reapply, but I.
Speaker 2: Think there's three people that.
Speaker 6: Are turning now. There's one that resigned and there's. So it really.
Speaker 2: Leaves us two that are that have a few years left. But here's the main point is that. The people that are on this board and I'm off and I'm done. But the people that were on this board, I was shocked that they should be able to serve the.
Speaker 6: Rest of their term because it's only going to be a couple of them. And it helps Austin, the director.
Speaker 2: Make his transition.
Speaker 6: And I just it's very hurtful. I was on a meeting with them today before, and I literally had two or four board members that were that were beside themselves when I'm crying, because they've put all this time in nine to noon and they put all this time in and and this is about criteria. If we want to tighten it up, we the criteria.
Speaker 2: Let's not prejudiced people and we're not against training. We agree with different backgrounds and the.
Speaker 6: Requirements here actually maybe except the attorney have have pretty much been there since.
Speaker 2: I've been on the board for nine years. They've just happened to be that way.
Speaker 6: So anyway, that's there's so much more to say sort of in nine years on this board and and really we all feel like or actually I'm gonna speak for four, five of the seven board members but the rest I just what they weren't on the meeting.
Speaker 2: Today is we all feel like although we're in support of a lot of these changes that our.
Speaker 6: Time wasn't valued and you could.
Speaker 2: Say it, well, we're done. Council gets to speak, you can say, Hey, we appreciate your time. Yeah, you served our city. But you know what?
Speaker 6: The damage is done if you just throw everybody off and put a new board on because that's what you're saying. Is there the problem, not the changes in the legislation and the criteria? So I'm as lawyer, thank you for letting me finish. And that's all I got. So.
Speaker 9: I appreciate your perspective. Thank you for sharing it. And and I do want to make sure that I certainly can't speak for other council members, but I think they will all agree with me when we say thank you for your service. We certainly understand how difficult your job is and, you know, appreciate what this must feel like to current board members. So thanks for sharing that perspective. Just one question, Councilwoman Kennedy, I guess, for you and Councilwoman Sandoval while the new board is being convened, should this pass tonight. What is the transition plan? Will. Will the former board continue to? I know we've got lots of things going on and people are, you know, very concerned about the length of time that it takes to get things approved, etc.. So what what's the interim plan? Thank you for the question, Councilwoman Sandoval, and thank you also for letting our two speakers finish. We have a timeline in the appendix of the document that's in your legislative system, and we're actually beginning work this week. So we, as a council boards and commissions workgroup have already discussed, you know, getting recruitment to begin. The mayor's office is already discussing recruitment. So those conversations have begun pending this passing tonight. We have a meeting with the staff for the Board of Adjustment to talk about the training plan that includes some of the agencies that will be involved, including like H.R., for example. You know, we want to add some flesh to the bones of the the training conversation so that, for example, we can maybe have it videoed so it can be consistent. The goal is to have all of the appointments completed by the end of April and then be able to have the month of May for training. And the anticipation is it would be a combination of some self-study materials that will be provided by the agencies along with some, you know, live trainings. Whether that's live in-person or live on Zoom, I can't tell you today, but the idea that the board members would have time together and then they would begin meeting in June. You know, we're we're aware if you know, it is our sincere hope. We we do appreciate the service of this board. And I'll talk more about that in my comments. But it's our hope that the board members will continue to serve through through through the end of May until the new board takes over . You know, we did have someone resign and the administration is responsible still for the appointments. And so they're working on that. A replacement we. So so that's the plan for this phase I was going to because this hearing is only on this bill. I didn't get into some of the discussions about the other conversation. I'll do that again in my comments. But I think I'm answering your question as it pertains to this interim for what happens with this bill. I yeah, exactly. Yeah. Thanks so much. I think that's it. Thanks, Madam President.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Councilmember Sawyer and Councilmember Canete. Next up, we have Councilmember Ortega.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. First, I want to thank Councilwoman Sandoval in Councilwoman each for their work on this over time. I've worked on many projects that have gone before the Board of Adjustment, and it's not always a clear process, especially for residents who experience it for a first time and really are trying to figure out how to navigate through that process. The one question that came up from a comment that Joel Noble made about current members being able to re-apply is there they'll be given the same timeline notification as anybody else and they'll be encouraged to apply, correct?
Speaker 7: Yeah, I can take that one. Thank you, Councilman Ortega. Councilman Kenny and I met with all of the current board members and the two alternates and informed them of the ordinance and told them that if they so desire that they can reapply. So when we open up the positions, they'll be notified as well.
Speaker 3: Okay. I think that's all I have. So thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 22, Dash 0093 and wanted to give our sponsors, Councilwoman Meech and or Sandoval the opportunity to go first since you sponsored this.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Madam President. And thank you to the speakers who are here tonight. I'd like to start my comments by, you know, really addressing and responding to to the speakers who are here, because I think that basically our speakers tonight were a microcosm of the stakeholders we talk to through this process. And all of you were heard. I want to make clear, first of all, Mr. Johnson and Amy, who spoke, had particular cases with outcomes they were not pleased with. And I heard you I heard your stories. But I also want to be really clear that no one case prompted this bill. In fact, questions and, you know, thinking about what this board's history was and how it compared to other cities began before some of the cases that we're talking about tonight in the testimony. So there is no one case. There's no one decision. This was really about slowly becoming more aware of the board and that the differences between the board and some of the best practices that are emerging in other cities and and what those differences could be addressed. And honestly, this conversation really began with what every speaker tonight talked about, which was the criteria. It began with what have we given this board to work with? And I want to start, I guess, by you know, that that discussion by saying with humility, we have as a city has haven't done well by this board. They are using the same criteria from 1924 to determine whether a property, you know, or a project needs a variance. That's not okay. And it's not okay because our values as a city aren't always served. We don't have, for example, a criteria that says this will save a 100 year old tree in the canopy that we value for our environment. We probably don't have enough criteria to help us save old buildings. I've said numerous times you can always meet the zoning code perfectly if you scrape something and start from scratch. But if our values are to keep old, awkward buildings that don't fit with the zoning code, we probably need variance criteria that work better . And I want to just acknowledge what the board members who testified today and those we talked to said, which is we have given them an impossible job. We've given them a job to try to create just outcomes with very awkward criteria. One group of people we didn't hear well we heard from one tonight is people who testified. We haven't actually been as clear as we could be with our community that these are not policy debates. It's not about the opinions and feelings of communities in the same way that those discussions occur in this chamber sometimes. These are technical conversations about whether criteria are met. So we set up our community with expectations that it's about counting the number of speakers or how much support there is, when in fact the board is given criteria that don't really make those relevant pieces of evidence. So while we give, you know, these board members this very tough job, it became clear that we have improvements that we can make. And those improvements almost all led back first to the charter. And so tonight's presentation was about those things within our ability to change by ordinance only. But we will have that second conversation. And that second conversation will be an attempt to address the feedback of every speaker who spoke tonight, whether they were community or board members or developers or neighborhood leaders that we got to look at and modernize those criteria. But in that process, we also learned that we didn't have the best structure we could. And so our attempt to both take some immediate action that can help us come in a better prepared way for the situation we're in, but then expeditiously have that conversation about the bigger picture issues that folks raise. So so that's what really came together in Councilwoman Sandoval and his decision to work together on first this bill and then the conversation that follows. It was really to try to set the stage and to really get to an outcome that maybe requires less confusion, because maybe some of these things could be decided in a much more administrative way. And that is the trend in other cities. Right. We could do better education. We're going to share with the staff of this board the feedback we got. We should have maybe some information or videos for folks who might appear before the board so they get some better preparation. There are things we can do as a city to support this board that we haven't done previously. So the good news about a focused conversation is we learn things we can change in the ordinance and we learn things we can change in the practices that don't require an ordinance change. So we'll do our best to support both conversations. I just want to say thank you to all the stakeholders who met with us, only a small portion who are here tonight. And I want to thank you, John Griffin from the Legal Council, his predecessor, Kirsten, and others from the CPD staff, Tina and Abe, who really answered our questions and worked with us as well. It was a great team effort to try to get the information. I want to thank the staff of the BOA in addition to the board members who spoke with us as well. Their feedback is all going into that next conversation. So thank you and I'll pass it to my co-sponsor.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Leach. Councilwoman Sandoval.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Madam President. As I was thinking about the Board of Adjustment, I was also calling out our five criteria in our zoning code. And so I just want to say that when I'm looking at equity and I'm looking at due process in city, when it comes to land use, I take being the land use commissioner very seriously and I take it's one of our biggest responsibilities because we usually have rezonings every night. And so I just want to make it clear that I was not just calling out due process on the Board of Adjustment and Antiquated Systems. I'm also calling out antiquated systems on our five criteria that we vote on here. And therefore CPD reacted and we have a task force. I've looked at ADU standards throughout the city as we rezone neighborhoods, and so CPD reacted. And we have a task force for accessory dwelling units. And this was one area of the charter that allowed city council to have due process to modernize this. This board, when I was talking to people and we were giving our presentations and I made and the fact that the zoning has not changed since 1956, I thought about all of the changes that have happened in Denver since 1956, and to not have updated a board since 1956 is a failure of our system. And so with that, I just ask all my colleagues to think about all of the changes that you can think of since 1956 and how important it will be to modernize this board and bring it up to a new type of criteria. And really, to have training makes our city better. We put these five members and the two alternates every week. We ask them to do and make legal case law with no training and so therefore we make them vulnerable as well. So I think that this is a win win for the entire city and I ask for my colleagues support. And I would just also like to thank all of the speakers. Thank you for spending your 50 year anniversary here with us. I couldn't. I'm a zoning geek, so I couldn't think of a better way to spend it. I appreciate your coming in and saying that you don't often hear a complaint in the city react. And so thank you for your comments. And thank you for the board members comments. Thank you for the mayor's office working with us. And thank you for CPD, Tina and your staff.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Sandoval. Councilmember Hines.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Council president. I want to thank the sponsors of this bill. I want to thank also the members of the Board of Adjustment for all their hard work over so long period of time. I also want to thank Catherine, percent of all for calling out the five criteria. I agree with you. Any change to comments that I want to make? First, as a civil rights advocate for people with disabilities, I want to thank the sponsors for including the EEI principles diversity, equity, accessibility and inclusion. I'm an elected official today because I perceived discrimination against those with disabilities that led to multiple passed laws at the state level law with my name on it and a successful campaign for city council. Second comment that I wanted to make is I've served on numerous boards, some more effective than others, including the Denver Commission for People with Disabilities appointed by our Mayor. Current Mayor. The current Advisory Council for Persons with Disabilities. Appointed by the Governor. A Health Care and Policy. Health Care Policy and Finance. State Board appointed by the Senate President at the time. President Grantham. Denver. Dumb friendly. Clever. Still museum. And the common thread that I see is that having a matrix makes a lot of sense for boards and commissions, and the most effective boards that I've served on have had a matrix. And based on my personal experience and based on the research I've completed for attending or being participating in those boards and for this discussion, I am really excited that we are adding a bit more meat to the to the process. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Hines. And I'll wrap up. I want to sincerely thank Councilwoman Canete and Sandoval for taking this work on and the public who stayed and testified tonight. It was really helpful to hear that testimony. And then I want to thank the current members of the board for their service and recognizing that change is hard. Change is never easy, no matter what. And I support these changes. But there is still the opportunity for current board members to reapply, to continue serving. And I think the training opportunity, the opportunities for us to modernize are so important and this is important work and we've got more work to do. But this is an important first step and I am happy to support it this evening. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 20 20093, please. See CdeBaca. Can each. I. Sandoval.
Speaker 7: I swear, I.
Speaker 3: Torres, I swear I can't.
Speaker 6: All right.
Speaker 7: Fine.
Speaker 8: I.
Speaker 6: Herndon. Hi. Hi.
Speaker 3: Cashman. Ortega. I.
Speaker 0: Madam President, I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. 12 hours, 12 Eyes Council Bill 20 2-0093 has passed. On Monday, March 21st, Council will hold a required public hearing on 20 2-0160, changing the zoning classification for 3759 North Industry and 3760 North Jason Street and Highland.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance reestablishing the board of adjustment and updating board requirements and procedures.
Reestablishes the board of adjustment and updating board requirements and procedures. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 1-18-22.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_02142022_21-1207
|
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Flynn. And we sincerely appreciate Councilmember Ortega's work on this resolution. All right. We don't have anybody else in the queue for that one, so we'll go ahead and move on. Madam Secretary, thanks for putting the next item up on our screens. Councilmember Canete, please go ahead with your comments on Resolution 1207, please.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Council President. This is a $1.4 million contract with Mental Health Center of Denver, who also is contracting with Denver Health to expand the Stier program, which is our support team assisted response. This is the alternative to policing that launched in the summer of 2020 and has been continuing and has grown slightly. And this is an important contract for our community to celebrate for several reasons. First, this contract is going to provide five museums. They're not available right away. As you may know, there are supply chain issues, but our provider is agreeing to fill the gap in the middle. But we will be able to have five vans providing service through more of our city to people who are in crisis and don't necessarily need the armed police response that we heard about and appreciated a little bit earlier tonight. We've already got seven new clinicians hired and six new EMT and medical techs to provide, you know, medical assessments to provide trained mental health services. And they estimate that this contract is going to result in 10,000 contacts. I share this information because, you know, this contract is not new. But one of the things I talk about every time I talk to a class or, you know, I'm asked to give a talk about some of the challenges our city faces. I share with people that we have models that work. Our challenge is often that they are not to the scale that we need them. Right. Supportive housing works. We don't have enough of those units coming online are supportive. Our tiny home villages work. We don't have enough of them. Right? Star is an example of a program that has worked for those that it has had contact with in minimizing unnecessary arrests or unnecessary costs. Right. Whether that be a jail cost or an emergency room cost. And it has done so for less than 1% of the calls coming into the city that it might be eligible for . So it matters that we're scaling it up. It matters as well, because we know that this program doesn't just belong to a city agency. Tonight's contract is important because it's the first time this contract's being brought forward by our health department, who is an expert in people who are experiencing mental health crisis and need medical care. Right. So it's the right agency leading it. They do it in partnership with others, but it belongs to the community. That's what this program it was really born from community advocates, parents, caregivers, people who wanted to see us doing something different. And this contract includes some important things that that community's advocated for. It includes a third party evaluator, the Urban Institute. This is a very highly respected national organization. So don't take our word for how this program's doing. We'll have a third party evaluator. It includes a community advisory committee that includes individuals named by those who advocated for and created the first advisory program for this program and said, we want these individuals to be part of this new city sponsored advisory committee. And the city responded. And so we have community advisors providing oversight and input and feedback and having eyes on this program. We have a third party professional evaluator on this program, and we have an important expansion to serve more people. So it's on consent, I hope, and plan that it's season consent, but it's important to just take a moment every now and then celebrate the council partnerships that brought this to fruition. Councilwoman Gilmore, in particular, we spent a lot of hours together with this agency, and we appreciate your, you know, taking our input and allowing us to be partners in the process as well. And generally, this entire council has championed the program. So so that's why I called it out tonight and, you know, can happily go forward the rest of the night on consent, but hopefully with a little more awareness of the important, important steps that are happening tonight. Thank you. And thank you to the providers out there on cold nights and hot nights and tough nights providing this service. We thank the clinicians and the EMT and medical techs who will be out there. And we also look forward to there is an RFP out right now for a nonprofit partnership, and we hope to have more community agencies as partners in the program as they respond to that RFP. So thank you to all of you on the ground doing the work. INKS Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Kinney, and appreciate you calling this out because of the amazing work that the star team does. And how important it is for our city. And I appreciate you highlighting that a bit more for us this evening.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Mental Health Center of Denver to expand the Support Team Assisted Response (STAR) program.
Approves a contract with Mental Health Center of Denver for $1,391,579 and through 12-31-22 to expand the Support Team Assisted Response (STAR) program, including emergency medical technicians and behavioral health clinicians engaging those experiencing crisis related to mental health issues, poverty, homelessness, and substance abuse, from the current limited scope into a citywide program (202160835). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 3-7-22. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 10-27-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_02142022_22-0166
|
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Kinney, and appreciate you calling this out because of the amazing work that the star team does. And how important it is for our city. And I appreciate you highlighting that a bit more for us this evening. Madam Secretary, if you wouldn't mind putting the next item on our screens, Councilmember Flynn, will you please put Council Resolutions 166 and 119 on the floor for adoption?
Speaker 6: Yes. Thank you, Madam President. I move that council resolutions 22, dash 0166 and 22, dash 0119, be adopted in a block.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded comments and questions by members of Council on Council Resolutions 20 2-0166 and 22, Dash 0119. Council members say to Barker.
Speaker 2: Yes. I called these out to go on record voting no for both of them. 166 is the council rules change that, in my opinion, solves a problem that wasn't well defined. It didn't explore other options to expand access to public comment. It didn't thoroughly engage the public in defining the problem or potential solutions, and it potentially punishes people for participating regularly. I think we've got a lot of issues with our public comment sign up to begin with and had an opportunity to really overhaul the current format and do something that is more equitable. And we did not meet that mark with this. And so I do not support this rule change tonight. The other contract, 119 is for the sole source provider that's been working with the Department of Safety on the psychological evaluations of DPD for over 20 years. We I called this out at the last opportunity. We voted on it, and it was highlighted that there are no people of color on this team. And we had a commitment from the Department of Safety to put this contract out for competitive bid. And from my understanding, it did not go out for bid. And here we are again with it in front of us. And no real resolution around the issue, the lack of people of color on staff and the sole source nature of the contract. So I'm a no for both of these tonight.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember CdeBaca. Next up, we have Councilmember Cashman.
Speaker 7: Thank you. 20 2-1 66. The rules change. When I brought forward the initial bill to begin public comment in front of this body in 2016, it was brought forth because the way I looked at it, we had 13 right members of city council working hard. We had, you know, some thousands of people working for the city, bringing up ideas. But, you know, at that time, there were probably 600,000 people in the city and county of Denver. And I just thought it might make sense that we have a regular session where we could hear from the public, because I figured there were probably a heck of a lot of good out ideas out there that we weren't hearing about. It was never intended for everybody to get to speak every week. But so we started off in 2016 agreeing to have a 30 minute public comment session before the first city council meeting of each month. And then about two years later, that that same council chose to expand it to the first and third meetings of each month, but continued the policy that those public comments sessions were not to be televised. Then this council decided not a long time ago to expand public comment to 30 minutes before each Monday night city council meeting , and we decided that there was no reason they shouldn't be televised. So now they're televised. I think it's evident that this council's behavior has been to expand the reach of public comment, and it has been said before, besides these 30 minute comments sessions which are admittedly not long enough to hear from everybody, you can reach us via email. You can you can reach us by in-person meetings, all kinds of opportunities to to make your ideas heard. My support of this is to try to give to broaden the ideas brought before this body. If it turned. I first of all, I don't expect that folks who would like to speak more frequently than once every so many weeks, I think people probably have pretty much the opportunity that they want. But if there's someone who hasn't spoken in a long time, they simply move to the front of the line. No one is prevented from speaking or signing up to speak, and I expect that adequate opportunity will make itself evident. And I also believe that if there this policy turns out to be other than intended, we'll take a look at it and be sure that people have a reasonable opportunity to speak to this body. That's my comments. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Cashman. Councilmember Hines.
Speaker 7: Thank you. Council President May I ask Deputy Director Walker to provide comment on what Councilmember CdeBaca mentioned?
Speaker 1: The city. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. And just a reminder for members of the public who are listening to the conversation. Councilmember Cashman was making comments on a bill on excuse me, resolution 166 around public comment. But now we're going to shift gears and we're now talking about Resolution 119. So go ahead, please, Laura.
Speaker 3: Thank you. And thank you for that, Councilman Himes. Laura Walker, deputy director of safety. And I just wanted to clarify that Nicolette Inflator was.
Speaker 1: A competitive bid.
Speaker 0: The Department of Safety performed that.
Speaker 3: Competitive process during 2020, and there were three awarded vendors.
Speaker 1: On that competitive process. So there was a selection for Nicolette Inflator.
Speaker 7: All right. Thank you. Thank you. Council president.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you, Laura. And thank you, Councilmember Hines. Not seen anyone else in the queue right at this point is. Um, and I know we've got Council member CdeBaca. Go ahead, please. I see your hand is up.
Speaker 2: My question is for Laura, and it's clarity around who the other vendors were and what section or what slice of the work this contract is going to fulfill and why we chose to continue going forward with this contractor.
Speaker 1: I guess.
Speaker 3: So. Back in 2020, we did.
Speaker 1: Award.
Speaker 3: Three vendors and I can get you that there was four four contractors that actually bid. We awarded to three Nikola deflator.
Speaker 1: Dr. Jackson.
Speaker 3: And Jeremy Brower.
Speaker 1: Regarding if they do.
Speaker 3: Have the majority of the work within within the Department of Safety.
Speaker 1: So that's why we.
Speaker 0: Did.
Speaker 3: The largest amount and expenditure did get a new collective later. And so that's why we were seeking to.
Speaker 1: Increase a dollar spend.
Speaker 3: Of this.
Speaker 1: Contract.
Speaker 2: The other contractors at all. Have they ever been affiliated with Nicoletti? So.
Speaker 1: Can you repeat the question?
Speaker 2: Have the other contractors that were awarded the contracts, were they affiliated with Nicoletti at any point in time?
Speaker 0: I think we might need to have you repeat the entire question over again, Councilwoman.
Speaker 2: Have any of the contractors that were awarded the other contracts, have they ever been affiliated with Micheletti in the past?
Speaker 3: I believe Jeremy.
Speaker 1: Prior was, but I would have to go there on that.
Speaker 2: Thank you. That's it.
Speaker 0: Think. Okay. Thank you, Laura. And thank you, Councilwoman CdeBaca. We have no one else in the queue. And so, Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Resolutions 22, dash 0166 and 22, dash 0119.
Speaker 2: See the rocker? No, Clark.
Speaker 7: All right.
Speaker 2: Flynn.
Speaker 7: Hi.
Speaker 2: Herndon.
Speaker 7: Hi.
Speaker 2: Hi. All right. Question. Kenny Ortega. I. Sandoval. I. Sawyer. I. Torres. I. Black. All right. Madam President, I.
Speaker 0: Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 2: One May 12 Eyes.
Speaker 0: 12 Eyes Council Resolutions 20 2-0166 and 20 2-0119 have been adopted. Madam Secretary, please put the next item on our screens. Councilmember Torres, go ahead with your comments on this 161, please.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution amending the Denver City Council Rules of Procedure.
Amends the City Council Rules of Procedure related to the general public comment session. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 2-8-22.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_02142022_21-1455
|
Speaker 0: 13 eyes. The resolutions have been adopted and the bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass this evening. Council will not take a recess. Councilmember Flynn, will you please put Council Bill 21, Dash 1455 on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 6: Yes. I move the council bill 21, dash one four or five five be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Councilmember Herndon, your motion to postpone.
Speaker 7: Yes, Madam President. I move that final consideration of Council Bill 21, Dash 1455 with this public hearing be moved to March 21st, 2022.
Speaker 0: Thank you. You've got the move, the motion, and we need the second. Madam Secretary, roll call on the postponement of Council Bill 21, DASH one four, five, five. And before we do that, roll call. Councilmember Ortega, did you have a question?
Speaker 8: Madam President, I just wanted to ask if this is being done at the request of the applicant.
Speaker 7: Correct.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Great. Thank you. Councilmember Ortega. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 2: Please see the baca. Right.
Speaker 7: Clark, my.
Speaker 2: Friend.
Speaker 6: I.
Speaker 2: Herndon. I work for Cashman.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 2: Kenny Ortega. I. Sandoval. I. Sawyer. I. Torres. I'm glad I. Madam President, I.
Speaker 0: Madam Secretary. Closed the voting and announced results. 13 of 13 I's Final Consideration of Council Bill. 20 1-1455 with its public hearing has been postponed to Monday, March 21st, 2022. Councilmember Flynn, would you please put Council Bill 20 2-0003 on the floor for final passage?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 2000 Blake Street in Five Points.
Approves a map amendment to rezone property from PUD 329 and B-8 with waivers, UO-1, UO-2 to C-MX-8 (planned development to mixed-use, 8-stories), located at 2000 Blake Street in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 12-7-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_02142022_22-0003
|
Speaker 0: Madam Secretary. Closed the voting and announced results. 13 of 13 I's Final Consideration of Council Bill. 20 1-1455 with its public hearing has been postponed to Monday, March 21st, 2022. Councilmember Flynn, would you please put Council Bill 20 2-0003 on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 6: Yes, I move the council bill 20 2-0003 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Councilmember Herndon, your motion to postpone.
Speaker 7: I move that final consideration of Council Bill 20 20003 with this public hearing be moved to February 22nd, 2022.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Comments by members of council. Councilmember Herndon.
Speaker 7: No comments by president.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Roll call on the postponement of Council Bill 20 2-0003.
Speaker 2: CdeBaca I work all right.
Speaker 1: Flynn, I.
Speaker 7: Herndon I.
Speaker 2: Have.
Speaker 7: I.
Speaker 2: Cashman Hi. It's me. I. Ortega. I. Sandoval. I swear. I. Torres. I work. I. Madam President, I.
Speaker 0: Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced the results.
Speaker 2: 13 Eyes.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 735 North Milwaukee Street in Congress Park.
Approves a map amendment to rezone property from U-SU-C to U-SU-C1 (allows for an accessory dwelling unit), located at 735 North Milwaukee Street in Council District 10. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 12-28-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_02142022_22-0016
|
Speaker 2: 13 Eyes.
Speaker 0: 13 Eyes. Final Consideration of Council Bill 20 2-0003 with its public hearing has been postponed to Tuesday, February 22nd, 2022. Councilmember Flynn, will you please put Council Bill 20 2-0016 on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 6: Yes, Madam President, I move that council bill 20 2-0016 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Councilmember Herndon, your motion to postpone.
Speaker 7: Yes, Madam President. I move that final consideration of Council Bill 20 20016 with this public hearing be moved to February 22nd, 2022.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Comments by members of council.
Speaker 7: Councilmember Herndon look honest, Madam President.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Roll call on the postponement of Council Bill 22, Dash 0016, please.
Speaker 2: CdeBaca. I.
Speaker 0: We might need you to say I again, Councilwoman.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 7: I.
Speaker 2: Flynn.
Speaker 6: I.
Speaker 7: Herndon. I.
Speaker 2: I. Cashman. Kenny Ortega. I. Sandoval. I. Sawyer. I. Torres. I. I. Madam President, i.
Speaker 0: Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced results.
Speaker 2: 13 hours.
Speaker 0: 13 ies. Final Consideration of Council Bill 20 2-0016. With its public hearing has been postponed to Tuesday, February 22nd, 2022. On Monday, March 14, the Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 21, Dash 1528, changing the zoning classification for 3435 North Albion Street and Northeast Park Hill.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 1974 and 1990 South Huron Street in Overland.
Approves a map amendment to rezone property from E-TU-C to E-SU-A (two-unit to single-unit), located at 1974 and 1990 South Huron Street in Council District 7. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 1-4-22.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_02072022_22-0072
|
Speaker 2: I move that council resolution 72 be adopted.
Speaker 0: Second think has been moved and we've got the second by Councilmember Hines comments and questions by members of Council on Resolution 72. Councilmember Sawyer.
Speaker 2: Madam President, we've talked a lot about this. We all want to help people. We just have different opinions on how we should be prioritizing our spending. And so I'm going to be a no tonight.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Swire. Councilmember Ortega.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. I just wanted to ask a question about a good neighbor agreement and where exactly that is in the process. I know that with the very first one that was created that was in fact established. I don't know that they've actually had one at every single site that they've been at, but that is an important part of having that interaction between the community and the operators of the safe open space site so that there is that dialog around issues that may come up and and a way to resolve them quickly so that they don't fester. I know this is very much a part of the process. When we changed the zoning to allow for more shelters to exist in our city, and that was very much a clear process outlined in terms of ensuring that there was that interaction with the community and the opportunity to set up a community advisory committee or, you know, whatever you want to call it, so that there is that opportunity to have that dialog back and forth. So I wanted to ask if there is anyone from the host office that might be able to speak to that or someone from the. The Village Collaborative in charge of the S.O.S. site.
Speaker 0: All right, thank you, Councilwoman Ortega, for the question. And we have Derek Woodbury here. Go ahead, Derek.
Speaker 1: Hello, Councilwoman. Yeah, this is Derek Woodbury from Host. And I believe we have Angie Nelson from our deputy director of Homelessness Resolution on Zoom as well. If she could please be promoted as a panelist.
Speaker 0: All right, wonderful. We've got Angie in the queue now. Go ahead, Andrej.
Speaker 2: I think you are council woman. Take it for that question and not to punt to someone else. But I am going to ask I think that we have Jennifer Faucher from Colorado Village Collaborative on the call. I've participated in several of the community engagement meetings related to this, and so I know they've been having those community engagements . But as you know, those good neighbor agreements occur between the nonprofit partner and the neighborhood, not between hosts and the neighborhood. So want to have CBC speak specifically to where they're at and process at those different sites. I just saw that Jennifer jumped on to her to speak to that.
Speaker 0: All right. Wonderful. Go ahead, Jennifer. If you wouldn't mind introducing yourself for I.
Speaker 2: Am Jennifer Faucher. I'm the director of development and communications for CBC, The Good Neighbor Agreement. I think the question is, when does that enter into the process of starting an S.O.S. or trying to launch one? Is that correct, or does that.
Speaker 0: Will let Council Square?
Speaker 3: Where is it in the process?
Speaker 2: Okay. So in my limited experience, I've been working for CBC since.
Speaker 3: End of October.
Speaker 0: The process and Jennifer, we've got quicker Montoya in the queue as well.
Speaker 2: So I'll just real quick say that it launches during and in right after it's a community information meeting.
Speaker 3: So I guess what I want to know is, does one exist so that, you know, as part of us making this commitment tonight, we want to know that there is, in fact, an agreement in place between the community and the Colorado Village Collaborative.
Speaker 2: Right. We can have quick to answer that. We have three source sites right now and I believe all.
Speaker 0: Three.
Speaker 2: Have an agreement, but quicker can clarify.
Speaker 3: Okay. I know we've we've heard from people in the Baker neighborhood right where this site is located. And so that's why I'm asking the question, okay, I know that that is in place so that that interaction and addressing issues can happen in a very timely manner and not allow them to fester because we are the ones that will get the phone calls when things are not functioning the way everybody anticipates that they're supposed to. Right.
Speaker 2: And we do our best to respond to every email and every call that we receive from our neighbors and especially those near the LRT site.
Speaker 0: But go ahead quick. If you wouldn't mind introducing yourself.
Speaker 2: Unless I click the moratorium, the safe outdoor space program director. You're actually live from an S.O.S. right now. I would like to answer your question, Councilwoman Ortega. We do have a good neighbor and fully executed good neighbor agreement at our Denver house, Native American Inclusive S.O.S., which is our S.O.S., located at 780, a lot of street with the lawn and Lincoln Park neighborhood where we had two two good neighbor committee meetings. So what our mediation created in that neighborhood was a good neighbor committee. So we have a representative, a couple of representatives from the neighborhood alone, the Lincoln Park. We have Steve Charbonneau, our our mediator and Denver House representative. We have a council council representative from District three, and we also have two CBC representatives. So we meet every three weeks at 780 LRT Street, which is near the Baker neighborhood. And then we also have a fully executed good neighbor agreement at our Denver Human Services site with the Clayton R.A. neighborhood. And we did not need one outreach. Just the neighborhood was very welcoming. And so that we didn't enter into any negotiations with that neighborhood. And our previous resources had good neighbor agreements. So five out of six S's have a good neighbor agreement. And that's a very.
Speaker 3: Just a quick question about the Baker community, your block away from Baker. Is there a reason somebody from Baker is not part of this process, part of the good neighbor agreement?
Speaker 2: So I was not a part of those negotiations. But the the good neighbor agreement is between Denver Health, Llama, Lincoln Park and CBC.
Speaker 3: Okay. So you're saying Baker is not part of that, even though they're a block away? They're asking to be included. And I guess I'm just asking whether or not you all are open to Baker being part of that good neighbor agreement as well.
Speaker 2: We made a few members of the Baker I.R.A. on Saturday. Members. Some of their leadership came to our site at LRT and we talked about the S.O.S. program, and they didn't voice a desire to be in the genie. But we can certainly talk to them about it.
Speaker 3: Okay. Because we're getting communication otherwise. And so that's why I'm asking these questions. Right. So I appreciate that. Thank you. Yeah.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Councilmember Ortega and quicker. And Jennifer, we might just want to keep you in the queue here. We've got Councilmember Hines. You're up next.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Council president and Miss Montoya, I just for what it's worth, before I asked Mr. Montoya the question, there were executed good neighbor agreements at the first two safe outdoor spaces that were in my district. And so as far as I know, that's a pretty standard operating procedure for most states. So it's good to know that you haven't actually executed know for the current location and are willing to reach out to Baker. So the question so Miss Montoya, the question that I have is about police interaction. I know a fair amount of the postmortem from the two associates that were in my district. What sort of police interaction has occurred at the SARS sites? I think you've had seven now in Denver, as I am. I remember the number six. Six. Okay. And what sort of police interaction have you had with the SARS sites?
Speaker 2: We have not had any crimes against neighborhood property and or people to date. We have made calls for some emergency health services to our sites. But as far as crimes taking place in the neighborhood, we have zero events to report on that.
Speaker 1: I seem to recall that there were actually two calls for that were either property or victim crime related as opposed to calls for services. But both of those calls were actually external parties attempting to, you know, interact with with the residents as I am. I my remembering that correctly.
Speaker 2: Are you speaking on the first couple?
Speaker 1: Councilman Hines? Yes, ma'am.
Speaker 2: So much has taken place since then. I don't have that that particular data in front of me. But yes, we had to make a couple of calls for crises that happened outside of the fence. So the police did make those calls, but they weren't for residents inside the fence.
Speaker 1: So is it reasonable to say that actually the crime in the West Side is lower than than the crime for, you know, just the city as a whole?
Speaker 2: I believe in our first two sites in District six. We actually showed a reduction in crime during the time we were there.
Speaker 1: And by District six, you mean different police department districts, not.
Speaker 2: Only Denver Police Department. District six. Sorry, I always forget their. They're not there. They don't go inside.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Okay. And another question that I have received, I think probably the same email that Councilmember take us talking about is what about registered sex offenders? If there is a resident that that comes on to the site who is a registered sex offender, are they there legally required to register their location? Correct.
Speaker 2: Correct.
Speaker 1: And so what.
Speaker 2: We yes, we encourage all of our residents to take active participation and any of their legal requirements or commitments.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 2: And I'd I'd also like to follow that up with the Denver Police Department to tell us that anybody experiencing homelessness can register on any random particular corner in Denver. If they hang out there themselves, they don't have a permanent address. Folks registered to corners and different blocks along Denver.
Speaker 1: Yeah. And that's actually that's on the secretary of state's website as well. Like as far as voter registration that they're allowed to use the street corner or, you know, some sort of have to have a physical address. It can be a P.O. box, but. Yeah, so that's. Thank you, Colorado and our secretary of state for a very liberal and reasonable voter registration list. So the last question that I have is, is about the number of folks who have been residents of a safe outdoor space that have been moved upward in the spectrum of homelessness or into housing. I think I recall the number at something like 47 or so. So that's correct. Okay. And that number on its own is not wholly meaningful. What about relative to the number of guests that have have been in a safe outdoor space in the six iterations that have been in Denver? Do you do you know the full the number of residents and safe spaces?
Speaker 2: Yes, I believe we have the total on 42 over the last some 40 sat longer term jumps in options. And currently, we have 20 people connected to housing vouchers that are moving along that continuum as well. And I'd just like to add that it's an affordable housing crisis where some waitlists can be up to 2 to 3 years. So we have been seeing pretty significant progress through timing.
Speaker 1: Okay. And you said what was the total number, 140? What was the number.
Speaker 2: 242 to.
Speaker 1: 42? Okay. So I'm just breaking out Excel. So 20% of the total population has already moved above somewhere else and higher in the spectrum of homelessness. And then you have another 20 in the queue. So that means a total of 28% are moving upward in the spectrum of homelessness. I'm not going to taper. I'm just going make that a statement because I just did the math. And math is math, so. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Council president.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Hines. We've got Councilmember Cashman.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Thank you, Madam President. I'm not thrilled to death with safe outdoor spaces. I wish we didn't need them. People deserve dignified housing with a door that shuts and a place to store their stuff. And we all know we don't have enough of that in the city and county of Denver right now. I'm not thrilled to death that there might be drug use in our safe outdoor spaces. And I'm also not thrilled to death that there's a whole lot of drug use going on behind closed doors with our residents that do have permanent places to call home. We don't have enough drug treatment facilities in the city and county of Denver, and we need to put the pedal to the metal and change that. What I did want to ask quicker if we could start putting on my hat as chair of our safety committee, I think as the safe outdoor space program continues and may grow , I'd like to set up perhaps quarterly presentations from the CBC before the safety committee, and I'll ask our staff, Pamela Lapel, to be in touch with you to begin setting that up, if that works for for you folks. I think it's appropriate as we start talking the dollars that we're talking and the scope that we're talking. I think it would be a great venue in which to be able to have a continuing full discussion of the use.
Speaker 2: We would be happy to participate in that council. Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much. And I want to thank you for the tour you gave me and my staff members a month or so ago. And it is. From everything I've seen, the S.O.S. site. Well, they're not, you know, my wildest dream. They're well managed. And I think they're an alternative that need to be part of our toolkit. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Cashman. We're going to go to Councilmember Koinange.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council President. I wanted to first ask Quick or Jennifer to tell us the people you have served to date. What does the data show about where they were before they came to the safe outdoor space? If you if you have that handy. Yes. So we we really are focused on people who are not accessing shelter systems. So they're all coming from a place not meant for habitation. And if you're if you're looking for a drop down, even more than that, we don't track that. We just if they've slept outside and are not accessing shelter, that's what we track. Does it I think that in committee we might have heard the figure 98% of people who are served in the S.O.S. spent their last night outside in a place not fit for humans or in a place not fit for human habitation, i.e. not in a shelter. Does that sound like the right figure? Yes, it does. Okay. So if 98% of people were sleeping somewhere not fit for human habitation, i.e. the streets or their car, my guest is is what that really is. It's it's government code for what regular people would be calling the street or a car. Angie, I'd like to ask you, do we have any shelters in the city that serve male female couples? Sum up our COVID response shelter in non congregate settings, but that's pretty limited current. You have to meet the COVID criteria by age. Yes. So we have no general shelter that a couple could go into if they did not have COVID risk. Under the federal guidelines for children in their custody. Okay. Okay. And then do we have any shelters that serve individuals with their pet being able to stay with their pet while they're in the facility? Again, outside the COVID, the standard shelters that we have for people who are not experiencing COVID right are our congregate shelters are for service animals, not pets currently. Okay. And so I just want to ask you, Angie, if this contract and quickly, you can chime in, too, but if this contract were not approved tonight, what would the results be in terms of individuals sleeping unsheltered in our city? It would increase the number of folks sleeping unsheltered in terms of the folks who are currently in safe outdoor space have a safer place to be. Couples are able to stay together, foster, able to be sheltered with their pets. And so we've we've really found this to be a valuable tool to add to to the the spectrum of shelter services to help meet people where they're at and meet those practical needs and help folks to come inside to something that's safer and and keeps them where they're at. So. So I just want to share I'm going to make a comment then before we move on to the voting, which is that, you know, we have some financial analysis. There has been questions about that. But, you know, I will just share some numbers. I wish that everybody in our city who is experiencing homelessness could be placed immediately into housing, a supportive housing environment where you have a physical apartment and services. The cost for construction just for construction, no services, is about $20 million. It's about a three year process to serve about 50 people. Let me be clear. It's a really good investment. That building will last for 60, 70, 90, 100 years. It will serve many people during those years. And it will be cheaper than them being in emergency shelter or in hospitals or in jails. So just to be really clear, it's a really good investment, but it's a long time coming. So the cost per night or per year to shelter an individual in our congregate shelters in that congregate fancy word for everybody sleeps in the same room. That's a fancy word for sharing, breathing, changing of clothes and all of your space with hundreds of other individuals who, before the pandemic, might have been almost touching your shoulder since this pandemic are six feet apart. But that's that's what congregate shelter means. That's our most common kind of emergency shelter. The cost per year at $25,000 per year. Now it's immediate. People can go in. Right now, we don't have the delays we have with housing, but most folks will return to homelessness, stay in homelessness. It is not necessarily a solution. They do provide more services today thanks to city investments and some of the emergency changes we made during COVID. But $25,000 a year for shelter cannot serve. The people with pets cannot serve the male female couples without children cannot serve people who are unable to sleep in a room with hundreds of people near them for their own personal privacy needs or for their own mental health condition. That might be too overwhelming for them. So this model, you know, between 1214 hundred dollars a person a year are significantly less expensive than the shelter option. Significantly less expensive than the supportive housing option. Doesn't mean, like Councilman Cashman said, it's the best option, but it is immediate and it reduces street homelessness. Now, I will just ask if every Denver resident watching this debate tonight asks themselves, would they rather have people sleeping in parks, sidewalks, alleys near their home, or would they rather have folks in a organized environment, a sanitary environment with supervision 24 hours a day from staff and with services to help them on a journey to stability? That's the choice we face today, with probably between one and 2000 people sleeping outside in Denver. That's the choice we have. Where do we want people? I believe that the people of Denver overwhelmingly think that it's better for people to be in a supportive sanitary environment with some services to get on the road to stability than they do having people in unregulated encampments. And so I've heard that from many neighborhood organizations, some of whom testified before public comment tonight, some of whom have written us and joined together. This is a choice about taking immediate action while we continue to invest in those really long term solutions that we know work. But they do not happen overnight, not like these spaces do. And so I will be supporting this tonight enthusiastically. And I encourage all the people of Denver to reflect on why supporting these sites and growing them to meet more of the demand to get more people off the streets is important for our city to get through this crisis. So I thank everybody for the questions and answers, and I look forward to voting yes on this tonight. Thanks.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Kinney and Angie, would you please introduce yourself for the public record?
Speaker 2: Yes. Sorry about that. My name is Angie Nelson. I'm the deputy director of Housing Stability and Homelessness Resolution for the Department of Housing Stability.
Speaker 1: With the city.
Speaker 0: Wonderful. Thank you. We're going to go ahead and move to Council Pro-Tem Torres.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. So one of the things I heard a couple of times tonight and over the past several months was this request for a a universal good neighbor agreement for all SARS sites. And one thing I want to point out is that Colorado Village Collaborative hasn't operated all of the West sites. There are other organizations involved, which may be one of the reasons why a single good neighbor agreement doesn't exist. So far, there have been three providers Colorado Village Collaborative, Earth Links and Saint Francis Center. So I imagine an organization that's party to a good neighbor agreement would want to develop or devise their own and in neighborhoods want different things as well. So there are all of those kind of dynamics at play. I would be very opposed to realizing that wealthy communities with this Southwest site got some protection, that other communities did not what we do, but we don't find that. What we do find is that in the Good Neighbor agreement that was ultimately achieved for Lincoln Park, some residents wanted a five year ban for Colorado Village Collaborative not to open up another southwest site in the eastern half of the neighborhood. So a selective protection for half of the neighborhood for five years, which for me came across as incredibly unreasonable. So there has to be some collaboration and realistic terms that come into play when establishing these good neighbor agreements, but they really are for the benefit of the neighborhood, to stay informed, to hear on a regular basis what's going on, and to get to know who's operating in their neighborhood, on their block, and even who's residing within within the southwest site. I have another R.A. in Lincoln Park who do monthly dinners at at the LRAD site. So it is not a purely contested. So West Side. There have been some incredibly welcoming neighborhood neighbors for that site. I will say that some standards do need to be considered. This isn't a purely a private transaction at a permit level it is. But the city funds this work. And I think there there could be some standard and greater engagement requirements for stakeholders for solution building, whether that's other city departments, council members, neighborhood groups, whatever it might be. I do think there could be some some.
Speaker 1: Some.
Speaker 2: A higher bar for some of that. I would point out that the city is daily demanding a solution to homelessness and suicides are.
Speaker 1: One crucial response to.
Speaker 2: That. So I for 1 a.m. grateful quicker for Colorado Village Collaborative Earthlings and Saint Francis Center for stepping into the space that nobody else has another solution for Berlin. Like any other vendor, I wouldn't expect them to be socially responsible. Culturally responsible. I expect them to be judicious. And I found them to be exactly that. Like Councilman Kennedy, I can wish all day for everyone to have a home, but we exist in reality. And the reality is that people need emergency housing right now. And it's hard to connect to somebody who doesn't know where they're sleeping tomorrow night and if they're going to be safe. I will also be supporting this tonight and they will also be at the table to help craft those those greater solutions. So thank you. And I look forward to voting yes.
Speaker 0: Thank you, counsel. Pro Tem Torres. Councilman Herndon.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. I will reiterate all that says, and I won't bury the lead either. I am in support of this contract moving forward and like most of the people who wrote us originally, I was skeptical at first to abide about what I did and I would encourage people to do is do their homework by doing the research and speaking to because I went to I went to the one site in District ten and actually spoke to the pastor of the other side of the Baptist Church. And I remember his words as I'm paraphrasing. He says, there's going to be a big hoopla before it opens and then it's going to open and you're going to forget about it. And I remember when there was go site coming to South Park Hill and neighbors were up in arms because they were unaware of what the site actually was and what it was going to do. We went to our worst thoughts about what could possibly happen and then the site opened and there were zero calls for service by Police District two. And I had neighbors who reached out to my office previously about before it opened, who respond afterward and said, I am sorry. This was not what I thought it was and this is really good for the neighborhood. And I'm sorry that that's the way that I behaved. And that happened on numerous occasions. I'm in I'm in support of CBC. I've had conversations. I'm looking for another site in District eight because I believe we all have a responsibility to serve those. And just as Councilwoman Kenney's talked about, yes, we are building where we can, but as timely and as costly, we're doing things such as taking old hotels and converting them into housing like we did in Fusion Studios off of Quebec Street. This is, again, another tool to support those and it has been successful. Thank you, Councilman Hines, for the numbers of the percent that demonstrate that. And I trust that if there is an issue, CBC will be responsive, because they certainly were for District eight not to have any issues with policing. But whenever I had a question, they are very responsive there and I am thankful for that and I wish them well continuing moving forward. So I will be in support. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Herndon. Councilmember Sandoval.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Mr. Monterrey, for all your work. I have one question for you. It. Did you say that Regis is the only state that doesn't have a good neighbor agreement? One of our current sites that don't have one, correct? We had very limited engagement. The neighborhood people broke up there. Oh, yes. It's one of our current sites that we do not have a DNA on. The neighborhood was very welcoming and it didn't it just didn't ever come to fruition. Okay. Thank you. That's what I thought. And I represent the area in Regis neighborhood that welcome this safe outdoor site. And I will go on record saying that we have not had any calls about it. We have not had any emails about it. What we have had is a registered neighborhood organization who takes food to that site. My council office has taken food. My staff has dropped that food off. I know other people, the sisters of Loretto, who have taken food to other sites, and as my other colleagues have talked about, we there was a fear that this might bring crime in the council district one, especially on a university campus, where there are people walking around at night going to different places and nothing has happened. And so to Councilman Herndon's talk and eloquently said that residents do go to the worst fear. And we have a hotel on the corner of I-70 and federal not far from this site, probably about six blocks maybe as a highway that also was very that people had concerns about. And we have not heard any any issues with that hotel either. And so I fully support this. And I, too, will work with Colorado Village Collaborative to look for another one in Council District one, because I, too, wish we did not have people sleeping outside. I wish we had people sleeping indoors. And I wish we had more social impact on initiatives throughout the city where people were living in apartments and having wraparound services. And until we build those apartment units. I believe that this is the next best step in the process. Thank you, Miss Montague, for all the work that you do. And it it's one job where I do really believe you. Take your work home with you. There are some of us who don't take our work home with us. I bet there's not a night when you don't go home and you don't worry about all of the people that you are representing. And when it was freezing cold last Wednesday, when the rest of the city got to shut down, I don't believe you got to shut down. I believe that you were there making sure that the residents were not cold and that they had what they need. So thank you for your service. Here comes a number of them.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Sandoval. And we have Councilmember Sawyer. You're back in the queue.
Speaker 2: He's not a president. Just a quick question for the host. Did you pass up an opportunity to invest $500,000 in a motel on East Colfax that would have housed at a minimum of 60 people permanently? Spoiler alert, the answer to that is yes. So I just want to reiterate, I heard a lot of conversation tonight about accounts from council members saying, you know, that there aren't other options, but there are. There have been we've seen it in District five and we've seen hosts pass on those for significantly less money or permanent options. So I again have to say, we all want to help people. There's absolutely no question about that. However, we have different choices in the priorities of how we want to do that and how we want to spend our tax dollars. Again, I'll be a no tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Sawyer. And I know, Angie, you seemed like you were looking for your unmute so you could answer. Do you want to to provide any further clarification?
Speaker 2: I think just to say that we're not passing up opportunities, viable opportunities for housing as we have the resources, as we have the opportunities that come together. We're we're tracking every viable option down. I'm not familiar with what exactly you're speaking to. Councilman Sawyer, maybe we do a briefing offline here. I don't know that this is the space for a back and forth on it, but I, I think we should definitely follow up because we are aggressively tracking every opportunity we can find to help folks get to housing.
Speaker 0: And we can. Thank you, Angie. Councilmember Sawyer. Or are we just not in agreement.
Speaker 2: And he's been a president? Yeah, no, I appreciate the opportunity to just chime back in because I don't want it to be I want it to be very clear. For the record, host is aware of this situation. Host knows about the situation. Host has acknowledged that they did not pursue this opportunity for this investment. I want to make it very clear that this happened in District five and that it is not acceptable and that it is not acceptable to. Deflect from the truth for the public. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Sawyer. And I'm not seeing anybody else in the queue. I'll go ahead and round out the comments and we'll call the vote. I'm very much in support of these sites. We have been looking in District 11 to try to figure out if we had some properties that we could start to explore this and that the need is immediate and that we're all working on different options. But this is one of those options that we have before us and appreciate the work of the Colorado Village Collaborative. And I will be voting in favor tonight. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Resolution 22, dash 007 to please.
Speaker 3: Sawyer.
Speaker 2: No.
Speaker 3: Torres. I. Black. I see tobacco. I. Clark.
Speaker 1: All right.
Speaker 2: Herndon.
Speaker 1: I think i. Cashner i.
Speaker 2: Can each I.
Speaker 3: Ortega. I. Sandoval. I. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce results. 1st May 1111 I's Council Resolution 20 2-007 to has been adopted. Council Member Sandoval, will you please put Council Resolution 83 on the floor for adoption? Oh, I think you're muted.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Second Amendatory Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Colorado Village Collaborative to extend the term and increase funding for Safe Outdoor Space (SOS) sites.
Amends a contract with Colorado Village Collaborative by adding $3,900,000 for a new total of $4,799,569 and one year for a new end date of 12-31-22 to provide at least four Safe Outdoor Space (SOS) sites, with amenities and services, citywide (HOST-202161622-2). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 2-28-22. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 1-26-22.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_02072022_22-0083
|
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce results. 1st May 1111 I's Council Resolution 20 2-007 to has been adopted. Council Member Sandoval, will you please put Council Resolution 83 on the floor for adoption? Oh, I think you're muted.
Speaker 2: Council Resolution 83 be adopted.
Speaker 1: Second.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It's been moved and seconded. Comments and questions by members of Council on Council Resolution 83. Council Member Sawyer.
Speaker 2: Things that our president this is another airport on call contract that we've talked about before. And I actually am a little confused because I think that it got maybe it's messed up in our script, but we want to double check on that.
Speaker 0: Okay. Had you called out Council Resolution 83? It's the Montrose Air Quality Services.
Speaker 2: No, the one that I called out for a vote. The second one I called out for a vote was the was the airport. Oh, I'm sorry. Yes. The mantra, it's Montrose air quality on call, correct? Yes. Okay.
Speaker 0: That's what Resolution 83 is.
Speaker 2: Got it. Okay, good. I'm glad that is what I called out. I was just making sure because I know council members had some questions and I got a little confused in our script here. Yes. So it's just it's another airport on call contract which talked about reporting and on call contracts repeatedly. So I'm just going to be a know for consistency. Say thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Councilmember Sawyer, Councilmember CdeBaca.
Speaker 2: I have quite a list here. I have about ten questions on it. So my first question, the million dollar amount is a maximum spend level over the next five years to ensure that any future air monitoring, air monitoring projects could be funded under the contract. My first question is what future air monitoring projects are anticipated to be funded with this contract?
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you, Councilmember CdeBaca. And we have Will Fenton here and then Bill Oberman.
Speaker 1: Thank you, counselor. President Gilmore. And for the questions, Councilwoman Celia Barker. Yes, I am joined by our air policy program manager, Bill O'Brien. Go ahead, Bill. And thank you for the question, Councilwoman CdeBaca. This this is an contract that will fund. At the most $1,000,000 over a five year period. The the amount of funding maximum that we are actually allocated in our program is around 100,000 a year. That would be the very maximum that we could fund. The other room that we've built into that million dollar limit is should we get any grants because we do competitively apply for grants. We have one right now from the Bloomberg Philanthropies Organization. And part of this contract could perhaps hire contractors and other services need it should we win a grant in the next five years?
Speaker 2: And how does the department determine what the future projects are that are needed? And how does community weigh in?
Speaker 1: We we go through the normal city process. If there's a grant opportunity of reviewing all the different departments in the city that are potentially also applying to that grant or may be interested in that grant. A lot of times, depending on the type of grant source and the objective of the grant will will really involve the community . An example is our last grant opportunity that we went for was in partnership with the City of Commerce City and tri county health department, and it was to do additional monitoring of air toxics. We were not successful in that grant. That was two years ago. However, there, as you know, is a new bill that's now been put into to law to actually do the same types of air toxics monitoring in North Denver and around Southport, particularly.
Speaker 2: How, if at all, are the various air monitoring programs that are being done by us, by DPS, by see? How are they all being coordinated and reported back to the public?
Speaker 1: So that's a great question. Right now, they're really not coordinated and being reported back to the public in one avenue. And that's a second phase, you could say, of the Love My Air Program, which is a Denver program. That's that program that's funded by Bloomberg Philanthropies. One part of that program that we are hoping to launch in the spring, maybe early summer, is an app you could use on any device, iPhone or Android device with all of that information in one place in a smartphone setting where somebody, you know, can rapidly see all of that information as it comes online. So we are working with other entities in the region to incorporate their data in like those who will be monitoring some more cultivars know. Areas from Apache or yeah. Sites that seepage is monitoring near that area as well as well as other communities as they bring on more air monitoring in their communities
Speaker 2: . And given our office is probably home to where we're monitoring the most error. I would love to have more regular contact. We have a stakeholder group working on this. I'm curious about if this if there's a plan to monitor new chemicals or sizes of particles with this contract. Right now.
Speaker 1: There are no plans right now to monitor different chemicals or particles that we're than we're currently monitoring. But that science is always evolving. There are smaller and smaller particles that we're more and more concerned about, like particles less than 2.5 micron in diameter of particulate matter specifically. And so monitors are coming out that even measure all the way down to one micron and less. So as those technologies become affordable and reliable, I think that could absolutely be part of what this contract would cover over the next five years.
Speaker 3: But what are we currently monitoring?
Speaker 1: So currently in our Denver network, this is specific to what the city of Denver pays for and what this contract will cover is particulate matter 2.5. We also and that's just roughly 40 schools through Denver public schools that we have engaged in the love of my air program. What that program does is use that that data of the particulate matter concentrations right on school property and real time puts it onto a TV monitor inside the school. And then there's a lot of curriculum and education and outreach around that information, but it's literally broadcast in the school 24 seven So that's that's a big part of our air monitoring network. A second significant part of our air monitoring network is a a whole shed at Swansea Elementary, right adjacent to I-70. This is a partnership with CDOT and a federal highway to monitor the impacts of construction and so of the C site, the Central 70 construction project. So we're monitoring their other pollutants than just GM. We're also monitoring nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, black carbon and V and an array of what they call volatile organic compounds, a number of different hydrocarbons, but things like benzene, toluene and other air toxics like that.
Speaker 0: Thanks, Bill, for that. And Councilwoman CdeBaca, I wanted to we've got three public hearings tonight, and I know we have members of the public here. I don't believe we're going to have committee work here on the council floor. I know you referenced that you had ten questions to ask and I got you up. Is this your final question? Okay. Very good. Thank you.
Speaker 2: What what are the policy changes that we're considering based on this air monitoring data? And if we don't have any specific policy changes, do we plan to develop some in the near future?
Speaker 1: So there's specific policies from just our air monitoring network. There are no policies under consideration in either our public health board or that we're planning at this time to bring to city council. The purpose of that program was to be an educational outreach tool to the schools through that Love My Air program. The benefit, though a secondary benefit for sure, is that we have now a wealth of data over at least the last two years. Three years, really, what, 19, 20 and 22 million of of data. We can start to analyze and look at policies. What kinds of things are driving our PM 2.5 concentrations and I'm managing a project right now to look at that data overall. And I also wanted to mention, you know, I've been talking with bring your your aide and I'm happy to to talk with your committee more. In March, we are scheduled to to talk in more detail. So hopefully we can get into more of your questions then as well.
Speaker 2: Thank you. That's it for my questions.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. Thanks, Bill. Thank you. Councilwoman CdeBaca, we've got Councilmember Ortega. You're up next.
Speaker 3: Thank you. I just have one quick question for Mr. Oberman. Will this include any new sites or is this just to monitor data from existing locations?
Speaker 1: No, it will include new sites over time. We will help.
Speaker 3: Those be determined.
Speaker 1: Those are partly if it's school sites those sites were selected by. And I don't administer the Love Mayor program, so I may not give you all of.
Speaker 3: This site back to that program.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 3: Okay. Okay. I remember when all that came through. So this is to expound on the schools that were identified originally as part of that program, correct?
Speaker 1: That's correct. Okay. But it also could serve as a contract. I want to be transparent that it's not just that school contract. If there are one reason for calling it an on call contract is on occasion, like during the demolition of the I-70 Viaduct, we had community concerns about the dust that was caused by that action. And we set up temporary sensors, same types of sensors that we use at the schools. But these were six different sensors, additional sensors, I should say. They're not different models. We set them up. We monitor for about four months during that that dusty event, particularly in the Globeville Ilia Swansea area. And we did respond to events when the peaks went up. We had more conversations with Key West and and required them to perform more dust mitigation practices.
Speaker 3: So if we're going to have this in place for a period of time and we start seeing some work on the I-25 corridor during dirt. Throughout the area from Alameda to 20th Street, where they've been doing the Pell study. And it may be this contract exhaust before they actually start any work there. But if this were in place and there were to be some demolition or whatever, it potentially could set up some sites at that location as well, correct?
Speaker 1: Exactly. And with this contract in place, we can rapidly mobilize and respond to that need.
Speaker 3: Okay. Thank you. You answered my questions. I appreciate it.
Speaker 1: Sure.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Ortega.
Speaker 2: Councilmember Sawyer in Spanish, president just wanted to point out that, you know, all of these questions sort of indicate why I continue to vote no on these contracts. The answer to these questions is really important and totally normal. And we should have on call contracts. It's the reporting to council piece, the piece where we don't know that kind of information because it's not it doesn't have the same kind of oversight as direct dollars and direct contracts. That is concerning to me. And I think I just wanted to point that out because I think this is a you know, this conversation that just occurred was a great example of exactly why it is that I continue to vote no until the reporting mechanisms get better. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Sawyer. And we don't have anybody in the queue. And so, Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Resolution 22, Dash 0083, please.
Speaker 3: So you.
Speaker 2: Know.
Speaker 3: Torres I.
Speaker 2: Black I.
Speaker 3: CdeBaca and Clark.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 3: Herndon.
Speaker 1: I i.
Speaker 2: I Cashman.
Speaker 3: I can each.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 3: Ortega I see in the hall i. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 3: One Nay 11 nice.
Speaker 0: 11 Eyes Council Resolution 20 2-0083 has been adopted. Thank you, Bill and Will for being here this evening. That concludes the items to be called out. 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 Sandoval, would you please put the resolutions for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor?
Speaker 2: Yes. Give me 1/2, please. The agenda. Okay.
Speaker 3: Thank you for your patience. Mm hmm.
Speaker 2: I move? Oh. I move that? Okay. I move that resolutions be adopted in bills on final consideration. Based upon final consideration and do pass in the past block. Do pass in a block for the following items. Resolution three only recognizes the.
Speaker 3: Resolutions being. Okay.
Speaker 2: Zero 72. 73. 79. 83. 95. 98, 99. Okay. Correct.
Speaker 0: Let me think. I we're I'm going to I'm going to go ahead and run through the numbers here just so you have the motion on the floor. Thank you so much. We got it. We've got 75, 48, 94, 96, 97, one, ten, 73, 79, 95, 98, 99, 85 and 81. Did I get them all council secretary again?
Speaker 3: Yes, ma'am. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Okay. All right. Wonderful. Thank you. We've got the second by Councilman Herndon. And, Madam Secretary, roll call, please.
Speaker 3: Black eye CdeBaca. I, Clark. I earned it. I high. I cashmere.
Speaker 2: I can eat. I.
Speaker 3: Ortega. I. Sandoval. I. Sawyer. I. Torres, I. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced the results. 12 eyes, 12 eyes. The resolutions have been adopted and the bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass. Thank you, Councilmember Sandoval. No worries. Worrying that the script sometimes will move on its own and so totally understand. So thank you. Our pre recess announcement tonight there will be a required public hearing on Council Bill 21, Dash 1437, changing the zoning classification for 901 North Kearny Street in Montclair, a required public hearing on Council Bill 21, Dash 1526 designating 555 East Eighth Avenue as a structure for preservation and a required public hearing on Council Bill
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Montrose Air Quality Services, LLC to provide air quality monitoring services.
Approves a contract with Montrose Air Quality Services, Inc. for $1,000,000 and through 12-31-26 for on-call procurement, installation and maintenance of air quality monitors, sensors, and other equipment, and for periodic reporting and analysis of air quality data, citywide (ENVHL-202261734). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 2-28-22. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 1-19-22.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_02072022_21-1437
|
Speaker 0: So we can see council members. Oh, there we go. Thank you. Please accept the promotion. Once you accept the promotion, your screen will flash and say, reconnecting to meeting. Please do not leave the meeting. You will be reconnected and will need to turn on your camera if you have one. And your microphone. 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 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 will be given an additional 3 minutes for your comments to be interpreted. Speakers must stay on the topic at the hearing and must direct their comments to the council members. Please refrain from profane or obscene speech. Direct your comments to council as a whole and please refrain from individual or personal attacks. Councilmember Sandoval, will you please put Council Bill 21, Dash 1437 on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 2: And will that council vote 21 1437 be placed upon final consideration and do pass?
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded the required public hearing for Council Bill 21 Dash 1437 is open and I see we have Libbey here with us for the staff report.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Okay. Can you see that?
Speaker 0: Yes, I say so.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council members. My name is Libby Adams with Community Planning and Development, and I'll be presenting the MAP Amendment at 901 North Carney Street. This is located in Council District five in the Montclair neighborhood. The applicant is requesting to rezone from urban edge single unit D X to Urban Edge Single Unit d1x to allow for an accessory dwelling unit. As stated previously, this property is zoned ESU d x, which allows the urban and suburban house forms on a minimum zone. Lot size of 6000 square feet. The site is currently occupied by a single unit home. There's mostly other single unit uses in this area with more commercial multi-unit directly west of the site. Then this slide shows the existing building form and scale with the subject property on the upper right hand side. A postcard notifying neighboring property owners within 200 feet of the site was sent out on September 21st. And then this went to planning board in early December, where they unanimously recommended approval. And to date, we have not received any any public comments regarding this rezoning. So the Denver zoning code has five review criteria that must be met in order for zoning to be approved. The first criterion is consistency with adopted plans, and there are three plans that are applicable to the site. This rezoning will further the strategies in the comprehensive plan by creating a greater mix of housing options in every neighborhood and promoting infill development where infrastructure and services are already in place. And then in Blueprint Denver, the future neighborhood context is urban edge. These predominantly residential areas are a mix of suburban and urban with regular block patterns. And then Blue Print identifies this property as a low residential place type where it says ads are appropriate. And then both Kearny and Ninth Avenue are local streets consistent with residential uses, the growth area strategy and blueprint, Denver and all 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. So in land use and built form housing policy for strategy states that individual rezonings to allow ads are appropriate and should be small. An area which is what's proposed today. So then moving to the East Area plan, so similar to Blueprint, the East Area plan designates the future neighborhood context as urban edge, and the place type is low residential. But the area plan also further describes this low residential area as specifically single unit where 80 use are appropriate. And then the maximum height in the east area plan is two and a half storeys, consistent with the maximum height permitted in the proposed district. And then the area plan also includes specific guidance to integrate ADAS and missing middle housing in the in the Montclair neighborhood. So staff finds that the proposed rezoning is consistent with both citywide and neighborhood plans. Staff also finds the requested zoning meets the next two criteria. The rezoning will result in uniformity of district regulations and will further the public health, safety and welfare by allowing gentle density in the Montclair neighborhood. And then staff finds there's a justifying circumstance for this MAP amendment with the newly adopted East Area Plan and blueprint Denver guidance to allow to use in the Montclair neighborhood. And lastly, the proposed zoning is consistent with the urban edge neighborhood context, the residential districts purpose and the specific intent of the ESU, D1 zoned district. So based on the review criteria, staff recommends approval of the proposed rezoning. And that concludes my presentation.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you for the presentation. Libby and counsel has not received any written testimony on Council Bill 21, Dash 1437. And we have four individuals signed up to speak this evening. Our first speaker is Jeff Baker. Jeff, you're going to have to unmute yourself and you can go ahead, please.
Speaker 1: I'm just here for questions. If you guys have questions.
Speaker 0: Would you introduce yourself for the public?
Speaker 1: This is Jeff Baker, and I'm working with the clients at 901 Kearney along with Bruce O'Donnell. And we are the design build firm working with them.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Jeff. Our next speaker this evening is Bruce O'Donnell.
Speaker 1: Hello, Madam President. A member of the council. Bruce O'Donnell, 386 Emmerson Street, Denver. And I want to agree with the staff report and the consistency with plans and especially the appropriateness cited in the neighborhood plan for integrating the use into this part of Denver. And I ask that council approve this this evening, and I'm available to answer your questions. You have. And thank you for your time.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Bruce. Our next speaker this evening is Patrick Walsh. And I believe we have Pat Walsh and the attendees. Go ahead, Pat, please. And you're going to have to unmute yourself.
Speaker 1: Can you hear me?
Speaker 0: Yes, go ahead.
Speaker 1: Good evening, council members. My name is Patrick Welch. My wife and I purchased this home at 901 North Kearny Street back in 2003. About 18 and a half years ago. My wife's mother's just turned 79 years old and lives by herself. My father lives in Littleton and is 81 years old. And given the extremely high cost of assisted living facilities in and around Denver over the years, my wife and I have been thinking about better cost alternatives potentially for them. And building an ADU on our property, we felt, is the best way to go. Not only that, and as my wife and I age, we would probably be looking into moving that Ada Adu ourselves and at some point in the future as well, a bit easier on our legs from having to do stairs, etc.. I request that council vote to approve build 21 Dash 1437 Rezoning 901 North Kearny Street. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Jesse Paris.
Speaker 3: And I'm.
Speaker 0: Not. Seeing Jesse in the queue in attendees. So I'll let our producers look one more time. Oh, there we go. We had him moving over. Go ahead, please, Jesse.
Speaker 1: But even then, the city council might be hurt.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Yes. My name is just past the member present for Blackstone at the moment for self-defense, powers of execution, for social change, as well as the Unity Party of Colorado, the East Denver Residents Council and Frontline Black Knows. And I'll be the next mayor in 2023. Remember, this is on its mind, as you already know. And if you didn't know, I supported any deals when I ran for city council at large in 2019 and I will continue to support them in 2023. So I'm in favor of this rezoning tonight. I had a few questions, but to answer some, so I yield the rest of my time. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. That concludes our speakers this evening. Questions for members of Council on Council Bill 21, Dash 1437. All right. Not seeing any. I'll give it one more time. Okay. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 21, Dash 1437. Council Member Sawyer.
Speaker 2: Thanks, Madam President. I agree that this is consistent with all adopted plans and given the amount of time and discussion we put into the Syria plan. I think the residents surrounding the area are also supportive or at the very least comfortable with the the plan as it stands right now. So I'm in support and I hope my council members will agree with me that this is consistent with all of the criteria. Thanks.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Sawyer and I agree as well that has met all of the criteria. And so we'll be happy to support this this evening as well. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 21. Gosh, 1437, please.
Speaker 3: Sawyer, I. Torres. I black. I see tobacco. Clark.
Speaker 1: I. Herndon.
Speaker 2: I haven't.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 4: Cashmere high.
Speaker 2: Can each I.
Speaker 3: Ortega, i. Sandoval, i. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 901 North Kearney Street in Montclair.
Approves a map amendment to rezone property from E-SU-Dx to E-SU-D1x (allow for an accessory dwelling unit), located at 901 North Kearney Street in Council District 5. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 12-7-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_02072022_21-1536
|
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced the results.
Speaker 3: Two of us.
Speaker 0: 12 Eyes. Council Bill 21 Dash 1526 has passed. Thank you to the member of the public who joined us on that one. And we're going to move to our third and final hearing. Councilmember Sandoval, will you please put Council Bill 21, Dash 1536 on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 2: I move that council bill 21 1536 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: Ticket and queue has been moved and we've got the second there as well. The required public hearing for Council Bill 21 1536 is open. May we please have the staff report? And I see we've got Brandon Schaefer joining us.
Speaker 1: Certainly. Thank you, Madam President. And good evening, members of the Council. I'm here to present the rezoning component for five, five, five East Eighth Avenue, requesting to resume from PVD 34 to GMU 303. Again, this request is in District ten in Capitol Hill at the northwest corner of East Eighth Avenue and North Pearl Street. The site is just under 12,000 square feet in land area and proposing three zone to GMI 303, which would allow for residential uses as well as some limited commercial uses if landmarked as a historic structure, which it just was. These uses include office, not including dental or medical clinic, art studio and bed and breakfast lodging. Detailed the existing zoning in the next slide. But you can see here and largely this part of the neighborhood is generally zoned gmu of some variety, some height, at least five stories, 12 stories, three stories, most of which include the historic structure use overlay. The current zoning was approved in 1980 and was intended for development a low rise office kind of cluster. You can see the subject property outlined in red on the top left. That dirt is personal to this was to be renovated and converted to office, which it was the maximum height for all three of these structures or anticipated structures was to be 55 feet. And most of the requirements were largely focused on the future development of personal three, which is to the Southeast and is still currently used as a parking lot. As this part of the PD would be taken out of this part of the this party would be taken out of the former Chapter nine code. And in the new code, staff did analysis and determine that there would be no adverse impact on the remaining properties. This is also within that she's been Park Botanic Gardens view plan which at this part would allow for maximum height of 130 to 134 feet. However, the requested zoning has a maximum height at much lower at 40 feet. I'm Karen noted a number of adjacent landmarks and historic districts which you can see here. And existing land use as currently office as anticipated by the current beauty and surrounding land users include single unit, residential, multi-unit, residential, additional office and some parking users. Here you can see the subject site on the bottom left and the remaining property to be left in the pad on the bottom right. Recent sent information notice of this application and mid lease September and moved to planning board in mid December where this was moved forward unanimously and to today. We have received two letters of support from the nearby RINO's as well as a letter of support from the property owner that's remaining empty. Three four. Moving to the review criteria, we have three plans to look at. This request is consistent with a number of strategies organized by vision element that include creating a greater mix of housing options, ensuring neighborhoods offer a mixture of housing types and services, and promoting infill development where infrastructure and services are already in place. The request is also consistent with the general urban neighborhood context map and Blueprint Denver and with the High Residential Future Place, which talks about predominantly multi-unit residential uses with some compatible commercial uses and buildings generally being the tallest of all residential places in the general urban neighborhood. Context. Additionally, this request is consistent with the future street types in this area, with East Eighth Avenue mapped as a residential arterial. And this fits into all other areas of the city growth area strategy where we expect 10% of jobs and 20% of housing by 2040 . And this also is consistent with a number of other strategies and Blueprint Denver that speak to preservation of structures, rezoning properties out of the former zoning code and limiting the site, limiting the use of custom zoning. This is also in the East Central Area plan. These strategies also speak to preservation of historic structures and facilitating adaptive reuse of those structures. And the East Central Area Plan maps. You can see again mapped to future neighborhood context as general urban and a high residential future place. However, the neighborhood plan does give us a little bit more guidance on height with the subject. Property in this plan mapped is up to three stories. Steph also finds the request to be consistent with the next two criteria, resulting in lead informing of regulations and furthering the public health, safety and welfare through facilitating residential use of the property and allowing those limited commercial uses. I spoke to earlier staff friends to justifying circumstances for this rezoning. The first being changed or changed conditions. I. Capitol Hill has seen a lot of reinvestment and redevelopment since the property was last resolved in 1980, and alongside that, the property retained the former Chapter 39 zoning after the city adopted the Denver Zoning Code in 2010. Lastly, this request is consistent with the general urban neighborhood context, the residential zoned district purpose and intent statements. Therefore, CPD recommends approval based on finding all review criteria at the Met. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Brandon, for the staff report. And this evening counsel has not received any written testimony on Council Bill 21 1536. And we have four individuals signed up to speak this evening and I have the first speaker as Brandon Shaver. And so I'm imagining that's a mistake or I wanted to give you the opportunity. Brandon, if you did sign up for public comment.
Speaker 1: I think I said my, my, my piece, but happy to answer any questions. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Very good. Thank you. Our next speaker this evening is Bruce O'Donnell.
Speaker 1: Hello again. Members of Council Bruce O'Donnell, 386 Emmerson Street in Denver, District ten. And as I said earlier, I've been working with the owner, Mr. Christensen, for a couple of years now on this rezoning. And when we started out, we met with the community and immediate neighbors and RINO's and also with CPD, and we got very clear signals that the only path forward or an important component of a path forward on a rezoning was that the building be protected. It was obviously not designated in any way. And so Karen Christensen embarked on that effort. And thank you for earlier this evening, approving the landmark designation as a companion piece to the rezoning. It's very important to the neighbors of the community. And we also have two letters of support from the Rose Capitol Hill, United Neighbors and also Neighbors for greater Capitol Hill are both in support of the rezoning, largely in part because of the landmark designation. This property has been zoned in a real goofy, old 1980s PD that was very restrictive and bound this property to unrelated properties on the east side of eighth Avenue and it only allowed office uses where in fact this is a house and so getting it resounded. The G three, as Brandon explained, is consistent with every plan we have. We in addition to the two and all letters of support, the third letter of support is from the Denver Employees Retirement Plan, or derp, which is the direct neighbor across eighth Avenue and remains in the old pub. They are unaffected. And with all that I ask that City Council please vote to approve the rezoning of five five, five. The State Avenue this evening is a companion legislation to the landmark designation, and I'm available to answer questions. Should you have any? Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Karen Christianson. And you'll have to unmute yourself. There you go. Oh, it looks like you are muted again. Oh, there you go. We can hear you. Go ahead.
Speaker 3: Okay. I'm not getting video, though. That's all right. My name is Karen Christianson. I'm the owner of five, five, five East Eighth Avenue. I currently live in the mountains, but I would like to make this place my primary residence because it's getting harder and harder at my age to live in the mountains. It is a lovely old home and I want to live here. So I request the council vote to approve build 20 1-1536. Rezoning 555 you state avenue to g dash m. You dash three with a u. Oh. Dash three overlay. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And our next speaker is Jesse Paris. And we'll have our producers go ahead and move Jesse over into the queue. There we go. Go ahead, please. Jesse.
Speaker 1: But. Yes. My name is just the opposite for Black Star maximum for self defense, positive action for Social Change as well as the East Denver Residents Council, the Unity Party of Colorado and frontline black males. And I'll be the next mayor of Denver in 2023. I'm in favor of this rezoning, just like I was in favor of the landmark preservation of five, five, five East Eighth Avenue. So I am still in support of the rezoning as well. Like I stated earlier, it's going to be a multi-family dwelling though it says awesome as opposed to an affordable housing crisis and the occupant wants to move back into the Pueblo. And we saw from their consistency with adopted plans, uniformity in supply relations for this public health, safety and welfare means justifying circumstances, inconsistency with neighborhood context zone this intent. So it meets all five of the criteria for a rezoning and I'm in favor of it. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. That concludes our speakers this evening. Questions from members of Council on Council Bill 21, Dash 1536. Give it a moment for any questions. All right. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 21, Dash 1536. Councilman Hines.
Speaker 1: Council President, I. I want to urge support from my colleagues for this as well. I want to, um, I want to thank Ms.. Christiansen for for her hard work. I want to thank her also for reaching out. Two years ago, I we had we had these conversations right at the very beginning of the pandemic. Mr. O'Donnell even reached out before the pandemic started. But but unfortunately, by the time we were able to get our our meeting underway, that pandemic had started. So I hope some day that I get to meet Mr. Christiansen in person in three dimensions. But this is just such a great story. And I want to thank my colleagues for for designating this as a historic landmark, because as as Mr. Shaver mentioned, this is a growing, vibrant, new you know, there are a lot of historic buildings, but but there are a lot of them are going away in favor of some of the new development. So we can have development in our city while remembering where we came from. And this is just such an amazing example of where Denver came from. So I urge a yes vote and certainly I will be voting yes. Thank you. Council President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Hines, and happy to support this this evening. It's all of the rezoning criteria. And Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 21 desk 1536, please.
Speaker 1: Ain't I?
Speaker 2: Cashmere. I can eat. I.
Speaker 3: Ortega. I. Sandoval. I swear. I. Torres. I am black. I see tobacco. I collect.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 3: Herndon.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 3: Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce results.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 555 East 8th Avenue in Capitol Hill.
Approves a map amendment to rezone property from PUD 34 to G-MU-3, UO-3 (planned development to general multi-unit), located at 555 East 8th Avenue in Council District 10. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 12-21-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_01312022_22-0051
|
Speaker 0: And Council Member Cashman has called out Resolution 45 for questions under bills for introduction. No items have been called out under bills for final consideration. No items have been called out and under pending. No items have been called out. Madam Secretary, would you please put the first item? Well, we don't need that because we don't have our screens right here. So we're going to forgo any items on our screens this evening. But Councilmember Cashman, would you please put council resolutions 51 through 70 on the floor for adoption?
Speaker 3: Yes, I moved that council resolutions 20 2-0051525354555657585960 6160 263, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69 and 70 be adopted in a block package.
Speaker 0: Very good. I thank you for the motion. And I think we got Councilmember Hines in as the second on that one. Comments from or questions by members of Council on Council Resolutions 51 through 70. Councilmember Sawyer.
Speaker 5: Thanks, Madam President. As you know, I have consistently voted against the use of on contracts by city agencies that don't have a reporting structure to city council on the use of those contracts. So tonight we've got another 19 from Parks and Rec here. And I want to just make sure I know that these are extensions so they're not adding any money to the contract amount tonight. We don't get any reporting at all from DPR on the use of their own calls. We don't know how much of the original contract has already been used, how much might be remaining. You know, like I've said many times, it's council's responsibility that's given to us by the Charter to oversee how city agencies are spending their money. And when we're approving on call contracts without any reporting mechanism to us, I believe we're failing in that duty. I think at this point, I mean, it's 19 tonight, but we've got to be at 100 by now over the course of the last year. That is extraordinary. So I'll be a no tonight. Thanks, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Sawyer. Councilmember Ortega.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. I just wanted to add that this is an important issue. And as you know, I routinely call them out as well and voted no on many of our on call contracts. We have since been getting reports from Doddy. I'm not sure why we're not getting them from Parks and Recreation. I know we're getting them from the airport now as well. So I think we need to elevate this conversation with Parks and Recreation so that we're getting the same consistent information that we're receiving from the other agencies that have been doing on call contracts so that we have a way of knowing what we're approving. I understand they want to be able to have a pool to select from so that when there are different jobs, they're able to do like a short list and be able to get the work out faster. But I think we need to be able to see the details on these contracts, because oftentimes what happens is some of the same contractors get used over and over and over again, and it's very costly to go through the RFP process to put together a bid and and to finally get selected only to find that the time will be exhausted. And you may never be called as a contractor that got awarded a bid. So that's part of why I think it's important to get the data so that we can monitor how they're being used and to make sure this is an efficient way to continue to do business in the city. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you Councilmember Ortega and wanted to I have that Craig Coronado and or Jason Moore are joining us this evening to answer any questions. And so I wanted to see if Craig could give any insights to the reporting or anything else that was mentioned by the councilwoman.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. And thank you to the Council for hearing this. Yes. DPR appreciates council support of our maintenance and expansion programs. We have heard this before, the concern about reporting, and we're aware that Dotti in Denver are doing extensive reporting where we're setting up to do that ourselves. We do have a process. We have a sop here, standard operating procedure that we utilize to fairly and transparently distribute our work among our on calls, both in design, which this is associated with and construction as well. So right now, in terms of of capacities, less than a third of the firms have exceeded half of their contracted capacity. Yet all of our consultants, all 17 of them, do have work through this on call. So it's been distributed fairly evenly. We do track it and we are reporting it internally and we'll work with council to report it out as needed.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Craig, for being here this evening. And it looks like Councilmember Ortega has an additional question. Go ahead, Councilman.
Speaker 4: I just want to mention that we're getting the reports quarterly from the other agencies and just want to see if that is a commitment that Parks and Rec is willing to make to provide them on a similar schedule that we're getting. Those other.
Speaker 2: Ones. That certainly makes a lot of.
Speaker 3: Sense to us to report it in a consistent way as he does. We just don't have that quite set up yet, but we're working on it.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Craig, for that. And Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 5: Councilwoman Sawyer thinks that the president and thanks, Craig, for that information and really appreciate it and be happy to talk through that. My best recommendation for you would be to connect with Daddy about this, because not only did Daddy start reporting in a more robust way to council, they also worked with Dispo to set up a very specific way that they now award contracts and write contracts. So, you know, for example, when I first was elected to council two and a half years ago, you know, sometimes we would see an extraordinarily large contract, like a $50 million contract or something like that. That's just an example. I can't think of it off the top of my head, so don't quote me anyone who's watching. But, you know, we'd see one on call kind of general contract, and then the work would be split up and we'd get the reporting at the end. What Dotti and Dispo did was rework the way that they actually write those contracts so that now we would see $51 million contracts come through. So there's a lot more specifics about what's happening. It's a lot more specifics about the scope of the work. There's a lot it's a lot there's a lot more clarity around things like Mwb and B equals and and how those are being achieved, etc.. So I would recommend that you reach out to Danny and talk to them or dispo and talk to them about the changes that they made in partnership. That's the reason why I don't vote no on Daddy on call contracts anymore. Dan isn't quite there yet, even though they have started quarterly reporting, which I very much appreciate. But you know, there are Parks and Rec is not the only other city agency that has on call contracts that does not do any reporting to city council . And so, you know, I am a regular no vote on these things because of that issue. And, you know, appreciate your willingness to make some changes there. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 5: Are we frozen? And my president.
Speaker 4: President Gilmore, dropped off.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I was just going to say, am I frozen? Sorry.
Speaker 4: I don't see it. I'll take over. I don't see any more hands in the queue. Roll call, please. Council Resolution 20 20071. Forgive me. I'm ahead. Roll call on council resolutions. 20 2-0051 through 20 2-0070. Sawyer. No black shirt because I. CdeBaca. I. Clark, I. Flynn.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 4: Herndon. I don't.
Speaker 2: Know.
Speaker 4: Cashmere. I can eat. I. Ortega, I. In the against India, i. And Madam President Torres, I.
Speaker 0: If I can interrupt, I'm back. Council Secretary. If I could be included in the vote.
Speaker 4: Yes. Torres. I know, Madam President Gilmore. I.
Speaker 0: Madam Secretary, if you please, close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 4: Two names. You have a nice.
Speaker 0: 11 eyes council resolutions 22, dash 0051 through 22, dash 0070 have been adopted. And apologies there. Zoom is not working well this evening for whatever reason. So thank you, council pro Tem Torres for stepping in there and we're going to go ahead and move forward here.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed First Amendatory Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Design Workshop, Inc. to extend the term for consulting services on an as needed basis.
Amends a contract with Design Workshop, Inc. by adding one year for a new end date of 4-10-23 for on-call landscape architectural planning, design, and consulting services for parks and parks facilities, citywide. No change to contract amount (201947756; 202160687). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 2-28-22. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 1-18-22.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_01312022_22-0071
|
Speaker 0: 11 eyes council resolutions 22, dash 0051 through 22, dash 0070 have been adopted. And apologies there. Zoom is not working well this evening for whatever reason. So thank you, council pro Tem Torres for stepping in there and we're going to go ahead and move forward here. Councilmember Cashman, will you please put Council Resolution 71 on the floor for adoption?
Speaker 3: I moved the Council Resolution 20 2-0071 be adopted. I got.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved. And we're going to give that second to Councilmember Herndon. Comments and questions or questions by members of Council on Council Resolution 71. Council Member State Abarca.
Speaker 5: Thank you. I'd just like to go on record voting no for this. This this for the downtown Denver Partnership's contract to operate the Biergarten and the skating rink downtown. It's one that I believe we should be having deeper discussion about.
Speaker 4: I voted on it, voted no.
Speaker 0: On it in.
Speaker 5: The past, and just wanted to make sure that.
Speaker 4: I still let you guys know I still have big issues with this contract and do not think that we should be approving it.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember CdeBaca. Councilmember Torres.
Speaker 4: Oh, no major comments. Just wanted it pulled out from the prayer block so that I could vote in favor of it.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Torres. Councilmember Hines.
Speaker 2: I thank you, council president. I will be voting in favor of the of the resolution. I do have concerns about the the bike lane and sidewalk immediately adjacent to Skyline Park. That is constantly and consistently obstructed with lots of vehicles. Some vehicles of vendors are parked in the bike lane. Sometimes they're city city vehicles, sometimes they're business improvement district vehicles. I don't believe that we should allow some areas to be blocked, some right of ways to be blocked and others not. And and I think we should be consistent with ensuring that access around Skyline Park for pedestrians and cyclists are preserved. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Hines, and seen no one else in the queue. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Resolution 20 2-0071, please.
Speaker 4: Ibaka? No, Clark. I. Flynn, I. Herndon.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 2: Hines I.
Speaker 4: Kashmere.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 4: Can each I Ortega. I send Sandoval.
Speaker 0: I believe we have an affirmative from Councilmember Sandoval. She's got her camera on, but her audio, for whatever reason, isn't working.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Sawyer, I. Torres, I. Black eye. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 4: On the 12 eyes.
Speaker 0: 12 Eyes. Council Resolution 20 2-0071 has been adopted this evening. Council Member Cashman, will you please put Council Resolution 80 on the floor for adoption?
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed First Amendatory Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Downtown Denver Events, Inc., to extend the term to operate the skating rink and beer garden at Skyline Park in Council District 9.
Amends a contract with Downtown Denver Events, LLC by adding two years for a new end date of 2-28-24 to operate the skating rink and beer garden at Skyline Park in Council District 9. No change to contract amount (202053400; 202161211). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 2-28-22. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 1-18-22.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_01312022_22-0045
|
Speaker 0: 11 eyes council resolution 20 2-0080 has been adopted. Council Member Katzmann, will you please put Council Resolution 45 on the floor for adoption?
Speaker 3: I'm a the council resolution 20 2-004 or five be adopted.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been a year and we've got the second by a council member. Herndon comments or questions by members of Council on Council Resolution 45. Council Member State Abarca.
Speaker 4: Yes. Thank you. This is a contract.
Speaker 5: With a company listed as VII. If you all recall from our conversations when we were divesting from private prison operators.
Speaker 4: It was it came up.
Speaker 5: That buy was also a go company. And so I think we've really beat this horse to death with the community corrections department and our safety department.
Speaker 4: And when we say divest, I think we should truly divest.
Speaker 5: And we've had several years to line up with different contracts, a different mechanism for monitoring, which we know is out there. And so I'm frustrated that it's back in front of us, given that we've stated.
Speaker 4: Clearly our issues with this company. And so I want to go on record as a no.
Speaker 5: For this geo.
Speaker 4: Contract.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilmember CdeBaca and Councilmember Cashman. I had that you had also called this out and wanted to see if you had any comments or questions before I go to Councilmember Hines.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I do. Thank you, Madam President. And I believe Greg Morrow is in the meeting this evening. I have a couple of questions for Greg.
Speaker 0: All right. Wonderful. We'll have our producers bring Greg into the panelists here. We'll just give them a moment. And if they're looking, it's Greg Morrow. Right. There we go. Thank you for joining us, Greg. Councilman Cashman, go ahead.
Speaker 3: Yeah, thank you, Greg. Let's let's start with that part of it that council member said about I was talking about why are why are we proposing contracting with an offshoot of GEO.
Speaker 2: Good evening, Councilman, and thanks for that question. Let me first round.
Speaker 0: Up, Greg, before you, Delavan, could you introduce yourself for the public record, please?
Speaker 2: Sure. Thank you, Madam President. Craig Monroe, director of Community Corrections for the Department of Safety.
Speaker 3: So let me.
Speaker 2: First answer the councilman's question with process. So we went through a competitive open bid process to identify potential offerors or proposers to provide electronic monitoring service to the city back in the fall of 21. Through that process, which was robust. There was subject matter experts that consisted of a panel to look at the technical aspects of any vendor proposal. There was the ability to provide the infrastructure and support for the proposal. Considered pricing was a component as well as the different types of technologies themselves. And ultimately, the panel produced recommendations to move forward with multiple vendors, we believe from the Department of Safety standpoint that it's the combination of these vendors that gives us all the equipment needs and the backup in order to run an effective electronic monitoring program. I guess I'll pause there to see if there's a follow up question, Councilman.
Speaker 3: Well, I guess there's a follow up to that, Greg. Would would be are you saying that there's no other vendor that could fulfill a particular technology that that was would be is able to fulfill?
Speaker 2: There will be a second bender coming through. It's trailing this contract. Unfortunately, we're one unable through just logistics to bring both of them to you tonight. The belief that the department has is that it's the combination of vendors that gives us the greatest operational perspective to perform these services, specifically to the equipment that has their G.P.S. device has some features, both in terms of the comfort and fit for the consumer, as well as some features that help us detect a tamper that make it a more attractive device. Similarly, the technology we use for our home confinement population allows GPS technology to tell us for that will tell us where the base shooter is, as well as provide messaging through a display on the home device to to the participants so we can communicate regularly if needed. Those are unique features to the bike. And so in part that's why we are advancing the notion that we need both by and the second vendor, which we'll be bringing forward in a couple of weeks.
Speaker 3: Okay. Well, thank you. Thank you for that. A couple of technical parts and we exchanged emails over the weekend, so I'd like to get your answers on a couple of things, Greg. Are we using electronic monitored monitoring for people being sued for nonpayment of fines?
Speaker 2: Councilman. The answer is no. I do. I believe the authority in the municipal code authorizes that. But in my 25 years, I have never seen a case ordered to electronic monitoring for nonpayment of fees.
Speaker 3: Okay. You know, another area that kind of stuck with me is why are we monitoring people who haven't yet been convicted of crimes? You know, pretrial individuals. Can you address that?
Speaker 2: Yeah. Thanks for the question, Councilman. And let me talk discuss the two populations that are generally under electronic monitoring supervision. The first is a pretrial population, which you mentioned, and individuals as a condition of bond or a condition of their release. The court has deemed them to pose either a safety danger to the community or a flight risk and wants extra supervision conditions on them while they're in the community. The program does not charge pretrial defendants a fee for being on electronic monitoring. That was a policy decision enacted back in 2018. So that is just part of the Department of Safety General fund appropriation to pay for those services. It's typically reserved for individuals, again, that pose a high risk to fail. Typically, their offenses are fall under the victim rights amendment. We have a lot of individuals charged with a domestic violence offense, and we use technology to create boundaries or exclusion zones to keep that person from going into the protected parties place of residence or place of employment so we can monitor exclusion zones through the GPS technology. Additionally, we have people on electronic monitoring technologies to help them fight addiction and remain sober. So there's alcohol testing that's available that we can perform through electronic means. And again, there's no charge for that as well. And then the other group for convicted individuals is in lieu of a jail sentence. A judge can sentence somebody directly to the electronic monitoring program where they will serve X number of days on home confinement. It's that program that we do charge a nominal fee for. It's $13 a day, although there is the ability for the Corps to reduce or wave fees. And the program has a policy by which we can reduce fees for financial hardship.
Speaker 3: Okay. Thank you for that. Greg, up for just a second. I want to go back to that first question on regarding GEO, the connection with GEO. You mentioned that a second firm was going to be coming on shortly and now is that for the same product? In other words, if we were to turn this down tonight. Where? Where it is. What does that do?
Speaker 2: So the second firm offer offers similar technology, different devices, but similar technology. We believe and the panel advanced recommendations that the buy equipment was preferred. If the council were to not approve this contract, we would have. A significant transition to undergo to transition over 700 individuals on electronic monitoring because by is our current vendor to a new vendor with these different types of equipment. The other piece I'll just underscore the buy equipment that I mentioned. They're GPS device and their RF based unit, we believe. Are better pieces of equipment to fulfill our mission, to enforce the court orders and provide for public safety. We just believe that there are functions within those two devices that make it the better equipment at this time. We like the ability and flexibility to have different vendors under contract. So as technology changes and increases, we can be more mobile and flexible and pivot to a different piece of technology if it becomes available. But today we believe that the BI equipment is a better choice for our program.
Speaker 3: All right. Thank you, Greg. And thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Cashman. And we're going to go to Councilmember Hines.
Speaker 2: I thank you. Council President Mr. Mauro. I also have concerns about this contract as as you and I have discussed, you know, numerous times about private for profit prison contractors. You mentioned that there was a committee that considered and ultimately recommended this vendor, the committee, take into account the council's vote in the past to end relationship and Denver's relationship with private for profit prison contractors. Councilman Hines No, the committee was not tasked with that. They were tasked with looking at the proposals based upon pricing, technical expertize, the ability to provide inventory, the product. And it was comprised of subject matter experts in other counties across the state that do this work. So the level of understanding of the equipment and nuances was important. The other thing that I would mention is this agreement is not for direct services, unlike conversations that have taken place in the past regarding community corrections programs. We're just leasing the equipment from the vendor by they manufacture this equipment and they produce it and we're leasing it. It is city staff under the Department of Safety that monitor individuals under electronic monitoring 24 hours a day, seven days a week. And it's city staff that interacts with the clients, sets policies to support them, sets policies to return them to the court if there are violations. So the vendor has no contact with the population under electronic monitoring. Okay. The other vendor. I think I understand why you're not mentioning the vendor's name. Because it hasn't come before council. But I would ask, is it also a private, for profit prison contractor? Councilman Hines. I believe they are for profit. They are not in the private prison industry. Phil, thank you. So I also want to talk about, I mean, part of the impetus behind my vote, at least to end relationships is, of course, if it can go because of their their disproportionate impact on communities of color. I, I also recognize Councilmember Cashman shared some of your conversation over the weekend with colleagues. And and I recognize some of your comments that you just made in the last couple of minutes about the part of the population that would get these electronic monitoring as domestic violence offenses or victim rights cases. Do you have a sense for the the Denver Denver's population of domestic violence offenses for victim rights cases? Are those also predominantly communities of color? Councilman, thanks for the question. I do not have data to answer that question. It's certainly something we could follow up with you after after tonight's meeting to see what we can produce. I guess the question I'm trying to answer is, are we saying let's let are we considering communities of color and wanting to vote no? But then we would also, by voting no, would then have fewer ways to to protect our victim rights folks who might be communities of color. So I don't want us to, you know, hurt communities of color by trying to say communities of color, I guess, is what I'm what I'm getting at. Okay. I think that's that's all I have. Thank you. Council president.
Speaker 0: And. Q Councilmember Hines, Councilmember Ortega.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. Mr. Morrow, I have a couple of questions for you as well. Okay. Excuse me. And this is more related to the vector as opposed to directly related to the. This exact contract. What can you tell me? Excuse me. If. If we have replaced the number of beds that were lost when we voted down those contracts, what was it been a year and a half, almost two years ago, maybe longer. It's been well beyond two years. Exactly how many beds did we lose as a result of facilities shutting down from? After Council's action.
Speaker 2: Councilwoman Ortega. So if we look back at 2019, the summer of 2019, Denver had and its community corrections program capacity ten facilities and you know, right around 750 available beds for placement today, mostly because of the decision to terminate contracts with GEO for residential services and for core Civic for residential services. We set up five facilities and, you know, just right around 360 beds. So we lost roughly half of our capacity. There's an additional 40 beds that's unrelated to those two vendors and the issue associated with them that came off line. But essentially, we're half the size we used to be and we've had a tremendous struggle to replace those beds.
Speaker 4: And that's even after purchasing one of the facilities that was owned by one of these vendors, correct?
Speaker 2: That's correct.
Speaker 4: And how many? Number one, how much did we paid for that building?
Speaker 2: I believe the price was 1.2 or 1.3 million, and that does not include a significant amount of infrastructure costs that are going into the renovations and then the ongoing operational costs that it will take to have it run as a city program along with the community partner.
Speaker 4: So it's actually costing us more than it was. Being run privately. Councilwoman. I know it's. I've read it. We're talking about the women's facility. Right. This is to you all?
Speaker 2: That's correct. It's a project elevated to the hall in councilwoman. Yes, it is. It's absolutely costing us from the purchase price to the renovations to the ongoing operational costs, additional dollars, because prior to that, we would just take the money received from the state reimbursement and pass that through to the vendor. And there was no general fund commitment to those dollars. And just to underscore a point I made earlier, those are for residential services here. We're talking about equipment that specific operators manufacture. I don't think the city can ever go into the business of manufacturing electronic monitoring devices.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I get that. I want to hone in on the divestment piece of of this whole big picture conversation, because the reality is that action that was taken did not result in a better situation for the people we're trying to serve that were coming through. And the benefit of having the correction beds available is they have assisted people in re acclimating back into our communities and by not having them it means there are fewer beds and more people are on a wait list. So that's my next question. How many people are on a waitlist right now awaiting these correction beds that we shut down?
Speaker 2: Councilman Ortega. As you know, the wait lists ebb and flow. But we were we are currently well over 100. I think it's closer to 125 individuals who remain in the Department of Corrections who have been accepted by the Community Corrections Board. And if we had capacity could come into into the community. We also have, on any given day, 20 to 30 individuals sitting in our jail awaiting placement as well. And we've been working really hard to move the the jail population into beds. But that what that does is just create a longer wait time for the DACA population.
Speaker 4: So have we taken any steps to purchase any additional building so that we can have more beds? And would that rely on, again, a private operator running those facilities, any additional facility?
Speaker 2: Councilmember Vega. Yes. There have been discussions between real estate and private entities about the acquisition of properties to run residential services. In fact, we've reported that we were unsuccessful in the ability to secure a transaction to bring to council with force epic. So Real Estate is working with us to actively find another site because we will complete the termination of Core Civic in June of 23 and we'll take 90 more beds offline that we do not have a hard capacity to replace them once.
Speaker 4: Okay. I think this is an important part of the conversation so that my colleagues understand the impact that we had in terms of now not being able to serve people in our community in the same way we were able to when we had those available beds. And given the fact that we're, you know, down by 360 beds, I think is what you said, that that's a huge impact on how many people we were serving before, that we're now not able to and we'll have 90 more beds taken off that list that people will be available to. Is the Community Correction Board continuing to approve people even though we have fewer beds and is that waitlist just continuing to grow?
Speaker 2: Councilwoman The current answer is yes and but leaves behind that is the board exists to determine who's appropriate for community placement and then expect the Department of Safety in this example to find the capacity to serve them.
Speaker 4: Okay. Thank you. I have no further questions. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Ortega. Next up, we have Councilmember Flynn.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. Greg, you told me earlier today that there were additional proposers. How many proposers were there for this? For the scope of work.
Speaker 2: Councilman Glenn I believe it was seven respond that applied to the RFP and there were recommendations to move three forward. We have processed a very small contract that did not need council for one minor piece of equipment. And then the other two were tonight's action and one coming forward in two weeks.
Speaker 3: Okay. That's what I was getting at because I thought you had said there were seven earlier. And and what I wanted to make clearly understood is that the three that are moving forward were among those seven. So there weren't seven proposals for this particular scope. But the selection committee essentially carved out different scopes and said, buy is good for this one. A What are the other ones called? A AMS is good for the alcohol monitoring. And then the track to track group is a little more developmental, by the way. And that's the one that's under the threshold. Become a council, correct?
Speaker 2: Councilman Flynn, you are correct about the third group. As far as the work of the committee, I want to be careful not to violate any purchasing process. The committee recommended how to move forward and there were definitely rankings over which piece of equipment was better served for certain populations. I don't want to misstate that aims. The vendor doesn't have similar technologies, these technologies, and we very well might use them if that contracts approved for us as well. I'll just take that if I if I can, I'll just take a moment to share with the whole council. But I don't bring this recommendation forward lightly. We clearly all remember where we were in July of 19 and what's transpired over the last two years. It certainly would have been easier to not make this recommendation tonight, but I can't do that. I have to do what I believe is in the best interest for the Department of Safety to run this program and to advance a vendor that can meet our needs. So that's why we're here. It's certainly not to put this back in the council's lap or so to say. It's really because I have a responsibility to advance operationally what's best for community corrections and the Department of Safety.
Speaker 3: I appreciate that. I think then bottom line, I'm wondering, of the seven bidders, do you know, were all of them for profit or any of them nonprofit corporations?
Speaker 2: My friend. I don't recall that I. There's I believe they're all for profit. I know of no non profit manufacturer.
Speaker 3: That was that was my next question. That was my next question. Greg, do you know if there actually is a nonprofit corporation that provides these mechanisms in the service?
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's my point. I'm not aware of that. And again, if I would just reiterate to folks that it's the city of Denver through community productions that provide all the services we're running, seeing the equipment. Yeah.
Speaker 3: Right. That's why my energy equivalent, in other words, it would not be it would not be an easy matter to give this contract for this equipment to a nonprofit corporation, because we don't know of any and certainly not bid on this, correct?
Speaker 2: That's correct. And they very well could use the equipment if we did it to a non participant existed.
Speaker 3: All right. Thank you. That's all. Madam President.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Flynn. Councilmember Sawyer.
Speaker 5: Thanks, Madam President, and thanks, Greg, for being here. My question I want to kind of turn back to the use of this technology. So you mentioned earlier that the use of this technology is generally used for domestic violence cases. Is that correct?
Speaker 2: Councilmember Sawyer. That's a large percentage of offenses that is used for. Yes, that's correct.
Speaker 5: Okay, great. Thank you for clarifying. And I'm not sure if you have the answer to this question. I know there are a couple of Department of Safety employees that are in the attendees list, so one of them might want to raise their hand. I'm just curious, between 2019 say since that's the time period that we're talking about our original vote and for a different topic. And now do you know like how many more users or are there more users? I guess I'm asking about the trend in domestic violence over the last couple of years.
Speaker 2: Council members. Sorry, I certainly wouldn't be able to answer that. So I'll pause to see if there's another Department of Safety representative who might.
Speaker 5: That would be great. Thank you. If there is someone from DC here that just raise your hand in the. Attendees to jump on. And Greg, you may be able to answer my follow up question to that, to that, which is if these offenders, the domestic violence offenders, were not monitored via this technology and whether it's this company or another company, what would what would happen to them? Would they be released into the world or would they be sitting more likely sitting in jail, waiting for their trial? Or what does that look like?
Speaker 2: That's member Sawyer. Yes, there's several possibilities that, you know, that would be individualized for sure. But certainly the use of electronic monitoring provides a judge a greater degree of comfort to follow the statute around the setting of least restrictive conditions and to minimize pretrial incarceration. So absent the ability to have electronic monitoring services, particularly GPS devices, I think one could logically conclude that there'd be more people in jail. The other piece is it's a tool, right? It's not a failsafe, but it's a tool to to help victims of domestic violence or other serious crimes be able to feel comfort that we're monitoring 24 seven and, you know, notifying both law enforcement and the victim if that defendant or perpetrator enters either an exclusionary zone bordering the victim's home or their place of residence.
Speaker 5: Okay. Great. Thank you, Greg. I really appreciate that. I'm just looking to see if any one from the Department of Safety is.
Speaker 0: We didn't get anybody. There were many hands raised.
Speaker 5: That's that's fine. Appreciate it.
Speaker 2: And Councilmember, if I could just jump in, I did receive a text from at least from the government affairs manager. They're going to work on that data and follow up with council on that.
Speaker 5: That would be great. I really appreciate it. It's my understanding that the incidence of domestic violence has gone up considerably in our city, particularly in this COVID time period, for lack of a better description. But I was just hoping someone could give me some more hard numbers than that. But I appreciate that. Thanks so much. Thanks, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Sawyer. Councilmember each.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Council President I'm just wondering if I appreciate the questions my colleagues have asked about consequences and tradeoffs. I wanted to understand better the timeline situation. So Greg Buy is an existing contractor. When is the expiration of their current contract and what would be the consequence of a decision not to proceed with this today in terms of continuity? So you mentioned before that we have 700 some users now. And so you've mentioned to Councilman Sawyer that some people might not be able to be in a release situation if they didn't have the technology. So but I don't think I picked up the timeline.
Speaker 2: A council member concedes the timeline is expired. Essentially we are now at the end of the BI contract. I understand that's not the answer anybody wants to convey or certainly appreciate. We started this process early in the fall and for a number of reasons could not get a calendar till now. But the by the current my contract would expire today.
Speaker 4: Okay. No further questions. Okay.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Canete, Councilmember Hines.
Speaker 2: I thank you. Council President. Just a comment. Mr. Mauro, thank you for your honest answers. I have been been on record in the past of being frustrated with having to vote on safety contracts. And we as a body have voted down contracts that have already expired. And we've been asked to vote on on contracts that that have expired. You know, and we're trying to pay people in arrears. And I was hoping that that safety would would be a little more proactive. And so I was kind of on the fence on, you know, supporting a private for profit prison contractor because of the technology and protecting victims of domestic violence. But we have another vendor, if inferior, still another vendor. And and we can't. The two Councilmember Sawyer's comments previously. Our job is to is to vote on contracts and keep some sort of financial accountability with the administration in the executive branch. And if we have agencies that continue to hamstring us in our voting, it's really frustrating and and and does not. Properly allow us to do the checks and balances that our founders asked of us to do with the three different branches of government. So I will be honored tonight. Thank you, Consul President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Hines and I want I have one question for Greg. When you said that there are 700 individuals currently that we're monitoring and we are leasing this equipment, if this contract is not approved tonight, Greg, what happens to those 700 individuals?
Speaker 2: Madam President, let me. And also the 700 was an approximate I'm looking at the 2021 ADP of a 623. I don't have the current count today, but it's it's going to be in the general ballpark of that. It depends what they're being electronically monitored for. Right. We have individuals as a condition of bond on area restriction. And so we'd have to work with the courts around that. We have people on monitored sobriety. We'd have to work with the courts on what to do there. And we have people in home confinement. So if the contract is is not approved, I don't see any way to move forward. They would have to work to continue the services. But by until we could complete an exchange, we don't have another vendor under contract. We don't have all the equipment we need. So at a minimum, we would have to have a period of time to complete a safe transition.
Speaker 0: Okay. I appreciate that, Greg. And I'll go ahead and wrap up with my my comment. You know, at the end of the day, I would rather folks be out of jail and be utilizing electronic monitoring to make sure that they are able to fulfill the terms of their bail, their treatment, etc., and move on with their lives , hopefully in a positive way. This is for the equipment. It's not for the services. And so with that being said, not to negatively affect possibly hundreds of individuals lives right now who are trying to get to a better place. I will be in favor of this tonight. Madam Secretary, roll call on council resolution 45, please.
Speaker 4: CdeBaca Nope.
Speaker 3: Claire I.
Speaker 4: Win.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 4: Herndon.
Speaker 2: I. HINES No.
Speaker 4: Cashman. I can. I Ortega. I. Sandoval.
Speaker 0: We have a thumbs up from Councilmember Sandoval. Her audio isn't working right now. Council Secretary.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Sawyer. I. Torres? No. Black I. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 4: Three nays. Ten Eyes.
Speaker 0: Ten Eyes. Council Resolution 20 2-0045 has been adopted. 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 I. Otherwise, this is your last chance to call out an item for a separate vote. Councilman Cashman, would you please put the resolutions for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor?
Speaker 3: 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. All Series 2020 20042004 349. 74. 76. 7784. 86, 87, 88, 35, seven, 50 and ten, 79. Thank you.
Speaker 0: It's been moved. And we've got the second by Councilman Herndon. Madam Secretary, welcome back.
Speaker 4: I see tobacco, I. Clark. Right. Flynn.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 4: Herndon.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 4: Hines.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 4: Cashman. I can eat. I. Ortega. I. Denver. I. Sawyer. I. I. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 4: 13 eyes.
Speaker 0: 13 eyes. The resolutions have been adopted and the bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass. Council will not take a recess this evening. Our pre adjournment announcement on Tuesday, February 22nd. Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 22, Dash 0093, reestablishing the Board of Adjustment and Updating Board Requirements and procedures on
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Agreement between the City and County of Denver and B.I. Incorporated for electronic offender monitoring, products and services.
Approves a contract with B.I. Incorporated for $1,500,000 and through 1-31-25 to provide electronic monitoring equipment and support for pretrial and in-home detention services to effectively monitor court ordered conditions of release, citywide (SAFTY-202161198).The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 2-22-22. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 1-19-22.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_01242022_22-0114
|
Speaker 0: New Council member Cashman and seen no other hands raised. We're going to go ahead and move along in our agenda. There are no presentations this evening. There are no communications. We have two proclamations being read this evening. Councilmember Flynn, would you please read Proclamation 20 2-011 for please?
Speaker 1: Certainly. Thank you, Madam President. Proclamation 20 2-011 for honoring Peter Bart line for 35 years of service to the people of Denver. Whereas the city and county of Denver and its Department of Transportation and Infrastructure have been privileged to have the leadership and dedication of principal project manager Peter Bartley, who is also known as the city's walking history book. For more than 35 years. Whereas Peter Bart Line has been a dedicated steward of the city's vertical and horizontal infrastructure, including planning, design and building. And. WHEREAS, Peter Bart line has celebrated the completion of dozens of critical infrastructure projects that have improved safety, travel, safety and reliability, increased mobility, reduced flood risks, and made Denver more sustainable and resilient. And. Whereas, Peter Bart Line has been dedicated to mentoring staff and coworkers. And. WHEREAS, some of the highlights of Peter Bart Line's career include managing city activities related to the construction of Coors Field, being a key member of the negotiation team charged with the redevelopment of the 4000 acre former Stapleton Airport site, spearheading interdepartmental initiatives and obtaining a $1 million technology loan to create the city's geographic information system. And being a key member of the negotiation team that created the tax increment finance district, metropolitan district and Development Agreement for a $200 million redevelopment of the Gates site. And. WHEREAS, Peter Bart Line served as city liaison to the Regional Transportation District Leadership, representing the city's interest in the implementation of the $2.1 billion fast tracked commuter rail expansion within the city's corporate boundary. And. Whereas, Peter Bart line provided direction and oversight as the city lead on the project management team for the $500 million redevelopment of the Denver Union Station Transit Terminal now therefore be proclaimed by the Council of the City and County of Denver's Section one. But the Council of the City and County of Denver hereby recognizes and honors Peter Bart line for his over 35 years of outstanding service to the people of Denver, his coworkers and his community. Section two that the clerk of the city and county of Denver shall affix the seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation, and that a copy be transmitted to Peter Bart line.
Speaker 0: And Q Councilmember Flynn, your motion to adopt.
Speaker 1: Thank you. I move the proclamation 20 2-0114 be adopted. Okay.
Speaker 0: Thank you. We've got the motion. And I believe Councilmember Hines had the second there comments by members of Council Councilmember Flynn.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. I think the rush to second that just shows how respected Peter is or actually more respects the the continuing competition between Katzmann and earned in the second things. Some of us on the Zoom call can see Peter waiting after the adoption, after the vote on this to make remarks. And I think you can see that he's obviously much too young to retire. He probably started with the city when he was ten years old, it looks like. Madam President and colleagues, I had the honor of getting I got to know Peter when I was working at RTD. After the newspaper closed and I had covered the fast track initiatives, I was hired on at RTD to be the communications manager for the Eagle Project, which built the $2.1 billion commuter rail project. That's the line that goes out to the airport, which we now call the A-line. It's the G line that goes out to Arvada, West Road, Wheat Ridge, and the the B line that goes up to Westminster. All three of those originate at Union Station. And I got to know Peter up in the fast track project office, the Eagle Project Office. And I can tell you from personal experience, having been on the other side and representing Artie's interests, that Peter was a very effective and knowledgeable and strident representative for Denver City and County's interest in all of those projects, much to our chagrin at times, I'm sure. But he and he's also, by the way, a very valued constituent in that council district, too. I believe he's still living down here. I haven't I haven't visited him lately, but I've been over to his house a few years ago. But such dedication, Madam President, and colleagues, really does need to be recognized as people have spent their careers doing fantastic work for the city. And you can see you can see Peter's work every time you go around through the Central Park neighborhood, the infrastructure there at Denver Union Station, the transit project there, and the A-line out to the airport, the G and the B lines up through North Denver. It's very evident that Peter gave his heart and soul to this city, and I'm very happy to sponsor this and very sorry to say goodbye to a valued city employee. I see that there are other BART lines in our attendees and he obviously has some family members here to wish him well. Madam President, I ask about my colleagues all unanimously join me in congratulating and honoring Peter. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Flynn. Next up, we have Councilmember Ortega. Thank you, Madam President. I want to thank Councilman Flint for bringing this forward, and I don't want to repeat what he has already stated, but I want to share that I had the pleasure of working and interfacing with Peter on a number of those projects that were spelled out in the proclamation. He was always the ultimate professional in the way that he worked with all of us on council and with community as well. And, you know, as Councilman Flynn said, those projects will will live on. And I just really appreciate his dedication to our city. And I want to thank him and his family because, you know, they they always sort of play that back seat when they have to attend evening meetings and and just always be on when, you know, they're expected to do this work for the city. So, Peter, I just want to say thank you for all your years of dedication to the city of Denver. And I wish you the best of luck. Sorry to see you leaving. Whoever steps into your position has some very big shoes to fill. So, again, I'm happy to support the proclamation tonight and and really appreciate all your hard work over these years. Thank you. Councilmember Ortega, we have Councilmember Cashman. You're up next.
Speaker 4: Yeah, thank you, Madam President. I will be brief. I'm pleased to support this proclamation. I'm pleased for Peter that he's taking the opportunity to perhaps walk into a little bit easier time of life. But I'm never pleased watching someone retire that I've enjoyed working with and have so much respect for I. The main issue that I ran into Peter about was the Water Waterways study a couple of years ago that was looking at the Platte River Weir Gulch and Harvard Gulch. And we had a a public meeting over at the Harvard Gulch Rec Center. And you had, you know, dozens of families worried that their home might be taken or their property disturbed. And I was just couldn't have been more impressed at the way Peter handled the situation and explain was able to explain what was going on, calm some ruffled feathers and just present the city appropriately with compassion for the homeowners . So congratulations on retirement. Okay, have a great time. And yeah, there'll be big shoes to fill. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Cashman. And not seen in the other hands raised. I'll go ahead and chime in here. Thank you, Councilman Flynn, for reaching out about this proclamation. In District 11, we have a lot of metro districts and we've got a lot of those agreements. And Peter has really been the person in the city that has been responsible for making sure that what needed to get done got implemented. And I'm proud that we worked together. Peter, on the District 11 medians all the way from the Montebello community out to the edge of Picadilly Road, and that that's an ongoing project. But really appreciate your partnership and making sure that we have the safety measures in as well. And so happy to support this proclamation this evening. Madam Secretary, roll call, please. Flynn.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 3: Herndon. I have. I cannot. I can. I. Ortega.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 3: Sandoval, I swear, I. Torres, I. Black I. CdeBaca, I. Clarke.
Speaker 1: All right.
Speaker 3: Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. And I'm secretary. Close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 3: 13 Eyes.
Speaker 0: 13 Eyes. Proclamation 20 2-0114 has been adopted and Councilmember Flynn will start the five minute timer. But do you want to go ahead and introduce Peter for us this evening or we can just 11 and let him say his remarks.
Speaker 1: Certainly, Peter is here and I know some of his families and in the Zoom meeting as well and but it's my pleasure to call on him. Peter, the only thing I can say is that I wish that we were meeting in person in the chamber so that I could shake your hand and others could congratulate you in person. But congratulations on a career well done and accomplished. And we look forward to to your remarks and any advice you could give us. Thank you. Go ahead. Madam President and members of council. I can't believe this day has come. Well, Denver has just been you know, being with you all has just been part of what I've been doing for 37 years. And it's like a hand-in-glove fit and a celebration to celebrate my career. Like, this is really a capstone on my career and I just can't thank you enough for gone words tonight. And Councilman Flynn, any time you're out pounding the pavement, knocking on door, you can stop by for a coke up. You're always welcome. I really miss being there in person. If. If we were there tonight, I would be pointing to my beautiful wife, Ann, and my children, Brandi, Sarah and Phillip. And I know they're on the call tonight. I know some of my brothers are on the call and friends and my sister and just everyone. You're all amazing. And I'm truly blessed, you know, to to have a career at the city, to have such a loving family around me. For those of you who know me, I am a German engineer and a builder. So no need to set the five minute timer. I can I can certainly cut that by at least 3 minutes. What makes my time so memorable is that I'm not only doing what I love to do, but I'm doing it in the city . I love to live it and to do it well. I may be leaving the building behind, but an and I will be Denver residents for many years to come. Denver will always be our home. I tell folks, if you need any advice, I will dispense it gladly for free. So, you know, just look me up and I'll provide a phone number. I do want to do a shout out to Dottie. I mean, I've been a public works guy and a Dottie for my entire career. We've undergone so many changes. I mean, what the city was 37 years ago, in 1985 and what it is now, it's just day and night, the level of complexity of everything and and how we look to our citizens and listen and have concern for them. It makes us all better. And so thank you to you. Thank you to our citizens. Thank you to the to the folks at Dottie for giving me a home and a family to be a part of for all these years. So thank you very much. God bless you all.
Speaker 0: APPLAUSE for you, Peter. We really appreciate that. And you have been a stellar city employee, so dedicated, and we look forward to you getting to spend some of that important quality time with your family as you move into retirement. And so thank you very much for a job well done, sir.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you again, Councilman Flynn, for bringing that proclamation forward. We're going to go ahead and move on here, our second proclamation this evening. Councilmember Ortega, will you please read Proclamation 20 2-0115, please allow me to do so.
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation honoring Peter Baertlein for 35 Years of service to the people of Denver.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_01182022_21-1455
|
Speaker 2: I move that council bill 20 1-1455 be placed upon final consideration and do pass again.
Speaker 1: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Seconded. Councilmember Herndon, your motion to postpone.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. I move that final consideration of Council Bill 21, dash one four or five five with this public hearing be postponed to Tuesday, February 14th, 2022. I could.
Speaker 1: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded and thank you for correcting the day of the week on that. Comments by Members of Council. CNN. Councilmember Herndon.
Speaker 4: Yes. Thank you, Madam President. This we're postponing this public hearing at the request of the applicant.
Speaker 1: Very good. Thank you. Madam Secretary. Roll call, please.
Speaker 3: Herndon. I hines. I Teshima. I can eat. I. Ortega. I. Sandoval. I swear, I. I. Black. I see tobacco. I bark. All right, fine.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 3: Madam President.
Speaker 1: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 3: Thursday nights.
Speaker 1: Thank you. 13 Ies Final Consideration of Council Bill. 20 1-1455. I just want to double check something here. One, four, five, five. With its public hearing has been postponed to February 14th, and I do have that. That is a monday. And so I want to clarify that for the public. On Monday, February 14th, 2022, Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 22, Dash 0003 changing the zoning classification for 735 North Milwaukee Street in Congress Park and a required public hearing on Council Bill 22, Dash 0016 Changing the zoning classification for 1974 and 1990 South
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 2000 Blake Street in Five Points.
Approves a map amendment to rezone property from PUD 329 and B-8 with waivers, UO-1, UO-2 to C-MX-8 (planned development to mixed-use, 8-stories), located at 2000 Blake Street in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 12-7-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_01102022_21-1516
|
Speaker 0: Under resolutions, Councilmember CdeBaca has also has called out Resolution 21, Dash 1516 for a vote. Councilmember Sawyer has called out Resolutions 21, Dash 15, 16, 15, 17, 15, 18 and 15, 19 for a vote. And Councilmember Hines has called out Resolution 20 2-0005 for comment under bills for introduction. No items have been called out 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 up. Council Member State Abarca, would you please put Council Resolutions 21, 15, 16, 21, 15, 17, 21, 15, 18 and 21, 15, 19. On the floor for adoption.
Speaker 3: Yes, I move that council resolutions 21, 15, 16, 15, 17, 15, 18 and 15, 19 be adopted in a block.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved. May you get a second? Second. Thank you. Council Member Sawyer Comments by members of Council on Council Resolutions 15, 16, 15, 17, 15, 18 and 1519. Council Member Sayed Ibaka.
Speaker 3: Yes, thank you very much. I'll be brief. I wanted to go on record not supporting these. These are totaling over $1,000,000,000 for our airport and taking our renovations out to the year 2028. I don't believe that in the last year of this mayor's tenure, it's appropriate to incur that kind of debt for our airport without a comprehensive visioning process and without really recalibrating after our last major renovation, which is currently still happening. So that is why I'll be a no on these tonight.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember CdeBaca. Councilmember Sawyer.
Speaker 3: Thanks, Madam President. I'm also going to be a no on these this evening. Our airport is probably the most financial, most important financial asset we have as a city. We know it's the number one economic driver in the state. And it doesn't just serve Denver, it serves the entire front range and the entire region. But just because an airport is incredibly valuable and important doesn't mean they're beyond the oversight of the council. And I do. You know, when I proposed ban on flavored tobacco, we found it appropriate to hold three committee meetings and a public hearing talking about the merits of the legislation. The airport is requesting over $1,000,000,000 in additional funding. But a 90 minute committee hearing was all that we had. I was hoping and hoping that we could move to a date certain to delay the contracts for further discussion, but unfortunately was overruled. And since then, I've asked the airport a number of questions, and they were answered in a very brief and vague way. So, for example, I asked, why are there only three milestones stated in this contract? The last one is specified to 2023. The project is expected to continue until 2028. And the response was they'll be special specified in the individual task orders and be memorialized on the public dashboard. That's not an answer and certainly not one. We're talking about over $1,000,000,000 in contracts. So I want to be really clear. I think the airport is a completely worthwhile investment. I believe that we need to finish the security upgrades that we started with great hall phases one and two. And I think given the proper time, these contracts would be worthwhile to approve. But I'm very disappointed at the rushed process, the lack of partnership with council and discussions with community, and the cavalier attitude towards $1,000,000,000 worth of funding. And so because of that lack of transparency and accountability in the process, I'm going to be a no vote tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Steuer, we have Councilmember Cashman.
Speaker 1: Next. Yeah. Thank you, Madam President. This is a tough vote for me tonight. When the original Great Hall contract came before the previous council. Councilwoman Ortega, then Councilman Espinosa and myself sought expert counsel from an outside agency to evaluate the contract, but were stopped by our city attorney who felt our actions were outside the scope of our charge as council members. Since that time, voters have given us the power to seek professional services as needed. And I believe these contracts are just the type of situation that was being considered when we were given that authority. As a couple of councilmembers said to me recently, It's a great idea. I wish you'd have raised it two months ago. Well, I believe it was a good idea then. I think it's a good idea now. Now it's an opportunity missed.
Speaker 2: I do believe the bulk of the work proposed in this contract makes sense.
Speaker 1: And I actually believe we have a good team in place that ten airports are cities unto themselves and the numbers on work that needs to get done do get large. But while these large scale design construction contracts are far less convoluted than the former 34 year public private partnership, this is a $1 billion plus deal that I think in view of the mess that preceded it, deserves an in-depth look by a fully objective third party. Without that in-depth investigation, I'll need to vote no tonight. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: And you, Councilmember Cashman. Councilmember Ortega. Thank you, Madam President. So I think everybody knows I voted no on the first contract when it came to us as a P3 deal for some of the reasons that were spelled out by Councilman Cashman, but for a lot of other reasons in terms of just not sharing the budget with us . We were, you know, unless we actually signed a non-disclosure agreement and met in a. One of our conference rooms on the fourth floor City Council. And you had to know what question you were asking. We never saw the full budget. That is completely different from this time around. And the information that was shared with us was was by the applicant themselves, the contractor, not by the city folks, although we did have some a couple of people from the city in the room. So this is a whole different process from what we went through last time around on the first phase. And, you know, once it was approved by council to move forward, I supported the project getting completed and getting us at a place where we get it right. Obviously, you know, what has happened has has occurred. I do know and Councilman Flynn, you may want to talk about this, that the airport has committed to coming back and walking through, you know, the lessons learned and and just, you know, helping us understand exactly what happened and why it went south. But we have a project that was promised to the public that part of addressing the safety and the security of moving the TSA check in from level five up to level six was going to happen. And right now we will have we have a hybrid. We have half of that traffic down on level five and the other portion of it on level six, I believe we have to complete it. Yes, it is a big, expensive price ticket. I've had the opportunity to meet with our bond counsel and our legal advisor to the airport. They do an incredible job working with our team and I am very confident that the safety precautions in looking at the fiduciary responsibilities of our airport have been thoroughly looked at and address both with our external experts as well as our internal folks that run and manage our airport on a day to day basis with the number one focus always being safety and security and being the best functioning airport that keeps our cost per employment, you know, low and we're right in the middle even with this package and the refinance that's going to come back to us in 2022. We're still going to be right in the middle of where all the other airports are. So this doesn't like tip the scales to the point where our airport is no longer affordable to the average non-business traveling public. And those were some of the questions that I have asked of our legal advisors. I did share with all of you the questions that I asked and the answers that we got back. And after going through that process again, you know, not having had that opportunity the first time around to really see the budget and to understand the implications to our airport and to the city, I feel like they've done a thorough job in addressing that. So I'm comfortable with this moving forward tonight. The last thing I would say is at any time council can ask them to come back and give you regular updates of exactly what's happening with the progress of the project and not wait for milestones to occur. Council has that that right to ask the agency, as we do with any of the agencies, to come in and tell us what's going on. So, you know, lots of jobs in the meantime are are created for folks, both, you know, the construction jobs and then the permanent jobs that will will be part of that because we'll have more concessions that will be back in in the main terminal. But in general, I think this is important for the city. And when you look at what we're spending on this compared to what other U.S. airports are spending right now to do upgrades and expansions where, you know, we're right on target to be doing what we need to do to not only address the safety problem, but at the same time be able to address some of the the maintenance within the Great Hall that need to be done as part of this process. So thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega, Councilman Flynn, you're up next.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. One of the keys for me in moving this forward in the first place was the commitment from Manager General. What do we call an executive director is called manager of aviation. So Washington is commitment to to produce a public. Lessons learned report in a short term 90 to 120 days after that committee meeting because I was hesitant to move forward without a complete and public accounting that of of what had happened to the P-3. I want to thank Councilwoman Ortega for pretty clearly outlining the situation at the airport right now. It's a mess. It's a mess. And the failure of the P three left it a mess. Of no vote on his contract is a vote to keep it a mess. And I believe we can't do that. I regret that we have to undertake it in the way we have. I regret that the P-3 failed, but we can't leave our kitchen renovation halfway done and the additions to our house, which are just the foundation. It simply has to be completed. And the way forward, I think, has been very transparently outlined by the airport management. Any member of this council could have had any number of of briefings, see the numbers, see the process. The reason that there are that there are milestones when they go out to 2023 was answered by airport staff in their memo back to us that that said because it's being designed in phase three, the design is not done . You can't establish milestones for for design that isn't yet done. Hensel Phelps Contractor Principal one Here is a CMG C, what they call CMG C Construction Management and Construction Manager, General Contractor. I'd say it's a very successful method under which Hensel Phelps will probably self perform very little of that $900 million, but they will oversee bid packages as the design is done. They will be competitively bid outwork our our construction community. A lot of companies that need work at disadvantage companies, minority women owned companies are going to get the opportunity to bid. The airlines are asking for this. And frankly, an airport that was designed for 50 million passengers with only 40% of them going through the terminal, is now dealing with 69 million passengers in 2019, 60% and more of whom are going through the terminal. We are over twice the design capacity. We have passengers over twice the design capacity of the gypsum terminal. It's simply a mess. If you were out there from 1995 until as I said last week, until 19 guys with box cutters changed our aviation world, you were out there in those opening years. You know what that terminal looked like. That's what it needs to be. Again, this gets us there. I'm comfortable with the with the contract now. And I wanted to thank Phil and his team for answering every question that council had on. I think it's been very transparent and I ask that that my colleagues support this contract. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Flynn. Councilmember Hines.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Council President. I have a few quick points. You know, after 26 years, any project needs some significant maintenance work. And other airports like JFK have $10 billion in bonds underway. We're lucky that Dennis is in there and is a smaller price tag as it is, particularly since we haven't done any major renovations in that time other than the four of Project and Ferrovial obviously started. They commenced their construction in an interesting spot and when they exited, it made it difficult for us to accomplish the project, particularly what we said to the people this obviously before my time, but what we said to the people we were going to do and that was, as Councilmember Friend mentioned, people with box cutters. We want to make sure that security is is maintained in our airport. And our airport was designed before those box cutter folks made us realize that we needed additional security in our airports around the world. We have already outgrown our airport. As Councilmember Flynn said, we're the third busiest airport in the world in 2021, and we need to make sure the airport is ready for that continued growth because we're just going to get busier. And I also want to make a note that the airport has its own bonding authority as an enterprise of the city. So I know constituents have reached out about why don't we use that bond money for housing or transportation. Well, I agree. We need more investment in housing and transportation. We can't do it with airport funds. The bonds for the airport can only be used for the airport. And then I just want to say the last thing, you know, we're removing a third party from the driver's seat and placing the airport there. So as Councilmember Flynn also mentioned, this is no longer a P3. This means that we have an opportunity for additional oversight and an opportunity to hold Denver employees as an DEN leadership directly accountable. And of course, we'll be watching for praise for success or, you know, should the project go off track, you know, the appropriate countermeasures. So thank you. I will be voting yes. Thank you, Charles President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Hines, County Council Member Sandoval.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. I have given a lot of thought to this contract. I think it will probably be one of the biggest contracts that I vote on during my time in office. I don't remember working for Councilwoman Montero or Espinosa and then being having the ability to vote on $1,000,000,000 contract. So I feel a lot of weight on my shoulders. And I thought about it and I contemplated this. And my predecessor. Councilman Espinosa, was a no vote on the contract because some of the things that Councilman Ortega had mentioned, the change orders, we there wasn't transparency in the contract. There is no way to bring the contract forward to fruition unless we got it done. And it was on a third party who wasn't located in the United States after giving it thought about what's best for Denver and what's best for our travelers. I think it's important for one thing is we can't just say we're adding four more years to this. I've been asking people in my district when when will that contract, when will the airport be done? And they all think it's going to be done in four years. I think it needs to be clear that this will not be done until 2028, 2029, because I don't think that the average person in Denver even knows that timeframe. So I think we need to do a better job again to talk about the extent of this contract and how long it will push it out. I like the analogy of the councilman telling me about reports I live in an auction and if I were just to update my kitchen and not update my friend to it would work very well. So I think that the whole entire airport can use an update. I was able to use Southwest and I will say it was a great experience. I had an awesome experience. That whole entire new little area is it's welcoming, it's great and it's like Denver needs. So with that, I'll be supporting it. Me? Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Sandoval. And I'll go ahead and round out the the comments here before we vote on it. Ben is in my council district, too, and it is such a massive economic engine not only for the region, but really for Denver residents who work out there. And comments that my colleagues have made. I'm right along with those in favor because we need to address the security. We need to look at ongoing remodeling and maintenance that we might need. And then we also need to look at the growth that we're seeing across the nation with other airports, and we need to stay competitive with that as well. And so I will be voting in favor of this contract tonight. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Resolutions 21, dash 15, 16, 15, 17, 15, 18 and 15, 19.
Speaker 3: CDEBACA No. Sawyer Now.
Speaker 0: Torres. I. Black.
Speaker 3: I. Clark.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 0: Flynn.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 0: Herndon.
Speaker 1: I. Hi, i.
Speaker 0: Cashmere.
Speaker 1: No.
Speaker 3: Can each I.
Speaker 0: Ortega, I. Sandoval, i. Madam President, I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. Three names.
Speaker 3: Ten eyes.
Speaker 0: Ten Eyes. Council Resolutions 21, 15, 16, 21, 15, 17, 21, 15, 18 and 21. 15, 19 have been adopted. Madam Secretary, please put the next item up for us. Councilmember Hines, go ahead with your comments on Council Resolutions 22, dash 0005.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a Second Amendment between the City and County of Denver and Hensel Phelps Construction Co. concerning the extension of construction management and general contracting services for the Great Hall Project at Denver International Airport.
Amends a contract with Hensel Phelps Construction Co. by adding $900 million for a new total of $1.265 billion and 1721 calendar days for a new end date of 12-31-28 to continue to provide Construction Management and General Contracting (CM/GC) services for the Great Hall Project completion at Denver International Airport (202161481; 202053359-02). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 1-18-22. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 12-15-21. Pursuant to Council Rule 3.7, Councilmember Ortega called this item out at the meeting on 1-3-22 for a one-week postponement to 1-10-22.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_01102022_22-0005
|
Speaker 0: Ten Eyes. Council Resolutions 21, 15, 16, 21, 15, 17, 21, 15, 18 and 21. 15, 19 have been adopted. Madam Secretary, please put the next item up for us. Councilmember Hines, go ahead with your comments on Council Resolutions 22, dash 0005.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Council president. This is a talking about the Broadway protected bike lane. I just. I know this is in my district. This is not in my district. I want to thank Councilmember Clark for for allowing me to call this out when I guess I have the purview to call it. But anyway, so I did want to to talk in favor of of this contract. I as as people know, I believe we all deserve the freedom to get from A to B safely, no matter how we choose to get there. And I'm excited that this early protected bike lane will soon receive permanent treatment. I know that Denver and Dottie specifically are working hard to install bike lanes quickly, and they're using a paint and post method that allows us to do that rapid implementation. It also allows us to test bike lane implementations before significant infrastructure infrastructure investment is wasted. In other words, we're making sure we get the curves and angles right. But the best protected bike lane has more permanent infrastructure in place, so it's creates stronger barriers between bikes and cars. It's better looking infrastructure that fits in with the look and feel of concrete curbs, concrete medians, etc., and fits better in our neighborhoods as well. It helps. It also helps cyclists feel safe that cars won't sneak into the bike lane, which they haven't, which happens all the time, or delivery vehicles or city vehicles or people dropping off passengers. Happens all the time. So finally, I recognize that the best infrastructure goes from people from where people are to where they want to go. So I think it's important that the Broadway protected bike lane continue north from the border of Lucky District seven into District ten. What might be called a perfect implementation is if it were to continue all the way through District ten northern border. Thank you. Council President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Hines. All right. That concludes the items to be called out this evening. We're going to go ahead and move on to our block vote. All bills for introduction are ordered published. Council members remember this is a consent or a block vote and you will need to vote I. Otherwise, this is your last chance to call out an item for a separate vote. Councilmember CdeBaca, will you please put the resolutions for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor?
Speaker 3: 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. 2114 5721 1501 2115 4722 1422 522 622 722 822 922 1021 1508 2115 3721 1539 2120 2116 one 1503.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. It has been moved. May I get a second? Thank you. Councilmember Hines. Madam Secretary, roll call. Black.
Speaker 3: I see tobacco. I.
Speaker 0: Clark.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 0: Flint.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 0: Herndon.
Speaker 1: By Hines. I.
Speaker 0: Carson.
Speaker 3: I can eat. I.
Speaker 0: Ortega. I. Stand over. I. Sawyer. I. Torres. I. Madam President, i. Madam Secretary, close voting and announce results. 13 eyes. 13 eyes. The resolutions have been adopted and the bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Fourth Amendatory Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. to Amend by adding compensation and a new end date to meet grant funding requirements, including additional coordination with CDOT, for enhanced bicycle design for the Broadway corridor in Council District 7.
Amends a contract with Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. by adding $89,940 for a new total of $1,960,871.89 and two years for a new end date of 6-30-23 to meet grant funding requirements, including additional coordination with CDOT, for a two-way enhanced bicycle facility concept design for the Broadway corridor in Council District 7 (201843805-04; DOTI-202161604-04). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 1-31-22. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 12-28-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_01102022_21-1372
|
Speaker 0: We're going to go ahead and move on to the next one. Councilmember say to Baca, will you please put council bill 20 1-1372 on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 3: Yes, I move that council bill 21 1370 to be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded the required public hearing for Council Bill 20 1-1372 is open and we have Libby Kizer joining us again for the staff report. Yes. Just a second to pull up the presentation. All right, great. Thanks, Libby. All right. Here we go on this one. It's a rezoning for 1200 Utah Street. It's an EDU, so should be much more straightforward than the previous rezoning. And this property is also in Council District five, represented by Council member Sawyer. And it's in the center of the Hill neighborhood. The property is located near Rose Medical Center, about one block north of Hill Parkway and one mile or one half mile east of Colorado Boulevard. It's approximately 6200 square feet and is currently occupied by a single unit dwelling. The properties in the urban single unit C Zone District and the applicant is proposing to rezone it to urban single unit C one to allow for an accessory dwelling unit. The U.S. one requires a minimum size of 5500 square feet and allows for the urban house and detached 82 building forms. The maximum height for a house is 30 to 35 feet and 24 feet for the detached adu. The existing property is on UCC and surrounding properties are zoned a variety of districts, including single unit, multi-unit, open space, campus and former Chapter 59. The land use in the area is predominantly single unit, with a mix of open space and hospital uses to the Southwest. The subject property is shown in the top photo on the right with other single storey dwellings to the north and west. The single unit dwelling exists across both Alvin 12th Avenue to the South with a two storey dwelling. To the east, alleys are prevalent, but garages are a mix of front and rear loaded and sidewalks are generally attached. Throughout the rezoning process, application notifications have been provided according to code requirements. To date, staff has received eight public comments, including one in support and seven opposed due to concerns regarding stormwater flooding and solar access. Most of those opposition comments came into today. To approve the rezoning, it must be found that the requested MAP amendment is consistent with five criteria found in the Denver zoning code. In regard to the first criteria, there are three adopted plans that apply it to this property, including the comp plan, 2048 Blueprint, Denver and the East Area Plan. Ousted in the staff report. The resigning is consistent with several goals in the current plan. A few of those goals relate to providing a mix of housing types and promoting infill development. The rezoning request is also consistent with Blueprint Denver. The subject property is mapped as part of the urban neighborhood context, which is described as containing small multi-unit, residential and low intensity mixed use buildings embedded in single unit and two unit residential areas with gridded blocks and alleys. In blueprints under the future. Places MAP designates the subject property as a low residential place type, which has predominantly single and two unit uses and its use are appropriate. Eudora Street and 12th Avenue are categorized as local or on designated streets, which are mostly characterized by residential uses. Blueprint. Denver directs growth to key centers, corridors and high density residential areas that align with transportation options, while limited growth is desired in all other areas of the city. Specifically at 10% of jobs and 20% of housing by 2040. The proposed MAP amendment is consistent with this growth area as it will facilitate additional housing opportunities. Blueprint also includes specific policy recommendations and housing policy four focuses on diversifying housing choice through the expansion of accessory dwelling units throughout all residential areas. The East Area Plan also supports A2. Use the A2 key policies to integrate them, to integrate them where they are appropriate. The subject property, located in a predominantly single unit neighborhood, is an appropriate location for an ADU, and the rezoning is consistent with the area plan. The rezoning is also consistent with criteria two, three and five. As stated in the staff report, in regard to criteria for a city adopted plan is the most applicable justifying circumstance for this rezoning. As mentioned previously, Blueprint recommends allowing A2 use throughout all residential areas. Therefore CPD recommends approval of this rezoning request. All right. Well, thank you very much, Libby, for the staff report tonight. Council has received eight written comments on Council Bill 20 1-1372. There are no submitted comments in favor of the application and eight submitted comments in opposition of the application. All members of Council that are present have certified that they've read each of the submitted written comments. Do any members need more time in order to read all the written testimony that was submitted? Right. See, no one raising their hand for that. I want to double check. COUNCILMEMBER So you're you're good with that? I'm okay. Wonderful. See? None. Council Secretary Let the record reflect that all written testimony both in favor and in opposition of Council Bill 20 1-137 to have been read by each member of council and all written testimony will be submitted to the official record of the hearing. We have one individual signed up to speak this evening. Jesse Paris, please go ahead.
Speaker 1: Yes, good evening. Members of council may be heard.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Yes. My name is Jesse with so cast member presented for Black Star maximum for self-defense of the Mexican Man for Social Change, as well as the Unity Party of Colorado and the East Denver Residents Council in Frontline Black News. And I will be the next my member in 2023. I'm in favor of this rezoning tonight. We have an affordability housing crisis in this town. So any time there's an opportunity to increase our health system, I'm in full support of like I was when I ran for city council at large in 2019. I'm still support of accessory dwelling units all over this town. I'm just concerned about the seven letters of opposition opposed to this 80 you. That is very concerning. But besides that, I am in support of this rezoning tonight. You said pass this. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. That concludes our speakers questions from members of Council on Council Bill 20 1-1372 Council Member Sawyer.
Speaker 3: I'm president. I promise I have less questions on this one than I did on the last one. I worry it's a lot.
Speaker 0: More.
Speaker 3: Straightforward for sure. But I do know that one of the things that we received in the form letter that was sent to us today was about whether or not the property owner resides on the property and so is the applicant here.
Speaker 0: We will look here ahead. Oh, there we go. We have Katie Buchanan, her hand raised. And so we'll move her over into the panelists. There we go. Katie, if you wouldn't mind, before you answer Councilwoman Sawyer's question, you introduce yourself for the public record, please.
Speaker 3: I can you. Can you see me?
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 3: Yes, I am Katie Buchanan, and I'm the owner of the property at 1200 Eudora Street. I've owned it since 1998. Great. Thank you so much and thanks for being here. So Denver has a requirement that the if you are applying for rezoning to add an 80 that you live on the property. So I'm asking not just whether you own it, but whether you live there. Well, I am not there all the time. You. No, but I am not renting. So so I'm not there all the time. But I am not going to. What I would like to do is have a part of the property be for me and then a full time like renter is what is what. My goal in all this is because I'm not there all the time. And so I would like someone else to be on the property when I'm not there. And not a short term. A long term. Okay, great. So when you say you're not there all the time, what does that mean? Well, I'm also in the mountains. I have a house in the mountains, too. And also, I, I but I vote in Denver and I have I get mail at the house. So I kind of go back and forth between both places. Okay. So we don't necessarily have anything specific in the Denver revised municipal code that require you know, that specifies what a, you know, what living on a property means. But there are some very specific requirements in our short term in our short term rental code in the piece. In the short term rental code. And it's not are you just the are you registered to vote it at this property? Yes. Is your car registered at this property? It is. Okay. So your driver's license says this driver's licenses, 1200 Eudora Street. I could show you. No, it's okay. I don't need to. I just those are the kinds of things that when you would apply for a short term rental, those are the kinds of things that the short term rental that expires and license would ask to ensure that you are a resident on this property. And since there's nothing like that anywhere else in the code, I guess I'm sort of asking those questions because that's the that's what you would that's the only place that really gives us any sort of direction on what quote unquote living in the property would be. So that's great. If you're, you know, if you're registered to vote at this address, if you are if you're a driver's licenses at this address, if your car is registered at the address, you know, if you have bills that are registered at this address, that would be, you know, essentially what the the city and county of Denver would look at to determine whether you live at this address or not. And that's why I was asking those questions. Okay. That's great. Thank you very much. Really appreciate that. Libby The other thing that was a little bit concerning that was brought up in the letter that we received today was regarding flood mitigation and wondering if you can just talk me through kind of the that the flood mitigation, whether that's looked at, how that's looked at and those kinds of things. Sure.
Speaker 0: So when we initially deemed this application.
Speaker 3: Complete, we sent it out to multiple referral agencies, as we always do.
Speaker 0: And the Wastewater Division of Development Services approved the rezoning, but did note the redevelopment of the site may require additional engineering, such as preparation of drainage reports, construction documents, erosion control plans, and that construction of water quality and retention basins may be required, as could public and private sanitary and storm sewer mains and other associated improvements. So what what that mitigation could look like will be determined through the residential permitting process. It's not something that consideration of would hold up the rezoning. Okay.
Speaker 3: Got it. So that is not something that we can look at in terms of the five criteria that we're required to look at as council members, when we are when we're looking at a rezoning.
Speaker 0: You know, you could consider it under a public health, safety and welfare, but it will be something still vetted through the residential permitting process.
Speaker 3: Okay. So when Mrs. Buchanan goes to actually file a permit, then that triggers the essentially site development review. And that's where that flooding issue, if there is one, would be considered correct.
Speaker 0: So they would determine how much impervious surface she's adding to the property and what that runoff might look like and where it's going and what improvements.
Speaker 3: Might be needed. Okay, great. Really appreciate that. Thank you. And then, Libby, this one last question for you. The third issue that was flagged in that letter was regarding the height of a potential ADU and blocking a neighbors ability to put solar panels on their roofs or something like that. So wondering just want to clarify, in this zoned district, what would the max height be for an ADU.
Speaker 0: For an 80 you? The max height is 24 feet tall and that's only allowed on the rear. 35% of these are marked, which is also then that structure is also subject to a minimum five foot setback in bulk lane require or bulk plan requirements that might further push the upper kind of upper height on the building back further from a property line in order to make sure that the neighbors maintain some solar access, none of that structure would infringe on the solar access.
Speaker 3: Of the primary.
Speaker 0: House to the north.
Speaker 3: Of this property. Okay. Got it. I think that is it for me. Thinks that I'm president. And thanks so much, Libby, for walking me through that.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Sawyer. Councilmember Black.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. I don't see an attorney in on this meeting, but I just wanted to clarify. You do not need to be a resident of your property in order to apply for the reason you need to be a resident of the property in order to build the EU. And applying for the zoning is different than applying for the building permit. So I just wanted to clarify that.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Black. And we have Nate Lucero in the attendees, if we can go ahead and have him moved over in case there's another question. But we'll make sure if Nate has any further clarification to your statement. Council Member Black. Go ahead, Nate. Did you hear the question or the clarification?
Speaker 1: Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. I did hear the question or clarification, and Councilwoman Black is correct. You don't necessarily have to. But I think what we're talking about our short term. Rentals to a certain extent. Right. And for those things, you do have to be the primary resident. But to put forward an application to rezone, you don't necessarily have to be the owner, but the application has to be authorized by the owner. And again, there you don't necessarily have to be the primary resident of that structure to apply for the rezoning.
Speaker 0: Thank you for the clarification. Yes. And can you go ahead and introduce yourself for the public record?
Speaker 1: Yes. I'm sorry. Nathan Lucero, assistant city attorney.
Speaker 0: All right. Great. Thank you. Councilmember Black. Or you could. Okay. Wonderful. All right. Councilmember Sandoval.
Speaker 3: Thanks, Madam President. Thanks, Libby, for the presentation. When rezonings were coming forward, especially when we got voted into office in 2012 and 2020, they were requiring to go through a site development plan simultaneously because in Denver we don't always have our minimum zone lights match our zone districts, our minimum zone districts. So we were trying to catch these ones that actually have entitlement but can't really build. Do you know if that's still the case that when CPD gets a rezoning application that you have the applicant possible through the site development process?
Speaker 0: That's a great question. And for commercial projects, we definitely recommend that they go through the site development plan process and begin with the concept plan review to ensure that their development is feasible under the district that they're requesting. But we're having conversations right now with our residential team to understand what their capacity is to review residential projects which don't go through like a full site development plan process, but rather go through a process to get a residential permit. And their project is evaluated after the zoning is obtained. And that's kind of a capacity issue. It's something that we're trying to work through and that we will consider moving forward as well. And then determining kind of what the limits are of the zoning versus the parcel are is important as well to make sure that the applicant has a clear.
Speaker 3: Picture as to what they're.
Speaker 0: Allowed. So we are working on some.
Speaker 3: Additional tools to make.
Speaker 0: Sure that they know what boxes to check, even if they can't get like a fully vetted plan from the city.
Speaker 3: Okay. So thank you for that. I do know that. Thank you for bringing up the 2.1 about the capacity and when acknowledging that commercial goes through it and not residential. I just want to go on the record and make sure that we talk about the importance of that and being able to bring up the importance of Councilwoman Sawyer's point that you have to have a short term rental or a ADU. You have to prove residency. So having that simple ADU checklist seems to be appropriate to help answer some of these questions. One other question on this rezoning. Is there an R.A. that I miss.
Speaker 0: That there is an R.A., but they don't take a position on rezonings? The applicant did reach out to. Mr.. Hill Mayfair.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Well, you doors the you doors, the Bellevue Hale is on one side of Eudora and Mayfair neighbors is on the other side. Okay. And one other question to you, Kathy. Have you talked to your neighbors about this? Because you have to put up a sign. So it's pretty public process and mailers going out. Yeah, I mean, that all happened. And yes, you talk to me about that public process on your end and what you talk to about your neighbors. And did you get questions about solar panels and things of that nature? No, I got no solar panels. The house next door to me is a has been a rental since like. Early 2000, and it's a person from California and they don't do anything to the house. They've never. They don't even come out to see it. So. No. So I didn't get the questions from them. But 12 Avenue is obviously is where everybody walks and has their babies and the strollers are going back and forth. So I'm sure many people saw it. I actually had calls from people who asked what the process was like. And they said, Well, I'm thinking of doing it, or how did you do it? Or What's it take? I did get it. And do you have an alley? Do I have a sari away and an alley in the backyard? Alley, huh? Okay. Did you talk to the do you know the people who you share the alley with on the other side? Did you talk to them? Because oftentimes construction with accessory dwelling, it happened in the back. The various portions of the alleys slows down. What did they think about this zone change? You know, I have not talked to him. He's a doctor. He's an emergency room doctor. And he he's not home very often. He's divorced also anyway. And so I don't he's he kind of just goes in and out when he's not working. And I didn't know who he is. The thing is, is that I had the street there also on 12th Avenue and a detached garage there. So I obviously I'll get advice, but it might end up being along there because of the detached garage rather than in the alley. Yeah. So thank you for that. It's important to know and we do give it provide entitlements like we're voting on now. It doesn't mean you build it, but the community process and being able to go to your neighbors and make notes for neighbors. The community process is important and that's why we do those notifications is because you are changing the language and the entitlement on your property. Well, thank you, Madam President. That's a.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Sandoval. We've got Councilmember Ortega. Yeah. Just a couple of quick questions. So first of all, the size of the lot was that 5500 square feet? Is that correct?
Speaker 3: I think it's 62.
Speaker 0: Okay. Mr.. Read something wrong when I was looking at the report. And then I did want to ask Libby a quick question. Libby, if you can join on. So have you all experienced people who have gone through the ADU process where the lots are very small, and then when they get into actually going through the design review process, they can't actually build because. Of setbacks and just not being able to squeeze a lot and squeeze a structure on that lot where there's already an existing housing unit. It's always a concern of ours. But those kinds of issues we try to vet in the pre-application meeting. So we look at the size of their law. We look at the zoning that they're requesting and what the minimum lot size is and what the setbacks might be. And so we we try our best to inform them of the constraints that will influence the final outcome. But and if they choose to go through with it, they can still go through, even though you might be advising them there will be some serious challenges. Right. Like they might not be able to maximize the footprint based on the setbacks and the law coverage, maximum requirements and whatnot. So we do our best to try to to give them a heads up as to what that final design process looks like. Okay. Thank you for that. And just a brief comment so that I don't have to make any comments during the comment session. The early access for neighbors who will be impacted by the alley being closed when materials are being dropped off when. I've had a. Then maybe you build across the street from my across the alley from my garage. And there were many times I couldn't get out. I've had a couple of flat tires from nails in the alley. So having. Assuming this goes through, having your contractor and you have a conversation with your neighbors that will be impacted will be really important. So that's it. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Councilmember Ortega. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 20 1-1372 Council Member Sawyer.
Speaker 3: It's been a president. You know, I appreciated the opportunity to ask through some of the questions that were raised by the community. But this is clearly consistent with adopted plans, 80 years or something that we talked about over and over and over again during the East Area plan process. And it's something that is, you know, a thoughtful way to to introduce gentle density into the area and provide more affordable housing. And so for all of those reasons, I agree that this is consistent with adopted plans and I'll be supporting it tonight. Thanks.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Sawyer and I agree as well that it meets all of the rezoning criteria and we'll be supporting it. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 21, Dash 1372, please. Sawyer I. Torres I. Like I. CdeBaca, I. Clark.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 0: Flynn.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 0: Herndon.
Speaker 1: I. Hines i.
Speaker 0: Cashman.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 0: Ortega. Sandoval. Hi, Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. 12 eyes. 12 eyes. Council Bill 20 1-1372 has passed. Thank you to the community members and the applicant who joined us. And Libby, I guess you're done tonight.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 1200 Eudora Street in Hale.
Approves a map amendment to rezone property from U-SU-C to U-SU-C1 (allows for an accessory dwelling unit), located at 1200 Eudora Street in Council District 5. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 11-16-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_01102022_21-1432
|
Speaker 0: Ortega. Sandoval. Hi, Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. 12 eyes. 12 eyes. Council Bill 20 1-1372 has passed. Thank you to the community members and the applicant who joined us. And Libby, I guess you're done tonight. So thank you for being here. On those previous two, Libby. Council members say to Barker, Will you please put Council Bill 20 1-1, four, three, two on the floor for final consideration.
Speaker 3: Yes, I move that council bill 21 1430 to be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved. And we've got the second from Councilman Hines. The required public hearing for Council Bill 21, dash 1432 is open. May we please have the staff report? And we have Brandon Shaver here. And she has concerns with.
Speaker 3: This.
Speaker 1: Most definitely council president. Thank you and good evening, members of city council. I'm Brian Shaver, senior city planner presenting at Fish the application for 41, 51 or Fillmore Street. The request here is to go from SUV to new are 2.5. This request is in District nine, represented by Councilwoman CdeBaca and is in the other Swansea, a neighborhood. This request is on Fillmore Street between East 41st and East 42nd Avenues. It's just under 9000 square feet. Land area currently occupied by a single unit residential use. This rezoning is sponsored by the councilwoman and would allow for a variety of residential building forms at a maximum building have 30 to 35 feet and the property owner here would like to rezone and redevelop the property with three affordable homes for sale. Existing zoning again is suv etches urban edge neighborhood contacts single unit lot size mostly SUV in this neighborhood, as well as some light industrial and some industrial mixed use. Again, civilian residential uses are predominant in this part of the neighborhood. There is some two unit residential, some industrial and some vacant let some vacant land uses as well. These pictures give you a little bit of a snapshot of what's going on in the neighborhood with the subject property on the top right, which has been demolished in the last few weeks to accommodate new development. The information as of this application was out in early August and it was moved forward on a unanimous vote by planning board on November 17th. And today, staff has not received any letters from Arnault's or the public moving to our reasoning criteria. There are three plans that impact the subject property, beginning with Plan 2040. You can see here that this request is consistent with the number of the strategies and goals which are organized by vision element. They speak to creating a greater mix of housing options, ensuring a mix of housing types and services for diverse populations, and promoting infill development where infrastructure and services are already in place. Moving to Blueprint Denver This is mapped as part of the urban neighborhood context and a low residential neighborhood place type where we see predominantly single into unit uses with some higher intensity residential uses mixed throughout both of the streets. 42nd Avenue and Fillmore Street are local streets, and this fits into our all other areas of the city growth area strategy, where we expect 10% of new jobs and 20% of new housing by the year 2040. This request is also consistent with a couple additional strategies and Blueprint Denver that also speak to diversifying housing options and integrating missing mental housing, especially into our low and low median residential areas that score low in housing diversity. As this request is and Nest neighborhood CPD has now taken the stance of doing equity analysis for even smaller parcels that are in neighborhoods that are vulnerable to displacement. So the first equity concept here is access to opportunity. The site scores average has lower access to health care and low access to a full service grocery store. Staff feels that this rezoning could possibly increase the number of residential units and therefore the likelihood of those services and amenities that are lacking to locate in this area. This does score more vulnerable based on all of our metrics for vulnerability to displacement, as there are lower median household incomes, higher percentage of renters and lower educational attainment. Staff feels that expanding housing opportunities, especially ownership opportunities, could provide wealth building tools and an opportunity for residents to stay in place for housing opportunities. The site scores have moderate diversity. There's less missing middle housing, and housing costs are not very diverse. Again, Staff feels that for introducing a new housing type could result in smaller and lower cost housing options and decrease that equity gap. And then lastly, for jobs diversity, this area does score more towards innovation. Jobs and staff feels that this rezoning would have a limited to no impact on the job diversity metric. Moving to the neighborhood plan from 2015, a lot of these strategies and recommendations are similar to what you see in Blueprint encourages a mixture of housing types , expanding the number of residences, also allowing for moderate increases in density, and also upgrading the neighborhood context from urban edge to urban. This better reflects the use of alleys could help limit or prevent curb cuts in the future and continue detached sidewalks where possible. And then looking at the land use map for the neighborhood plan, this is map to a single family duplex. And while it's called single family duplex, the plan actually expands and speaks to this categorization of single family duplex, also including rowhouses, townhomes and small apartment buildings consistent with the rezoning request. And you can see the maximum building heights map for this area is two and a half stories. Also consistent with the are 2.5. The next two criteria are also consistent. This will result in the University of District regulations and for the public health, safety and welfare through a number of factors including adopt implementing adaptive plans and providing additional housing in a neighborhood that has lost a number of units due to I-70 reconstruction and increasing safety by having more eyes on the street as this property was quite dilapidated and has that vacant for a number of years for justifying circumstances there to change conditions that justify this rezoning, the first being change or changing conditions. And a particular area in this case, I just spoke to the I-70 reconstruction. We also there's a number of construction projects occurring at the National Western Center and then also city adopted plan. Both the neighborhood plan and Blueprint Denver were adopted since this property was last free zone in 2010 and speaks to increasing that housing diversity and preventing missing middle housing. Lastly, it's consistent with the neighborhood context of urban design, district purpose and intent statements which you can find in greater detail in the staff report. That concludes my presentation, and CPD recommends that approval based on training of the review criteria have been met. I'm happy to answer any questions.
Speaker 0: All right, great. Thank you for the presentation, Brandon. And tonight, counsel has not received any written testimony on Council Bill 20 1-1, four, three, two. We have four individuals signed up to speak this evening, and so we're going to go ahead and move to those individuals, our first speaker. And just a reminder to folks, please introduce yourself. Please introduce yourself and provide us your name and your address or city of residence if you feel comfortable doing so. And our first speaker is Jeff Martinez.
Speaker 1: Good evening, Madam President and members of city council. I'm Jeff Martinez, president of Brothers Redevelopment. And I live at 1650 Olive Street in Denver and it's my pleasure tonight with a great assist from councilwoman say the bucket to submit for your consideration this rezoning request for 4151 Fillmore Street brothers two brothers redevelopment is acquired this site on behalf of global area Swansea Affordable Housing Collaborative, which includes the global areas wants it coalition, Carter Community Land Trust and Habitat for Humanity, Metro Denver with the sole goal of developing a triplex on site to add three new affordable units that will be sold to residents of these hard working and proud neighborhoods who are at risk of displacement due to gentrification caused by the redevelopment of Central 70 and other. Nearby development is putting severe economic pressure on land in real estate in the area and has been doing so for quite a while. When sold to residents, the units will be placed into the GEOS Community Land Trust, which is owned solely by the neighbors of the area now, and that's now known as Dear Collective to be kept in perpetual affordability for a 99 year term. Our efforts to date have received substantial public and philanthropic investment both the city and county of Denver and the Department of Transportation, with granted $2 million each to this vision, which has seen us now acquire a handful of sites to place five new homes into the hands of DC residents. It has us on the cusp of developing 5 to 10 new units in the next year, which we're very excited about, including those we're discussing tonight. 4151 Fillmore. The effort has also received substantial financial support from the current Health Foundation. The initiative proves that we can preserve affordability while centering the interests of DC residents that face decades of environmental injustice and economic disparities. It also, as brand and shared, replaces units that were lost due to the seven Central Seven Reconstruction. So with that, just pleased to be able to submit this for your consideration the city.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Jesse Paris.
Speaker 1: Yes. Good evening. Members of council may be heard. Yes. Yes. My name is Jesse with some Paris and I'm represented for Black Star Action, one for self defense, positive action camera for Social Change, as well as the Unity Party of Colorado, the East Denver Residents Council and Frontline Black Hills. And I'll be the next term Denver in 2023. Initially I was against this rezoning because I thought it was going to be more gentrification as usual. But upon hearing the previous speaker, I am in full support of this reasoning tonight. I support the gas community and in the Senate they're on board with this. I have no choice but to support this. And I'm seeing that this is going to be under the community land trust. That is also a plus and is going to be affordable for 99 years. I just have a question. Is this going to be for sale or for rents? How soon? As someone can answer that question, I would really appreciate it. Thank you. And have a blessed night.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Nolan McDowell.
Speaker 3: The evening. Members of Council. Happy New Year. I'm here in support of the U. rh2 point five zoning. I am the co-director of the Global Irresponsible Coalition and I live in Denver at 4930 Lahore Street. We found this lot and it's a larger lot. It's about 9000 square feet. And so we were excited that we could use the same model that we've been using for duplexes, but be able to expand it one more unit. This was a vacant and derelict home. I remember when I was a council aide in about 2013. I remember getting a call about this house and all the families of raccoons that were living there. But it has been a safety hazard or to surrounding neighborhoods for at least ten years. As far as I know, this home has been purchased as part of the global response community land trust effort called Events of Substance and the Collective. It is a community directed community land trust working to prevent displacement of neighbors and globally response year. We have been building out that pipeline for neighbors to prepare to purchase these homes. These homes are for sale homes. They will be numbers 11, 12 and 13 and the community land trust if this passes and our three bedroom, three bath homes sold for $185,000 to families at around 50 to 70%. AMI most of these families are intergenerational families. Many have several children. As you saw brothers be development is currently the owner of the land and when the homeowners purchased the the home then the land goes into the community land trust, which is currently being incubated by Habitat for Humanity and the Colorado Community Land Trust. In the long term, they will be stewarded in perpetuity by the GC residents who will collectively on this land. This land not only one time contributes to the community and the community efforts, but it will contribute now and then ongoing throughout its life. We will we are looking at a modular developer for the site and we've also done a significant amount of community outreach in addition to our board being entirely community members, 19 community members of the globally responsible neighborhoods, we make a big effort to fire just directly around the unit. So we've done three different sets of wiring around that neighborhood to talk to. People have actually been able to qualify. One of the people that live across the alleyway who is she's currently living with her two kids, with her parents, and she was able to qualify to be able to move in to one of the homes potentially . Just across the alleyway so she can be close to her family. We're all overall just super thankful to customers that are back to Brandon for all your support.
Speaker 0: That's the time we have a lot of. Thank you, Noah. Next up, we have Alfonzo Spinner.
Speaker 1: It's the council. Can you hear me?
Speaker 0: Mm hmm. Go ahead.
Speaker 1: Hello. My name is Alfonso Espino. I live at 4716 Gaylord here in Denver. And Luis wants you. I'm also a community organizer with the Jazz Coalition, so of course, I'm here in support of this recent change on Fillmore Street. Not only will it add affordable housing for sale units to our community, which are desperately needed, but they're at a level that are also appropriate for the neighbors, as you just heard from Ella. And I just want to reiterate that support and these are the type of projects that city council, the city of Denver should be looking towards as examples of ways to fill in the gap for communities that look like ours. And over I'm just proud of the work that has been done by the local people and everyone involved with it. And thank you for those that spoke in support of it tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. That concludes our speakers this evening. And I want to see if there's any questions from members of Council on Council. Bill 21. Dash 1432. Councilmember Ortega. Thank you, Madam President. Oh, sorry. There we go. Sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't. When I hit my button. Oh. So my only question and I'm not sure. If it's for Lola or for Jeff. But actually it would probably be for whoever is marketing the units when after they're constructed. Who who is doing the like homeownership counseling to try to find the families and counsel them so that as they are getting into a home ownership situation there, they know what all their responsibilities are. I mean, because it's completely different than being a renter where you have a landlord that has to come and fix things when they break down. Obviously, you would want to make sure that you know the. What's the word I'm looking for, you know, when you purchase something brand new. The warranties are in place. But when the warranties expire as a homeowner, you then become responsible. So I don't know who wants to address that. All right. Well, we have both Jeff and Nolan in the queue, so it just asks for you to reintroduce yourself for the public record. Nolan, do you want to go ahead and start?
Speaker 3: Sure, I can start. No, let me go with the GSA coalition, and thanks for the question. Councilman Ortega. So, yes, we require all of our homeowners to take the toughest 35% of homeowners course. So that's offered by lots of different organizations throughout the city. We've done the ones against Spanish in the neighborhood with Del Norte, for instance, Brothers offers them in English and in Spanish and on Saturdays, which works out for a lot of people. So we kind of just whatever works for the homeowner, you know, their timing and now they're all in line, of course. So.
Speaker 0: So that's good to know. I didn't realize that that was a requirement, but that is extremely beneficial for anybody buying housing in the city of Denver to go through that process, because it it just helps you understand all of the nuances of becoming a homeowner. So thank you for answering that question. I think that's all I have. So thank you. You covered all the questions in your presentation about what sort of appreciate it. All right. Wonderful. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. And to the community members who testified during the public hearing as well. The public hearing is closed. Comments from members of Council on Council Bill 21, Dash 1432. Councilwoman CdeBaca.
Speaker 3: Thank you. As mentioned by some of the speakers tonight, this is a truly grass led community effort and the real culmination of a series of events that have harmed our community and now is our opportunity to undo some of.
Speaker 0: That harm created. And so I'm proud to have played.
Speaker 3: A role in this, and I invite all of you all to support this tonight. There are no other projects that we've ever had in front of us that guarantee the depth of affordability for the length of time guaranteed by the Gasland trust. And they are never, ever community stewards stewarded like this one is. And so this is a really unique opportunity for us to see what it looks like when a community is calling the shots. So please, I invite you all to support tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilwoman CdeBaca. Councilwoman Sandoval. Oh, I think we might still I think we might have trouble with your audio. Again? Oh, no. Do you want to go ahead and. Well, if you want to bounce back off, we've got Councilman Flynn in front of you here. I don't know what else to help advise you with it. Councilman Flynn, go ahead with your comments, please.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. I raised my hand because I saw that Councilwoman Sandoval's having audio problems, so I thought I'd vamp for about 3 minutes on this just to give her a chance to come back in. But as I was listening to Councilman CdeBaca, I just wanted to thank her for hosting me on a tour of her district a couple of months ago. And this was one of the sites that we went by. And I believe this is just a culmination, councilwoman, of that effort that you described to me.
Speaker 3: Yes, this is thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. And so I'm very happy to support this and obviously meets all the criteria. And thank you, Councilwoman, for giving me that street level. Look at the issues in your district.
Speaker 3: Thank you for coming. And the tour is available to anyone else who wants it.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Up next, we've got Councilmember Sandoval. We've got you back in the queue.
Speaker 3: Can you hear me now? Understand that. Thank you. So I would just like to ask my colleagues support for this as well. I had the privilege and the opportunity to work on the plan with Nolan Miguel as council aids in District nine and to be able to sit here tonight and ask for your support for this is the work that has been being built in that community for a very long time. And thank you for your being so steadfast in your dedication and your vision and being a visionary in this area and figuring out how to get this done. So I would ask all of you to please support this. It's important to support a plan that was adopted in 2015 and all of the other adopted plans that are called out in this application. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Council Member Sandoval. Councilmember Ortega. Okay. Thank you, Madam President. I just wanted to add my support for the application as well. I know that BRE and Habitat have played a really important role in working with the residents of the community and with Chiara collectively in identifying properties and looking at how to utilize the money that both the city and C that have made available. A lot of that was focused on trying to ensure there were resources to help replace some of the housing stock that was lost in these neighborhoods as a result of I-70. And this is doing exactly what it was supposed to do. And so I'm in full support of this application. Thank you. Wonderful. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. And happy to support this rezoning tonight as well. Appreciate the community and other council members comments and invite my colleagues to support it as well. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 21, DASH one, four, three, two. See the market.
Speaker 3: I click.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 0: Flynn.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Herndon i. Hunt I. Cashmere i.
Speaker 0: Ortega. All right.
Speaker 3: Sandoval, I.
Speaker 0: Player.
Speaker 3: Hi.
Speaker 0: Friends. I.
Speaker 3: What I.
Speaker 0: Madam President, I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced results for Vice 12 Eyes Council Bill 20 1-1432 has passed. Our pre adjournment announcement on Monday, February 7th, 2022. Council will hold the required public hearing on Council Bill 20 1-1437 Changing the zoning classification for 901 North Kearny Street in Montclair, a required public hearing on Council Bill
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 4151 North Fillmore Street in Elyria Swansea.
Approves a map amendment to rezone property from E-SU-B to U-RH-2.5 (single unit to row house), located at 4151 North Fillmore Street in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 11-30-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_01032022_22-0025
|
Speaker 2: Thank you, sir. All right. Well, thank you, Counsel Pro Tem Torres, for sponsoring that very important proclamation. And we've got a second proclamation. Council Member Sawyer, will you please read Proclamation 20 2-0025, please?
Speaker 3: Absolutely. Thank you, Madam President. Proclamation 20 2-0025 Recognizing January as Denver Blood Donor Month, recognizing vitalant for its lifesaving work and announcing the 2022 Southeast Denver blood placement, platelet and plasma donation drive. Whereas the need for volunteer blood, platelet and plasma donations is constant to meet everyday patient needs for traumas, surgeries, cancer treatments and more. And. Whereas, Vitalant, the nation's largest independent nonprofit blood service provider, is exclusively focused on providing lifesaving blood and comprehensive transfusion medicine services for about 900 hospitals and their patients across the U.S.. And. WHEREAS, millions of people in communities throughout the country depend on generous volunteer blood donors and by talents dedicated team to make sure lifesaving blood is available when and where it is needed. And. Whereas, each year in the U.S., approximately 735,000 volunteer donors give about 1.4 million blood 344,000 platelet and 180,000 plasma donations, which are processed into more than 2.1 million blood components for patients in need. And. Whereas, currently, all blood types are needed, especially type O blood donations, type O-negative. Blood is the universal blood type. Er, doctors reach for it first to help stabilize patients before their blood type is known. And. Whereas, blood donations come solely from generous volunteer donors and cannot be replicated in a lab. And. Whereas, the majority of the population is eligible to donate, but only about 3% actually do. And. WHEREAS, the month of January is recognized as National Blood Donor Month and a time to encourage and recognize volunteer blood donors. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the city, by the Council of the City and County of Denver, Section one, that the Council of the City and County of Denver hereby recognizes by talent for its lifesaving work. Section two that the Denver City Council shares in the efforts to raise awareness about ongoing need and hereby joins in the national celebration by proclaiming January 2022 as Denver Blood Donor Month in Section three that the clerk of the city and county of Denver shall affixed the seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation, and then a copy be transmitted to by talent.
Speaker 2: Thank you to Councilmember Sawyer. Your motion to adopt.
Speaker 3: Hang on. I got to pull my script back up here. I move the proclamation 22 zero 0 to 5 be adopted.
Speaker 2: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Comments by members of Council. Councilmember Sawyer.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. We're proud to have a tenants main Colorado campus located in District five, just north of Lowry's Great Lawn, and will be hosting the second annual Southeast. Denver Gives Blood Drive this month. I also want to give a huge shout out to the residents who've already pledged to donate over the next month. I'm sure, as you can hear in my voice, I've got COVID and I'm looking forward to donating myself so that I can donate some convalescent plasma as well. Our goal is to reach 75 donations by January 31st, which would save approximately 225 lives. And if that alone doesn't convince people to participate. Each blood donation is checked for COVID antibodies. So consider it a free antibody test as well. The need for blood has continued for childbirth, cancer treatments, essential medical procedures, traumas, and also everyday emergencies. But as I said in the proclamation, donors of all blood types are needed, but especially those with type O and because convalescent plasma type O is the most in-demand blood type helping patients that are facing life threatening conditions and emergencies every day. O-negative can be transfused to anyone, and O-positive is also especially needed because it is the most transfused blood type. COVID plasma, also known as convalescent plasma, is collected from those who are recovering from COVID 19 and contains antibodies that can be used to treat patients with active and severe COVID 19 cases, which gives them an extra boost to fight the illness. So even those who haven't been diagnosed with COVID can help because when donors give blood or platelets, they're informed of their antibody status. And if positive by talent produces that convalescent plasma donation, there are a lot of people out there who don't even know that they had COVID because there are so many asymptomatic cases. So just want to give a shout out to everyone. Thank you again. If you have already signed up to donate, you can schedule an appointment at by talent dot org or you can call 87725 vital vital l8772584825. And you can email our council office at Denver Council five at Denver golf dot org for more information and look on our social for the blood drive pledge link. So that's it. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilmember Sawyer. Next up, we have Councilmember Herndon.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. I want to thank Councilwoman Sawyer for.
Speaker 7: Bringing forward this proclamation.
Speaker 4: I try to give blood regularly. I gave blood today at Children's Hospital because it's something that we should be doing and we should never have a shortage of blood because most people are eligible to donate. And I was in at 1230 and I was out about an hour later. And so I want to encourage everybody to do that. I had conversations with the District 18 today about possibly doing something in northeast Denver because it is something that I care passionately about. So thank you, Councilman Sawyer, Councilman Sawyer, for doing this. And I would encourage all those to do it in and out. And it literally saves lives. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilmember Herndon, and happy to support this important proclamation tonight as well. Madam Secretary, roll call. Sawyer.
Speaker 3: I see tobacco. I.
Speaker 1: Clarke.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 1: Flynn.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 2: Herndon, i. I. Cashman. Ortega. I. Sandoval.
Speaker 1: I. Torres. I. Madam President.
Speaker 2: I. Madam Secretary closed the voting and announced the results. 11 911 IES Proclamation 20 2-0 0 to 5 has been adopted. Council member Sawyer will start the five minute timer and I believe we've got two individuals who are joining us online, Brook Way and or Brittany Calvert for the acceptance.
Speaker 3: Hi. Yeah. Why don't you go ahead? Thank you. Yeah. Sorry. Thank you so much for having my talent join you tonight. We are very honored to have this proclamation and have National Blood Donor Month recognized in Colorado and specifically in Denver. We just came out of our holiday season and that's one of the most difficult times for us. People are spending time with their families. They're traveling, donating blood is not at the top of their minds, however. And that's why we want people to remember donating blood throughout the year and in January for National Blood Donor Month. So thank you so much to Councilwoman Sawyer for supporting this and hosting this blood drive all month long in District five. And thank you to Chris for also donating today. It's so lovely to hear that. And we really appreciate regular donors. And if anyone hasn't donated, please give it a try. It's very easy, like Chris said. But we are still seeing the impact of COVID 19, and we've had to cancel hundreds of blood drives this year alone and and in 2022 because of COVID 19. And we're trying to make up for those lost blood drives, meaning thousands of uncollected units to help patients who really depend on transfusions for so many different reasons. Cancer patients need platelets, and there are so many other patients who need all types of blood. So we're really, really honored to be joining you this evening. And we want to make sure that, you know how grateful we are for your support. It's community partners like you that really remind our Colorado community to head to a donation center, blood drive and give back. Because every 2 seconds someone needs blood and there's no substitute for it. So I don't have five missions to talk about, but we really appreciate everything you guys do. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much. And we missed you introducing yourself at the beginning of your comments, if you wouldn't mind introducing yourself for the public record.
Speaker 3: Yes. I'm Rick Way. I'm the communications manager at my time.
Speaker 2: Very good. Thank you. And thank you for the work that you do. And to Councilmember Sawyer for sponsoring this proclamation. All right. We're going to go ahead and move on in the agenda. Madam Secretary, would you please read the bills for introduction.
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation recognizing January as Denver Blood Donor Month, recognizing Vitalant for its Lifesaving Work, and announcing the 2022 Southeast Denver Blood, Platelet & Plasma Donation Drive.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_01032022_21-1516
|
Speaker 2: No items have been called out under bills for final consideration. Councilmember Flynn has called out Bill 21, Dash 1493 for a vote under pending. No items have been called out. Madam Secretary, please put the first item on our screen. Thank you, Councilmember Ortega. Go ahead with your comments on resolutions 21, Dash 15, 16, 15, 17, 15, 18 and 15, 19, please. Thank you. Madam President, pursuant to Council Rule 3.7, I'm calling these resolutions out to postpone consideration until Monday, January ten. Over the last couple of weeks, I've had the opportunity to speak with our Bonn Council for the airport, as well as our legal advisor. And I want to thank Phil Washington, Crystal de Herrera and Mike Shanahan for their help and assistance in getting these meetings set up. You all received a copy of the questions that I asked in the answers that they provided in writing. I know some of you still had additional questions, and rather than debating all of that on the floor tonight, I thought it made sense for you all to have the opportunity to get your questions answered between now and next Monday so that when we bring it back, hopefully we have the votes to move it forward. I am very comfortable with the financial status of where we are. If you take into account the fact that we made it through a pandemic and never had to dip into our 500 plus days of cash that are on hand, and I kept looking for that unanticipated situation that might occur in the future and really feel comfortable that our team has done an amazing job in looking out for the fiscal health of our airport and making sure that we can not only do this, but still have those reserves that are needed to be able to move us forward to allow any of the future capital projects to be done, as well as the financing that is going to come forward this year. If you recall, in 2021, we did some interim restructuring of some of our financing and that will come back as permanent financing in 2022. So with all of that, we're still able to keep our cost per employment in in the middle of the range compared to all of the other airports and really believe that that's in large part to our consultants and our amazing staff that we have at the airport who constantly are looking out for the financial well-being of our airport. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Ortega. And as a quick reminder to folks in chambers and the public listening, our Rule 3.7 doesn't require a motion. Any councilmember can make that request of a resolution and pull it off the agenda for one week. We're going to go ahead and move on to Councilmember Flynn for comments.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Madam President. I join Councilwoman Ortega in.
Speaker 4: Making that request as well. So thank you, Councilwoman. I have had the benefit of a lot of briefings and information and data.
Speaker 7: And discussion.
Speaker 4: With the DIA team, and I really appreciate it. As I've said before.
Speaker 7: This is a this.
Speaker 4: Has been a difficult and troubled.
Speaker 7: Project. I compared it.
Speaker 4: At committee to we've gone in.
Speaker 7: And we've decided to remodel our kitchen and we find out halfway through, we're making mistakes.
Speaker 4: We need plumbing moved, we need whatever. We can't just stop in the middle. This is a project that needs to be finished and it needs to be finished the right way. It looks like the scope of this project is the right way. I want to remind folks who might be watching and folks here in the chambers that this is no longer the great mall project.
Speaker 7: That it was under the P3.
Speaker 4: We're not turning the gypsum terminal into a shopping center, but this is making the airport. The kind of airport we would have designed in the eighties and nineties when we conceived it. If we had known that 19 guys with box cutters were going to change the aviation industry. So this rearrangement and relocation of security is something I think this body has spoken pretty clearly needs to be done completely. This phase three would do that. The heartburn that a lot of us are having is simply with the price tag.
Speaker 7: And I just have a few more things that I.
Speaker 4: Need to.
Speaker 7: Understand.
Speaker 4: A little better. I see Mike back there and Crystal, thank you. You'll be hearing from.
Speaker 7: From us during the.
Speaker 4: Week. And so. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 7: I look forward to a final vote on this next week.
Speaker 2: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Flynn. And as a reminder, Council Resolutions 21, 15, 16, 15, 17, 15, 18 and 15, 19 will be back before Council for consideration on Monday, January ten. Madam Secretary, would you please put the next item on our screen? Councilmember Ortega You can go ahead with your questions on item 21, Dash 1523. Thanks, Madam President. This is a contract for our I.T. department. It's basically for our I.T. leadership team providing some technical and professional. It says programs.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a Second Amendment between the City and County of Denver and Hensel Phelps Construction Co. concerning the extension of construction management and general contracting services for the Great Hall Project at Denver International Airport.
Amends a contract with Hensel Phelps Construction Co. by adding $900 million for a new total of $1.265 billion and 1721 calendar days for a new end date of 12-31-28 to continue to provide Construction Management and General Contracting (CM/GC) services for the Great Hall Project completion at Denver International Airport (202161481; 202053359-02). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 1-18-22. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 12-15-21. Pursuant to Council Rule 3.7, Councilmember Ortega called this item out at the meeting on 1-3-22 for a one-week postponement to 1-10-22.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_01032022_21-1532
|
Speaker 2: Councilmember Ortega You can go ahead with your questions on item 21, Dash 1523. Thanks, Madam President. This is a contract for our I.T. department. It's basically for our I.T. leadership team providing some technical and professional. It says programs. I'm not sure what that really entails. This is when I did not have an opportunity to reach out to the agency to get information about. But I'm asking Sky if you can have someone from our I.T. department to get back to me. I went back and looked at our budget for 2022 and there are at least seven. Administrative or leadership positions in both the operations and application section as well as the Chief Information Officers. Category in the budget, and it includes a network engineer, a senior database adviser, an I.T. director, LT administrator, a lead I.T. tech and I.T. systems architect. So with all of that expertize, I'm just questioning why we need an additional outside entity to assist us in, I guess, looking at some of the needs. I know that one of our biggest challenges that we have in our city is some of the breaches, I guess is the word I'll use. There are multiple attempts on a regular basis of people trying to hack our system. And, you know, the fact that we have so many different platforms that. Basically many of our different agencies rely upon. We've become a. A world, actually, where we're dependent on technology to help us get our day to day business done. I can remember being the council president when we were just launching our connection to the Internet, where council members were starting to get set up with Internet so we could start interfacing with our constituents in that way. And that's pretty much how we all communicate these days. Very rarely do you see an actual letter being sent because most of the communication is so much quicker and easier to be done via email. But I guess I just don't really understand the the need for this particular contract. And I'm going to abstain until I can get the information from our I.T. department and make sure that I have that that comfort level with it moving forward. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Councilmember Ortega, did you have any questions that you wanted to pose to anyone from an agency this evening? I don't know that we have anybody from our I.T. department here. I see Skye Stuart is here and I apologize. I was so focused on the airport stuff, I didn't have a chance to really look at this one. No worries. And this guy is coming up. I want to just correct. I believe I had said it was 13 or 15, 23 and it's actually 1532. And I just wanted to correct that for the record. But go ahead and introduce yourselves, guys.
Speaker 3: Sure. Guys, start from the mayor's office and certainly.
Speaker 1: I'll defer, of course, Spinnaker or Joe.
Speaker 3: Separate or online. I know they're not here tonight.
Speaker 1: But somebody might be online but happy to have them.
Speaker 3: Get back to you, Councilman, the very basics of this is that this is an organization, it's a technology research organization that as we join in membership, we have access to over to 2000 experts that help us really look at.
Speaker 1: Data driven and best practice.
Speaker 3: Research and making decisions about what applications we.
Speaker 1: Sign on to and purchase of.
Speaker 3: The city. As you noted, we've really expanded the use of different applications over the years. This will help us have access to research and resources that look at whether those applications are the right ones for us to pursue as a city has the pros and cons of what happens with them. So it's really a membership organization that gives us access to a body of research and a body of expertize that we wouldn't have in-house. If I may.
Speaker 2: Madam President, Skye, do you know if this is the first time that we're doing this, or is this a renewing contract?
Speaker 1: It is. That is a good question. I I don't know the answer to that.
Speaker 3: This is certainly the first time I remember it coming. The council.
Speaker 2: Had.
Speaker 1: An earlier version that was maybe a smaller a smaller time period and a smaller amount, but happy to have.
Speaker 3: Tech services reach out to you with an answer to that.
Speaker 2: So our membership is the 1.656 amount.
Speaker 3: Over five years. Yes.
Speaker 2: Okay. Okay. All right. Yeah. Do you know if we have either one of those two parties online? We I believe we have Josep Prieto. Oh, correct. Anything I said wrong? Yeah. We'll get him into the queue. Thank you. Madam President. Thank you. And thank you, Sky. And thank you. Council member Sawyer. She let me know that Jo Jo was on. So go ahead, please, Jo.
Speaker 4: Good evening, everyone. Joel Severino in Technology Services. I think the question to me was, have we used Gardner in the past? Yes, we have. I believe we used to do this on a purchase order, but there are legal terms that.
Speaker 8: Are not.
Speaker 4: Appropriate for a purchase order. So we are doing this via a contract now.
Speaker 2: Five year contract, right?
Speaker 4: Correct.
Speaker 2: I think Sky did a good job explaining what this is and what we get for it. So I appreciate that explanation because it wasn't clear to me in just reviewing the information. So thank you very much. All right. Thank you, Joe. And thank you, Sky. And just remember Ortega. Did you just want to ask questions on. Yes. Yes. All right. I didn't know if you had mentioned abstain, so we didn't know. If you want, we'll just leave it on content. Okay. All right. Perfect. Thank you. Or are you good? Yes. Okay. All right, great. All right. We're going to go ahead and move on. Madam Secretary, please put the next item on our screens. Thank you. Councilmember Clark, will you please put Council Resolution 21, dash 1512 on the floor for adoption?
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Professional Services Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Gartner, Inc. for membership to Gartner's Executive, IT Leadership Team Leader and Technical Professional Programs to provide essential insights and advice for the City's Technology leaders.
Approves a contract with Gartner, Inc. for $1,656,590.99 and through 12-31-26 for membership to Gartner's Executive, IT Leadership Team Leader and Technical Professional Programs to provide essential insights and advice for the City's Technology leaders (TECHS-202160570). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 1-24-22. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 12-21-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_01032022_21-1512
|
Speaker 2: Okay. All right. Perfect. Thank you. Or are you good? Yes. Okay. All right, great. All right. We're going to go ahead and move on. Madam Secretary, please put the next item on our screens. Thank you. Councilmember Clark, will you please put Council Resolution 21, dash 1512 on the floor for adoption?
Speaker 4: Yes, Council President. I move that council resolution 1512 be adopted.
Speaker 2: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded comments by members of Council on Council Resolution 21. Dash 1512. Council Member Sophia.
Speaker 3: Thanks, Madam President. Appreciate it. This is another on call contract, this one from Department of Parks and Rec. You know, we've talked about this before and we are at at this point, over $100 million in contracts that are on call that are not reported to us, not just from DPR, but from other agencies as well. And I believe, you know, I've stated several times that I think that that is an abdication of our responsibility under the charter to keep our eyes on the budgets. And so I'll be a no on this one to make things right.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilmember Sawyer. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Resolution 21, Dash 1512, please. Sawyer?
Speaker 3: No. CdeBaca. I.
Speaker 1: Clark.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 1: Flynn.
Speaker 4: I. Herndon, I.
Speaker 1: Cashman.
Speaker 2: Ortega. I. See.
Speaker 1: I. Torres. I. Madam President.
Speaker 2: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 1: For me tonight.
Speaker 2: Ten Eyes Council Resolution 21 Dash 1512 has been adopted. Madam Secretary, please put the next item on our screens. Council Member Clark, will you please put Council Bill 21, Dash 1493 on the floor for final passage?
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed First Amendatory Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Bedrock, LLC to increase the maximum contract amount to provide On-Call Material Placement Service for Citywide to include playgrounds, medians, landscape beds, etc.
Amends a contract with Bedrock, LLC by adding $300,000 for a new total of $785,000 for on-call material placement services at Denver parks. No change to contract duration (201952094; 202160961).
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_01032022_21-1493
|
Speaker 2: Ten Eyes Council Resolution 21 Dash 1512 has been adopted. Madam Secretary, please put the next item on our screens. Council Member Clark, will you please put Council Bill 21, Dash 1493 on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 4: Yes, Council President. I move that council bill 1493 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 2: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Councilmember Flynn. Your motion to amend.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Madam President. I move the council bill 21, Dash 1493.
Speaker 4: Be amended in the following particulars on page 14 after line 23, insert the following. Section 38, dash 131 effective date. Section 30 8-1 17 Unlawful Possession of Dangerous Weapons. Subparagraph B shall become effective upon final approval of the Department of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Proposed Rule 2021 ah dash zero five concerning regulatory definitions of firearm framer, receiver and frame.
Speaker 7: Or receiver.
Speaker 4: Or. October one, 2022, whichever comes first. And on page 14, line 24, strike section 38, dash 131 and replace with section 38, DASH 132.
Speaker 2: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Flynn. It has been moved and seconded comments by members of Council on the amendment. Councilmember Flynn.
Speaker 7: Thank you again, Madam President.
Speaker 4: First, let me say what this amendment does not do.
Speaker 7: Because there was.
Speaker 4: Some discussion about that.
Speaker 7: Earlier today and over the weekend. This amendment.
Speaker 4: Does not delay the prohibition on the manufacture or homemaking or sale.
Speaker 7: Of uncivilized.
Speaker 4: Firearms. Those would be in effect immediately upon the passage and signing of this bill by the mayor. What it does is it sets a date certain for enforcement of just the prohibition on simply owning such a firearm for.
Speaker 7: Those.
Speaker 4: Who as of tonight already legally own one vides. Time for the United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms.
Speaker 7: And Explosives to.
Speaker 4: Adopt a pending rule which was put out last year by the Biden administration. In I believe in May public comment closed on August 19th of last year.
Speaker 7: Which is just four and a half months ago.
Speaker 4: And adoption is anticipated later this year. That would give a legal pathway. This rule would give a legal pathway to serialize these firearms legally. But this amendment also sets an end date on the ATF process on September 30.
Speaker 7: Not that we can require them to do it by.
Speaker 4: September 30, but if they don't, then this goes into effect. The public comment period.
Speaker 7: As I said, closed last August.
Speaker 4: Takes about a year.
Speaker 7: It might drag out longer than that.
Speaker 4: And that's why we've added the date certain. If they don't act.
Speaker 7: By September.
Speaker 4: 30, then October 1st. This last provision goes into effect.
Speaker 7: The tolling period here is.
Speaker 4: It's unlikely to cause any.
Speaker 7: Harm because.
Speaker 4: Anyone possessing an unsterilized firearm, a homemade or.
Speaker 7: Or some other such.
Speaker 4: As a piece that they might have assembled, they're unlikely to follow.
Speaker 7: Our ordinance before.
Speaker 4: October anyway. And if such a weapon is used in commission of a crime, which is the aim of this this ordinance, to be able to confiscate them and and reduce their use in crimes.
Speaker 7: It can still be confiscated if we find it between now and October.
Speaker 4: But the immediate.
Speaker 7: Effectiveness of this.
Speaker 4: Prohibition will mainly impact law abiding owners by not giving them a runway period on which they can make deliberate decisions on how they want to proceed.
Speaker 7: Do they want to.
Speaker 4: Dispose of it?
Speaker 7: Destroy it? Do they want to just render it inoperable.
Speaker 4: Until the ATF acts? In other words, there's this chasm there. This amendment bridges the gap in the current bill between making the law law abiding Denver residents overnight lawbreakers by this Friday, and the point when ATF would have given them the pathway to making that legal right now in an ATF rule to serialize these firearms pending. We have this chasm between the bill and the enactment of this ATF rule that would allow these owners to comply so that Denver's law abiding owners deserve for us to give them this bit of runway so they can make informed decisions instead of requiring them by the end of this week to destroy, dispose of or render inoperable a currently legal firearm they may be using for their home defense.
Speaker 7: They could, for instance, they could make it.
Speaker 4: Inoperable, but decide to go purchase another firearm for their.
Speaker 7: Home defense to replace it.
Speaker 4: Or by.
Speaker 7: September 30th, they.
Speaker 4: Could continue to use this one that they may have. This is a very reasonable accommodation for Denver residents who have obeyed our laws and want to continue to do so, but who need us to give them the space to do it with deliberation. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilmember Flynn. We've got Councilmember Ortega. Thanks, Madam Chair. Madam President, first, I want to thank Councilman Flynn for making the change to his amendment. I had the opportunity to call over to ATF, our regional office, this afternoon, and try to get some additional information. Also, there was an article that was written in the Hillsdale College that was actually published in The Daily Signal and. As you would expect, there has been pushback on this being done as a rulemaking measure. Some people believe that this should be an act of Congress, not through the rulemaking process. So my concern initially with Councilman Flynn's amendment is that there's no guarantee that the federal government will take action by this summer on this particular rulemaking that has already closed out the public comment period. And so I think this is a reasonable request to have a date certain by which that provision would would have to be complied with. I was trying to get information on. You know, there's there's very clear language in the draft rulemaking about what will happen moving forward for anybody trying to buy parts and make their own weapons, as people have done, you know, for from, you know, a long, long time. But what happens with folks who have a weapon that does not have a serial number and that's, you know, where can they go to get a serial number inscribed and make sure that it's not conflicting with somebody else inscribing a same serial number on on their private gun that they've made or, you know, that maybe is an antique considered an antique, you know, weapon. So I will be supporting this amendment tonight because I think it is important to have a timeframe spelled out. But I also think it's important to give some timeframe and clarity to people who own their own guns to get a serial number inscribed on them. And really, the most important part of this is when a weapon is used in a crime. That is how law enforcement is able to track down either where they purchased it or the ownership of it. And so I think there's value in this legislation moving forward. But I support the amendment. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Ortega. Councilmember Hines.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Council President. May I have a couple of questions for the city attorney's office? I think, Mr. Devine, you willing to come forward? And as you come to the microphone, if you will, introduce yourself and tell us who you represent.
Speaker 8: Sure. Hello, council members. I'm Reggie Ngubane. I represent the City Attorney's Office Prosecution and Code Enforcement Section.
Speaker 6: Thank you so much. Is it currently legal for people to possess fully uncivilized weapons of any kind?
Speaker 8: Right now. Yes. Unless the weapon has been unless that weapon has had the serial number removed, obliterated or destroyed. Individuals that might currently be building these weapons once they have built them, they are allowed to possess them. However, they can't sell those weapons or transfer those weapons to other individuals. Those are privately made firearms underneath the underneath. ATF.
Speaker 6: And you're saying this current law, not not the proposed legislation that we're looking at right now, the current law allows somebody to construct for their own use and not to transfer to anyone else a fully unsterilized weapon.
Speaker 4: Correct.
Speaker 6: And so just to drive it home, someone could 3D print a receiver without a serial number. And that is legal under current law. Correct. Okay. Is it. There was a comment earlier about how this language may prohibit pepper spray. Does the city attorney's office have any thoughts or comments on whether pepper spray would be outlawed with this proposed legislation?
Speaker 8: It would not be. So what our what the bill does is actually is the same as what is currently written in our ordinance. It would prohibit the use of an object of a noxious substance or carrying of a noxious substance with the intent to defeat crowd dispersal measures. So if I were walking around with pepper spray in a in a, you know, at a protest and cops were trying to break up the protest, and I want to mace the cops. That would be illegal. But if I'm walking around with mace just to protect myself with no intent to defeat crowd dispersal measures, then that's totally legal and would still be legal underneath our ordinance.
Speaker 6: Okay, so the clarification is to defeat cloud this crap. Excuse me. Crowd dispersal methods. Not for self-defense methods. Correct. Okay. One last question for you just to give you an opportunity, because we've heard from the amendment sponsor. Do you have any, um, you know, do you have a response from the city attorney's office, have a response with the addition? So I know that you send us an email saying that the attorney's office opposes the amendment, but what about with the addition of the, um, the expiration date?
Speaker 8: Thank you. Yes. So we would still be in opposition to that amendment. Our main concern really is one of. Of public safety. Even with that date, ten days, ten months out, what we've seen and what we have explained to counsel is that these ghost guns are proliferating exponentially throughout the United States. Back in 2017, 2016, we saw 1650 of these weapons, up to over 8000 of these weapons throughout the states. In 2020, we can only imagine that that number is going to increase in the ten months. That is our effective date. Their effective date will now be. And while we appreciate and understand the fact that there might be law abiding or hobbyists out there that might be making these weapons for a lawful purpose. In the same vein, there are probably and we know there are individuals that are out there making these weapons for ulterior ulterior motives. Right. And not just law abiding hobby. Those hobbyists sorry. Those hobbyists could also be children. Those hobbyists could be individuals that might be subject to extreme risk protection order. Those hobbyists might be felons. Those hobbyists might be individuals that pursuant to a court order, can't have a weapon. And what this amendment will be doing is saying, well, as long as you built the weapon before today's effective date, you can still keep it. In which case, the individuals that we don't want to have the weapon, which is a main purpose of this ordinance, this bill, stop them from having those weapons, can continue to hold them . So. For our for our purposes. You know, we've we have we are proposing that this ordinance be effective much sooner than ten months. And while that's better than the indeterminate amount of time that the ATF will, might be or will be promulgated, we still think that we should be moving much quicker on this issue in Denver.
Speaker 6: Okay. And thanks. Thanks for the context. You mentioned a few different categories, excluding including people subject to extreme risk protection order or a red flag. They cannot possess any firearm, including a homemade or hobbyist built firearm. Is that correct?
Speaker 8: That's correct.
Speaker 6: And a child can. Is there an age limit on owning a firearm? Can can can someone four years old or eight, 12 own a firearm?
Speaker 8: So there are limits that are placed on the ages of individuals that can purchase a firearm. And that's different state by state. So I'm not completely sure what Colorado's age limit is off the top of my head, but if they are under that age, they wouldn't be able to possess a firearm as well.
Speaker 6: I mean, my I guess where I'm my thought process is it might already be illegal for some of the categories you mentioned to own any firearm. Well, there are other.
Speaker 8: And that's true. And I understand what your point is. I think for our purposes, though, is that we don't want to wait for Denver police, too, to find out that a crime is being committed before an individual is found with one of these weapons. To the extent that we can make this an unlawful act right now, individuals will be put on notice. Kids will be put on notice that, hey, I can't just go online and and buy the parts for one of these weapons and then make it myself right now, because right now there's nothing prohibited prohibiting them from doing so
Speaker 6: . Okay. Thank you, Chief Thomas Hart. Would you like to add anything? You don't have to. I don't want to make you come to the mike. Okay, good. Thank you. Thank you, Councilperson.
Speaker 2: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Hines. And also want to bring in Erica Rodgers. I know, Erica, you had your hand up and so we brought you into the cue. Didn't know if you wanted to respond to those questions as well.
Speaker 3: Oh, thank you. Council President. My colleague Reggie has answered them fully. I just wanted to make myself available since I'm calling in from Zoom. Thank you.
Speaker 2: All right, great. We'll keep you in the queue in case we need you. All right, Councilmember Hines, you good? Okay. Councilmember Sandoval.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. I have a question for either Chief Thomas or the city attorney. Can you. Can you take one of these ghost guns and add a serial number to them? Because I heard that in Councilman Flynn's comments just now. So is there a process? So maybe backtrack if we were to pass this ordinance tonight and it went into effect on Friday. Would there be a method where people could take these ghost guns or whatever you want to call them and be able to have a serial number placed on them? Or because of because this would have passed, would it suddenly be illegal and we could find them or whatever the consequences would be? So that makes sense.
Speaker 8: That makes sense. So that's a great question. And the answer is yes, that right now. All right. Let me the answer is not yes. So if the ordinance were to go into effect, say, you know, I'd say today, because I just can't I can't predict the future on when the ATF rule will be promulgated. If the ordinance were to go into effect today, individuals that had one of these weapons that did not have a serial number. And I'll just say that that was not required to have a serial number. There might be antique firearms out there that never had a serial number on them that were produced back in the 1800s that aren't required to have a serial number on it. That's not what we're meant. That's not what we meaning to get at. But individuals that might have built a weapon, you know, yesterday, their weapon would become illegal today if this ordinance were to pass and it would be illegal until the ATF rule that provides a process for these individuals to go through the serialization process until that process has been laid out. And so our office contacted a number of like gunsmith or licensed gunsmith, licensed gun dealers to see if there is a process. Now, see, I could I could I bring my gun in today and get a serial number on it? And these these folks told us, no, that that they would not be able to put a serial number on the weapon because they aren't authorized to do so underneath the current federal regulations.
Speaker 1: Okay, that makes sense. So one last question for you. In the during committee, you presented other municipalities or states that have passed this legislation. If this were to pass today, as you say today, are they in the same boat that we would be in, that they're their constituents and their residents with their would be illegal intel? The ATF makes a pathway for them to have a serial number.
Speaker 3: So that's not necessarily just. Not necessarily. Each of those different jurisdictions.
Speaker 1: Have drafted their.
Speaker 3: Laws. We're going to go into some of them have been challenged over those.
Speaker 2: And ask you to.
Speaker 3: Sort of stop. None of them are written in.
Speaker 2: Quite the and.
Speaker 3: Laws. They also have differing instruction. So the one thing that would change for any jurisdiction would be that we're.
Speaker 2: Not getting your full answer. I'm sorry. It would be great if you could reintroduce yourself and then start over as far as your answer.
Speaker 3: Sure. I've turned my camera off. Maybe that will help. So I'm Eric Rogers with the Denver City Attorney's Office. And I was explaining that different jurisdictions have.
Speaker 1: Drafted their.
Speaker 3: Prohibitions or regulations just a little differently from each other. However, the thing that would apply across the board is if the Department of Justice adopts a final rule that allows privately made firearms to undergo a process for sterilization that would apply in all of the jurisdictions.
Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 8: And I'll just add on just a little bit. Thank you, Erica. There have been some state jurisdictions that have instituted or promulgated sorry that have enacted some legislation that would essentially prohibit these weapons. However, these states have also authorized their attorneys generals offices to provide for a serialization process at the state level. So in those cases, they don't have to go through the federal regulation, federal regulatory process. They can go through their state attorney general's office to get a serial number on those weapons.
Speaker 1: Perfect. Thank you. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you. Councilmember Sandoval, Councilmember Soy. You're.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. I am not in support of this amendment tonight. I think that we have an extraordinary gun violence problem in our city. And I think that while I appreciate the discussion and I appreciate Councilman Flynn bringing this forward, you know, we have to act. We certainly can't wait for the federal government to act. We've seen that over and over again in a number of different high profile issues like tobacco, where we've been waiting since 2007 for promulgated rules. So I think that it is irresponsible for us, especially on a night where we give a moment of silence to five victims who lost their lives to gun violence last week in our city. For us to amend this at all and I'm not in support of it tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilmember Sawyer. Councilmember Flynn.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Madam President. Just as a reminder, Reggie.
Speaker 4: The tolling period in my amendment is not ten months. It's nine months.
Speaker 7: Until.
Speaker 4: October 1st.
Speaker 7: And the the.
Speaker 4: Weapons that were involved last week were not these types of weapons. Just to respond to Councilman Sawyer. These are, by and large, homemade weapons, firearms that hobbyists and and enthusiasts might have assembled and might be using for home defense. And this amendment simply creates a a bridge that might not even take them all the way to the ATF rule. That's why we put a stop date on it, but gives them time to deliberate on how they're going to respond.
Speaker 7: To the ordinance as opposed to.
Speaker 4: By Friday morning, having to get.
Speaker 7: Rid of them or render.
Speaker 4: Their home defense firearm inoperable. So. Reggie, do we know we like to be data driven? Do we know how many of these unsterilized firearms we have encountered outside of the commission of a crime?
Speaker 8: We do not have that data.
Speaker 4: Or Chief Thomas, would you know how often officers might have encountered such a weapon other than someone they might an officer might know and have been at the house? Right. But outside of the commission of a crime within which we can confiscated. How often have we encountered these weapons other than that?
Speaker 7: Thank you for the counsel for. The question comes from the division chief, Ron Thomas, within our police department. Sitting back with the director of our crime lab, he has indicated to me that we actually have seen these types of weapons very few times so far in Denver.
Speaker 4: How many, I'm sorry.
Speaker 7: Very few times in Denver. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Yes. Reggie, when you were responding to Councilman Hines, you outlined a.
Speaker 7: Scenario that perfectly illustrated why my amendment.
Speaker 4: Is is appropriate.
Speaker 7: This bill will make these firearms illegal.
Speaker 4: Not tomorrow.
Speaker 7: But after the mayor signs it and it's published, I think.
Speaker 4: By Friday, I guess. And but they could these very same firearms would or could be made legal after the ATF adopts its process. I've crafted my amendment to give an end date to that so that it doesn't go on forever to satisfy the need to actually respond to these to the issue of ghost guns. But tell me, does the city attorney's office have an opinion on what the city expects a law abiding owner of such a firearm to.
Speaker 7: Do on.
Speaker 4: Friday? If this were to pass an amendment unamended so.
Speaker 8: A law abiding owner could still go through the process of purchasing a firearm, going through a background check and having a firearm that has a serial number on it. They could also obtain a frame or receiver that has a serial number already on it and build a firearm that way if they are hobbyists. Just anecdotally, what we're finding is that these and this is for these individuals, it's not their their only weapon. The hobbyist is is interested in building a gun. They probably already have a gun and they probably already have a weapon. They they know the ins and outs to the weapon themselves already. So I don't I'm not sure if it's a non-issue. I think it's an issue that we can't we can't really put a number two on the opposite side. We also can't put a number to the individuals that might be hobbyists, but certainly still shouldn't have a gun as well.
Speaker 7: Okay. And obviously, all of that is hypothetical as correct as is so much of our.
Speaker 4: Speculation on that.
Speaker 7: All right. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilmember Flynn. And I'll go ahead and weigh in. I don't have any questions for you, Reggie. Take you off of there. And thank you, Erica, for chiming in on it. I guess what really troubles me is this amendment allows someone who maybe has had a weapon that has been passed down generationally, they are circumventing the background check process that we have to make sure that whoever is possessing a firearm. Has had a background check and we know a little bit more information. We can track that weapon. And so I will not be in favor of the amendment this evening. Madam Secretary, roll call on the amendment, please.
Speaker 1: CdeBaca. I. Sawyer. No. Flynn.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 2: Herndon.
Speaker 4: No.
Speaker 1: Hines. No. Cashman. Ortega. Sandoval. Yeah. Torres. No. Clark.
Speaker 4: No.
Speaker 1: Madam President.
Speaker 2: No. Madam Secretary, roll call on the amendment. I'm sorry. Close the voting and announce the results. We've already done that.
Speaker 1: Seven days and four eyes.
Speaker 2: Seven nays, four eyes. The amendment fails. Council Bill 21, Dash 1493 is on the floor for final passage. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 21, Dash 1493. Do we have any hands raised online? All right, Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 21, Dash 1493, please. CdeBaca. No.
Speaker 1: See the Barca.
Speaker 3: Apps that. No. Sawyer you any? I.
Speaker 1: Clark.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 2: Flynn. Ah Herndon.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 1: High five Cashmere.
Speaker 2: High. Ortega Sandoval.
Speaker 1: I. Torres, i. Madam President.
Speaker 2: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 1: One day, ten Eyes.
Speaker 2: Ten Eyes Council Bill 21 Dash 1493 has passed. That concludes the items to be called out this evening. All bills for introduction are ordered published. Council members remember that this is a consent or block vote and you will need to vote I.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance amending chapters 14, 34, 37, 38, and 42 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code to restructure the weapons code, properly categorize and clarify certain offenses involving minors and non-weapons offenses, prohibit non-serialized firearms in the City, and make conforming amendments.
Amends chapters 14, 34, 37, 38, and 42 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code to restructure the weapons code, properly categorize and clarify certain offenses involving minors and non-weapons offenses, prohibit non-serialized firearms in the City, and make conforming amendments. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 12-8-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_01032022_21-1406
|
Speaker 2: 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 will 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 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 you feel comfortable doing so, their home addresses. If you've signed up to answer questions only, please state your name and note 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 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. Councilmember Clark, will you please put Council Bill 21, Dash 1406 on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 4: Yes, Council President. I move the Council Bill 1406 to be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 2: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded the required public hearing for Council Bill 21 Dash 14 zero six is open. May we have the staff report and I believe we have Fran Benefield on the Zoom call. And so we'll go ahead and bring Fran up and have her introduce herself.
Speaker 4: Sorry. Council president is this is this for 2137 Glen Jones.
Speaker 2: It's 21. It's 2114 zero six. And so I guess. Brad, I'm sorry. It is you. Go ahead, Brad. Friends, the next one?
Speaker 4: Yeah. All right. It sounds like you can share your. Saying that. Okay.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 4: Okay. Great. Good evening, councilmembers. My name is Brad Johnson. I'm a senior city planner with CPD here today to present to you a rezoning request for 2137 Glenarm place. This is from old code r three with au3 overlay two. grx5. This is in Council District nine in the Five Points neighborhood. Here is the site just sitting between 22nd Street and 21st Street there on the west side of going on just to have a block off of the welland street light rail corridor there. The request here is again for a general urban neighborhood context residential mixed use with the maximum height of five storeys. This allows a mix of uses, but with the grx5 zoning, it stipulates that anything above the ground floor is limited to residential or lodging uses. So like an office use, for example, would not be allowed on the upper floor. This zone district permits development of the town hall townhouse or the shopfront building forms. And with this zone, are this property currently being an old code zoning? The applicant is looking to redevelop the site with a new zoning code applied. The existing zoning, as I mentioned, is are three. That's essentially an old code high density residential zone district. It does have the Euro three or the historic structure use overlay district, which is an overlay district intended to encourage adaptive reuse of landmark structures. There are no landmarks structures on this side, so that you have three is not really applicable to this site, even though it does retain that in its current zoning. The surrounding all story. To the northwest you see the higher intensity zone districts, downtown Arapahoe Square districts there to the northeast and southeast to GMU, three, two directly to the southwest, you have X five, and then you can see another block or group of properties up there to the northeast that is also X five. And that's, of course, the zone district has been requested on the subject site. This is a map of the existing land use. And of course, the site itself is is a surface parking lot right now. And I want to point out to if you guys can see this, I'll speak to it. The property to the Southwest shows in the assessor data as being industrial, when in actuality it's a vacant property and a surface parking lot. And then to the northeast across 22nd Street, this shows as being mixed use. I do believe this to be a pure residential project. I'll show you a picture now of that. So looking at those two sites at the top left is a picture of that kind of traditional road house to the northeast. And then right at the bottom left, that's a photo of that vacant structure. I mentioned this immediately to the southwest. And then in the foreground of that photo is the surface parking lot that sits on that site now. And then you see, of course, other pictures of the site itself and other properties that are surrounding. We followed the required process for an official maximum in terms of posting and notification and hearings that brought us to the city council public hearing. In terms of outreach. We did receive two letters of support from Arnaud's, both from the Clement's Historic District Neighborhood Association and the Capitol Hill United Neighborhoods. Arnaud, I think both of those letters spoke to, you know, a level of excitement about the potential development of what's now a surface parking lot. And we're particularly in support of development of the site, given its location proximate to downtown and right now or around the corner from a couple of different light rail stations. We didn't receive any comments from individuals. So moving to the review criteria is starting with consistency with adaptive plans. These are the plans that are applicable to the site. Starting with comp plan 2040, we did find this rezoning would be consistent with numerous goals and policies of Conte plan 2042, just a handful of which are shown here and more would be detailed in your staff report. To Blueprint Denver starting with neighborhood context. The property is designated as General Urban, which pushes for multi-unit residential with some nonresidential mixed use embedded on regular grid sort of orthogonal blocks, as you see in this photo here. So with the general urban zone district that was being that has been requested, we did find that to be consistent with Blueprint's neighborhood context. Feature place type on the property for Blueprint. Denver is high medium residential, which calls for this kind of medium scale multi-unit uses with some neighborhoods serving nonresidential uses, perhaps mixed in being a supportive blueprint. Denver, in this place type, actually calls for up to eight stories of height. The five zone district certainly is consistent with that within the range of that. But we're only allowed to go up to five stories. Featured street types that are adjacent to the site are both local and designated streets and blueprint. Denver does provide for a variety of options in terms of land use and building forms that would be adjacent to the street type. And therefore, we did find this rezoning to generics five to be consistent with future street type. Growth area strategy is all other areas. The city which calls for collectively properties designated as this round the city to accommodate 10% of new jobs and 20% of new housing units through 2040. And given the fact that this is requested, zone district would allow both housing and nonresidential uses. We did find the request to be consistent with growth area strategy. And then also of course blueprint Denver pushes for properties to be re zoned out of old code form or chapter 59 and into the Denver zoning code, which this rezoning would. And so that's another key element of blueprint differ that this rezoning is consistent with. So moving into area plans start with the downtown area plan. There's several, many, many high level policies in that plan that this rezoning would would be consistent with. I point out a couple of critical ones here that are specific to this area that call for redevelopment of surface parking lots and underutilized properties and with a focus on properties that are within close proximity to the one street light rail transit line. So given that we did find this rezoning would be consistent with the downtown area plan. Well, some of the northeast downtown neighborhoods plan. That plan has a lot of high level sort of qualitative policies like this that you see on the screen now that we find the rezoning to be consistent with in terms of generating pedestrian oriented development, better connectivity and in higher intensity uses in proximity to transit. That Northeast Downtown Neighborhoods Plan also has a land use map in it, and it identifies the subject site as transit oriented development or TOD. So in that regard, it calls for transit oriented developments that push for housing and intensity of of of housing, employment and other mixes of uses in proximity to two transit station and transit line. There's also a height map in this plan, and you'll notice here that the plan, the northeast downtown neighborhood plan, calls for a maximum of five storeys, whereas the blueprint feature place type called for up to eight. So there's a small discrepancy there. And you can kind of see on this on this map that kind of a half block there is providing a transition from the. Higher allowances the plan calls for to the northwest and then this box are providing a five story transition to the more low skill neighborhoods off to the southeast. So given that we did find that your five would be consistent with this area plan. We also found that this rezoning would result in uniform district regulations and would further the public health, safety and welfare of the community, primarily through implementation of adopted plans, but certainly providing an opportunity to fill facilitate redevelopment of of a vacant parking lot in close proximity to a transit station. Justifying circumstances. I mentioned the plans calling for for transition to the new codes. That's relevant for the Chapter 59 circumstance as well as just the land uses and character that the area plans call for. And then, of course, you all know that this is an area that has transformed significantly in recent years as you see development taking place along the one street corridor. In a medium proximity to this site. And then finally, we did also find that this rezoning would result in and would be consistent with neighborhood context, zoned district purpose and intent. And so given that and based on the criteria for review in the Denver zoning code, staff does recommend approval of the application. 2020 1i-00128. Thank you.
Speaker 2: All right. Thank you, Brad. This evening, we have four individuals signed up to speak and our first two speakers are in chambers and the other two are online. And so first in chambers, Chris Cox here.
Speaker 4: Yes. Thank you. My name is Chris Fox. Here I am, the division president for Storyville, Denver, where the owner of this property as well as the applicant for the zone map amendment. I'm really here just to answer questions, but Brad did a good job of explaining several of the things that I would have conveyed. So I just want to cover a couple of additional items which may provide context. This property would likely have been rezone to CMCs five back in 2010. There were at that time existing entitlements for a townhome project, and that's the reason why it got grandfathered into the Chapter 59 code. That project failed during the financial crisis of 2820 ten. Never got built. That's why we are where we are today. We had initially sought S.R. eight zoning. We felt that a story project would be most appropriate here. We abandoned that effort based on the inconsistency with the Northeast Neighborhoods Plan showing the five storey height map. And but, you know, through that process, we worked extensively with Clements group, as well as John, as well as Curtis Park Neighbors and others and DDP, and also met over probably two years with several groups. The decision to go for Rex as opposed to an MLS zone district was in large part a reaction to the neighborhood not wanting to see an office project there. So Rex requires residential on the upper storeys, but allows for mixed use on the lower level, which still allows the idea for for Todd and mixed uses to happen there. The adjacent condition is an 18 storey project directly across the island that actually is inconsistent with the height map and the zoning that you just saw because it's 12 and 18 or 12 and 20. This is 18 across the whole site as well as a 50 story parking garage directly across the alley. So building a five storey project basically just blocks the parking garage, which is currently unscreened. It's very much a two year deal location. We have two light rail stops within two or three blocks, either direction, both on Walton and 18th and California. It's also a ten minute walk to pretty much probably several landmarks, including Coors Field, including the Pavilion Mall, 16 strip mall, including Safeway, as well as going down to 17th for restaurants and such. So it's a very walkable location, very good location. It's actually on the corner of the 5280 loop loop. With that. I mean, our goal basically is to facilitate redevelopment of the property. It's currently a vacant parking lot. It does have several safety issues from time to time, depending on the homeless enforcement and the neighborhood is very much in support of it. So I'm happy to answer any additional questions.
Speaker 2: All right. Thank you. Our next speaker is Mike Hunt. And I have met Mike as in chambers. Let's see if Mike Hunt is online. Okay. It doesn't look like we have Mike with us. We're going to go ahead and move online then Jesse Paris.
Speaker 4: Yes. Good evening. May I be heard?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 4: Yes. My name is just the sort of person I'm representing for black, small for self defense, positive action, commercial social change was the Union Party of Colorado, the East Denver Residents Council and for a long black nose. And I'll be the next mayor of Denver in 2023. I was initially against this rezoning, but hearing the presentation brought me up to speed on what was happening in regards to this rezoning. I just had a few questions. If there is going to be residential place here, what would be the amount level for the residential housing that's going to be placed here? Has there been a parking study done and has there been a traffic study done? If the occupant occupants using to please answer those questions, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Our next speaker online is Keith Pryor.
Speaker 4: I. Keith Pryor, 2418 Champ Street. Very close proximity to the site. This is a TOD site, which is a transit oriented development site. It is walking distance within the downtown area and it will be on the 50 to 80 loo. All our access to amenities and bicycling and walking and traffic mitigations obviously are very much in place. And so a traffic impact study is pretty much not relevant for the site given the access and plethora of not only TOD but also bike and walking access as well as Broadway is the major corridor as in Colfax, all within walking distance is as I am very much in support of this rezoning. He did work with the neighborhoods, both Curtis Park as well as San Rafael and Uptown and also Capitol Hill, United Neighbors. And I believe that the X is the correct way to go. We obviously are in a housing crisis and need to have additional housing units built, especially in this location that allows people to access a 15 minute city and really not have to have a car, which would help with climate change and having people more self resilience than relying on a car to get themselves throughout the city and adding to our congestion and our air pollution. So having this building here obviously would be a great addition as well as solve a lot of other issues that we're currently finding in our city, not only from the homeless situation, but just to the lack of housing that we have in the area. So very much in support and I would encourage council to support this rezoning. As was stated, it does meet all of the criteria for our adopted plans and as the applicant himself stated, this would have gotten resound had it not had an additional site plan already approved that did fail. And so that's why it is in the old code that it does not conform to today's zoning code. And what has gone to the either JEAN-MAX or NCR expired. So this is a great compromise for the development and a great win for the neighborhood and definitely feel like this is the right solution moving forward. So to support this rezoning. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. That concludes our speakers questions from members of Council on Council Bill 21, Dash 14 zero six. Councilmember Hines.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Council President. May I ask the applicant to come forward? I might also have questions for her for CBD as well, but start with the applicant. Hi. Thank you for for coming. Just a little context. I used to live, so this isn't my district. So I wasn't part of the conversations. And certainly I'm sure you've found the right person to do so. I don't have as much context from the you know, from this conversation. So that's part of the reason why I'm asking questions. I used to live two blocks from there, though, so I moved to the uptown neighborhood in May of 2008. I started working in Uptown in April 2007. I lived in Uptown Square for three years, starting in December of 2008, and then I bought in 1950 Logan, the condominium there, the C-Max 12 in October 2011, and then we left there in March of this year. So I'm very familiar with uptown. That's not technically uptown, but it is. Yes. So I'm very, very familiar with this area. You mentioned that that you considered and I mentioned the zoning of my building a c maxwell Raffo Square is even taller, but you mentioned that there was a conversation for potentially eight stories and that was the answer was no.
Speaker 4: Well, we wanted to do eight stories. We were seeking a CRC. It has to do with the zoning code X. It was our okay. But the challenge was because of the inconsistency with the Northeast Denver concept map, which showed a five story zoning there, which is about ten years older than Blueprint or, you know, older than Blueprint . Denver There was an inconsistency and staff could not 100% support that without saying it was inconsistent with at least one plan that opened up the door for a conversation about adding an affordable housing component. The minimum was, you know, a 10% component. And for us to do condo, which is really what we want to do there, we want to do condo for sale, housing. The economics just didn't work. It didn't make sense to go from 5 to 8 storeys with the addition of a 10% minimum affordable housing component. The economics don't work, and I know that the analysis on the current proposed Iot show says otherwise. I can tell you from the actual real world numbers, it doesn't work. So we were unable to pursue condo at the moment. There's, you know, three very large projects already that just were delivered both.
Speaker 7: To from a Lexan or.
Speaker 4: TCR, one from Lenore, and then Greystar is coming out with another 350. So we're not we're not trying to do more rental housing near transit. We're trying to do for sale. And we couldn't make it work and made stories.
Speaker 6: So you are still considering for sale?
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 6: Bless you. We are woefully inadequate with our for sale properties. And in uptown, I mean, you know, my building at 1950, Logan was for sale. You've got the Portofino, we've got 1935 Grant and then you've got a one Lincoln Tower. And those are the for sale, you know, areas. But everything else has been built around them has been a whole lot built.
Speaker 4: This park is about the only other thing even nearby that's been recent over in Curtis Park.
Speaker 6: Yeah. And so we're woefully short of for sale, um, dense, uh, construction. So, so thank you for, for considering that. Obviously we're not talking about that tonight and we can't hold you to the fire necessarily, but I'd like to, um, but so it's a five stories, not eight. Um, and that abandoned building that isn't you, that's not, is not.
Speaker 4: Part of our property, that's part of 2115 GLENARM We had tried to acquire it. It's been challenging. Well.
Speaker 6: Okay. Um, it is challenging to the neighborhood too. So I'm sorry that we were sorry that that wasn't added to the.
Speaker 4: It is currently it was being marketed and we're hoping for a redevelopment there by another party. So.
Speaker 6: Okay. And. I think that's I think that's those are all the questions that I had. I just wanted to. I think that it is a really good carry. Oh, I do have one other question. The 50 to 80 trail also very interested in a 50 to 80 trail. Thank you for whoever testified about a year or two ago. The branding change from the 50 to 80 loop to the 50 to 80 trail. Um, but, uh, I would hope that one. I would hope it becomes a reality and I'm doing my best to make that happen. And then to, I would hope that if you, um, if you move forward with development, obviously pending a vote tonight, I would, I would strongly encourage, you know. Building something that works with the 52 editorial. And I mean, I feel like it will be transformative for our city center. And it, along with Spurs, will help connect, you know, other diverse communities to a you know, with our Shared Streets program will really help us break Denver's dependance on cars and that neighborhood. I didn't have a car at all for four years, so it is very pedestrian friendly and cyclist. I think it could could use some opportunities to become more cyclist friendly, like with a 50 to 80 trail.
Speaker 4: And we do hope to embrace that, you know, the tiered nature of the site and, you know, really kind of celebrate that, the bicycling aspect, etc.. So it does affect our thoughts on parking on on bike storage as well as bike maintenance and those types of things.
Speaker 6: Yeah. And to that point about bike storage and maintenance, as you're considering your architectural design, if you can place the bike storage in a place that's not visible to the street, um, I mean, that seems kind of obvious now, but we didn't, you know, we didn't do that at 1950. Logan And some of the other areas didn't do that either. So and thank you. I think you Councilperson.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Hines. Not seeing anyone else in the queue for questions. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 21, Dash 14 zero six and will go online first to the District Representative. Councilwoman CdeBaca. Do you have any comments this evening?
Speaker 3: No comments.
Speaker 2: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Hines.
Speaker 6: Thank you, council president. I just would say, I know this isn't my district. This is my hood. And I really like the idea of taking something that has been underutilized and and activating it. So thank you for bringing this forward. I will certainly support this tonight.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilmember Hines. And seeing that this does meet the rezoning criteria, I'm happy to support it as well. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 21, Dash 14 zero six, please.
Speaker 1: CdeBaca.
Speaker 2: I saw your. Clarke.
Speaker 4: All right.
Speaker 2: Flynn.
Speaker 4: I. Herndon, i.
Speaker 1: I. Cashman. Ortega. Sandoval. I. Torres. I. Madam President.
Speaker 2: I. Madam Secretary, close voting and announce results. Ten Eyes. Ten Eyes Counsel build 21 dash 14 zero six has passed. Thank you to folks who spoke at that last hearing and Brad for the presentation. Councilmember Clark, will you please put council Bill 21, Dash 1431 on the floor for final passage?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 2137 Glenarm Place in Five Points.
Approves a map amendment to rezone property from R-3, UO-3 to G-RX-5 (former chapter 59 residential zoning to general urban), located at 2137 Glenarm Place in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 11-23-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_01032022_21-1431
|
Speaker 2: I. Madam Secretary, close voting and announce results. Ten Eyes. Ten Eyes Counsel build 21 dash 14 zero six has passed. Thank you to folks who spoke at that last hearing and Brad for the presentation. Councilmember Clark, will you please put council Bill 21, Dash 1431 on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 4: Yes, Council President of the Council Bill 1431 B please. One final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 2: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded the required public hearing for Council Bill 21 Dash 1431 is open. May we have the staff report and now we have Fran joining us.
Speaker 3: And you see my screaming. Can you hear me?
Speaker 2: Yes. If you can, go ahead. Introduce yourself, Fran.
Speaker 3: Yes. Good evening. My name is from your film City Planner with CBD. Today we will be reviewing a rezoning request for the property said 45, 25 and 4517 Northgate Street. The subject properties are in Council District one and they are located in the Berkeley neighborhood. The request is to rezone from U.S., U.S. one to you as you A-1 given even though the properties don't comply with the 5500 square foot minimum stone size to allow for a detached EU building in the current US, you see one district. Each stone lot is 4490 square feet, which exceeds the 3000 minimum size required to build a 32 new in the EU is a one. If the rezoning is approved, all the other forms and standards will remain the same. As previously mentioned, the existing zoning is in both properties, except for one single unit C one stone district. The subject properties are completely surrounded by other us one stone. The current land use of the sites is single unit residential and they're both surrounded by other single unit uses. We can see some two unit uses and some multi-unit residential in the vicinity, as well as some commercial retail use along 44th Avenue and Sheridan Boulevard. This slide, you can see the residential character of the neighborhood. The two properties of the proposed rezoning on the bottom. Right. Now, throughout the rezoning process, application modifications have been provided according to code requirements. Planning Board recommended approval on November 17. And to date, staff has received five letters of support from neighbors supporting its use in general and this project in particular. Now moving on to the Denver zoning code review criteria, it must be found that the requested MAP amendment is consistent with the five criteria. Serial number one refers to consistency with adopted plans. There are two plans to adopt the plans that apply for the request rezoning. We have a comprehensive plan 2040 and we have blueprint for. The rezoning is consistent with several strategies and 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 . Now looking at Blueprint in Denver, the subject properties are both mapped as part of the urban neighborhood context. If you two places designates the subject properties of a slow residential place type, this place types have predominantly single and two unit uses, and accessory dwelling units are appropriate. Northgate Street is designated as a local street, which is mostly characterized by residential use. This. The growth area blueprint Denver for both sites is all other areas of the city areas are anticipated to see a 10% employment growth and 20% housing growth by 2040. Denver also provides guidance on when it's appropriate to resume to a district with a smaller minimum size. It's appropriate when a product of smaller loads with similar uses is present in the surrounding blocks. Well, 50% of the lots in the block where is where the subject property sites are located have a lot sites consistent with the US . You see one district. The other 50% of the sizes of the sites are similar to blocks to the east, west and south. Show that a considerable proportion of the single unit residential uses are located on lots that are 4500 square feet or smaller more consistent with the US you a one lot sites and the 5500 square feet minimum required by us. You see one. Therefore, the applicant's proposal to a district with a smaller lot size is consistent with the Get Your Places math and blueprint guidance for applying the low residential key to place like. Finally also includes specific policy recommendations about ending this policy. Number four focuses on diversifying housing choice through expansion of accessory dwelling units throughout all residential areas. Therefore stuffs stuff finds the requests consistent with the applicable disciplines. Stuff also finds that the requested Sony meets the next two criteria. The rezoning will result in uniformity of district regulations and mean it will further the public health, safety and welfare, primarily through the implementation of adopted funds. Justified circumstance for this rezoning is a changing condition in a particular area and a city out of the loop in Denver specifically recommends the city diversify housing choice through the expansion of accessory dwelling units throughout all residential areas. Also, according to Blueprint Denver, it is appropriate to respond to a district with a smaller size than the current district. A pattern of smaller lots with similar uses exists in the surrounding blocks. The plan was adopted up to the date of approval of the existing subdistricts, therefore. This is an appropriate, justified circumstance for the proposed rezoning stated through this presentation. The proposed rezoning meets the intent of these plots. Overall. The proposal, Tony, is consistent with the urban neighborhood context residential district and the EU as a one stone district. Stuff does recommend approval based on finding or review criteria has been met, and I'll be happy to take any questions. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Fran. This evening we have one individual signed up. Our speaker for this hearing is Jesse Paris, joining us online.
Speaker 4: Yes. Good evening. Members of council, those watching at home. My name is just Wissam Paris and I'm representing four Black Sox move self defense positive action coming for social change as well as the Unity Party of Colorado, the East Denver Residents Council and front line black news. And I'll be the next November and 2023. I'm in favor of this rezoning tonight. We need accessory dwelling units all over this city. As I stated when I ran for city council at large in 2019, I support accessory dwelling units all across the city and in 2022 I support accessory dwelling units all over the city. So I'm in full support of this rezoning tonight. Please pass this. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. That concludes our speakers questions from members of Council on Council Bill 21, Dash 1431. Do we have any hands raised online? All right. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 21, Dash 1431 Council Member Sandoval.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. I hope my colleagues support this rezoning for accessory dwelling unit in the Berkeley neighborhood. I'm not currently working in this neighborhood to do a legislative rezoning, so for now, my constituents will have to do a one off and come before this council such as tonight. So with that, I hope that my colleagues support this rezoning. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilmember Sandoval. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 21, Dash 1431, please.
Speaker 1: CdeBaca. I. Sandoval, I. Torres, I. Clark.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 1: Corinne.
Speaker 7: I.
Speaker 1: Herndon. All right. Cashman. So. ORTEGA. Well, Madam President.
Speaker 2: I. Madam Secretary, close voting and announce the results. Ten Eyes. Ten Eyes. Council Bill 21 Dash 1431 has passed. Thank you to the public and Fran for the report. Next, we're on our final hearing this evening. Councilmember Clark, will you please put Council Resolution 21, 1514 on the floor for adoption?
Speaker 4: Yes, council president. I move that council resolution 1514 be adopted.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 4517 and 4525 North Yates Street in Berkeley.
Approves a map amendment to rezone properties from U-SU-C1 to U-SU-A1 (allows for an accessory dwelling unit), located at 4525 and 4517 North Yates Street in Council District 1. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 11-23-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_01032022_21-1514
|
Speaker 4: Yes, council president. I move that council resolution 1514 be adopted.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Get a second, please. Okay. Oh, there we go. All right. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. The 30 minute courtesy public hearing for Council Resolution 21, Dash 1514 is open, and we have Division Chief Ron Thomas here for the staff report.
Speaker 7: Oh. Good evening. Thank you. Madam President, the members of Council appreciate the opportunity to present on our request. And I'll get right to it here. So our request is to approve a contract with ShotSpotter, Inc for $4.7 million. That contract period would go from this period from now until the end of 2026, or to provide gunshot detection location services for the city of Denver. Denver Police Department. Two things that I think are important to point out here. The first is that this is not a request for additional funding. ShotSpotter is paid through general fund dollars that have already been approved by council through the annual budget process, supplemented by JACKRABBIT funding. Second thing is that we are asking for a the approval of a five year contract, and that is because ShotSpotter has offered significant savings for a longer term contract. Again. ShotSpotter is a tool that helps TPD respond quickly and accurately to incidents of gunfire in order to assist victims and also recover evidence. Currently, ShotSpotter covers 14 square miles throughout five different arrays across the city of Denver. And under this new agreement, there is an opportunity for a cost free expansion of about two square miles. In that expansion, as with all of our other arrays that we have already selected, would be done through a data driven analysis. So why is ShotSpotter important one for crime awareness? Gunfire is often reported, is also inaccurately reported. So often we get reports of gunfire. Those individuals that call really have no idea exactly where it came from, making it difficult for us to respond accurately. In addition to that, about 85% of alerts over the last three years had no correlating 911 calls. So these are opportunities where, you know, we otherwise would not have known to respond and recover evidence or attend to victims. Second, to safety with ShotSpotter, officers can swiftly respond to an accurate location where gunfire occurred more quickly, meeting community safety needs and attending to possible victims. I have a couple of examples of that. In October of this year, there was a victim who was shot multiple times in West Denver, unable to call 911. ShotSpotter Activation notified officers of the incident. The DPD did receive some subsequent calls, but the callers were not able to identify the location of the gunfire. But the ShotSpotter technology allows officers to properly locate the victim and render aid. Ambulance was called quickly applied to turn ticket saving the victim's life. And then a second incident. Also in October of this year, it was Denver. A victim was shot multiple times. There was no correlating 911 report for that particular incident. The officers responded to that alert. The victim was not even visible from the street. So it was based upon the GPS coordinates that those officers had that they were actually able to go to this exact location that was out of sight and find that victim and render aid. And then third, for investigations, when police receive an alert and quickly respond, they're more likely to recover. The firearm and shell casings and additional evidence can better support an investigation as well as corroborate. If a firearm has been used in additional crimes. We've got a couple of examples of that as well. September of this year in the far northeast, a victim was robbed and shot. He actually traveled quite a distance in order to contact 911. So he was not in the location where the incident occurred. But detectives were able to use ShotSpotter to identify the specific location where he was shot, recover evidence and actually recover surveillance video that was able to help solve that particular case. And then in another incident not far from here, actually, Civic Center Park, back in March of this year, there was a ShotSpotter alert that occurred, actually turned out to be a homicide victim was shot. We had a halo operator there, was able to quickly vector the camera to the specific location where that shot was fired, was able to see the suspect running from that location. The Halo operator was able to air that very specific description before that person was out of camera view. Officers converging in the area were able to locate that suspect quite a distance actually away from where the incident occurred and hold him accountable. And evidence of the crime was actually recovered on this person when he was when he was captured. So just a couple of points before I open it up for questions. One deputy does not use aggregate ShotSpotter data to justify his staff or contacts or saturate an area with police. Instead, we use alerts in real time so that we can respond quickly to assist victims or recover evidence. Second, as suggested in the Axios article, DPD does not use ShotSpotter alerts to prosecute individuals. Instead, we utilize the ability to quickly and accurately respond to a location so that valuable information, such as video surveillance and shell casings, other forensic evidence can be recovered that can be used toward a successful prosecution. Thank you.
Speaker 2: All right. Thank you, Division Chief Thomas. This evening, we have 24 individuals signed up to speak. And a reminder again, we have 30 minutes for the courtesy public hearing. Our first speaker is joining us online, Craig Collier.
Speaker 4: Yes. Canary.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 4: Great. I'll keep it quick when I got a lot of people. Good evening, counsel. I'm Craig Taylor. That's okay. Everyone, get down. I live in District ten of Denver, Colorado. I'm joining today's comments to pose several questions to the Council. Hopefully will be asked if before it is approved. But until then, I do do not support generally. So first of all, off on the heels of last week's tragedy and I want to thank counsel, thanks for the moment of silence earlier for the community's loss. But it would be well received if things like that were communicated as to whether or not ShotSpotter ShotSpotter identified any activity from that particular incident. It seems the Broadway location may be in the area, but that with some prior limited knowledge of the area being monitored, how extensive that goes. Um, also, I will generally keep my concerns with regard to transparency to the public, which ShotSpotter is meant to serve and keep safe. I believe that others may address those. Speaking after me, that is disproportionate effects that this puts on minority neighborhoods, which I generally agree with as well. But it seems it is little. Little data is available until DPD released anything really related to ShotSpotter. If this technology is so valuable, it should be considered pertinent that the public is notified with more immediacy than currently provided through other channels. Typically at deputies human discretion, the resolution indicates that the that Denver will have API licenses which will allow for real time notification has the officer indicate as well. And I believe that has just been expanded to a more general public. But to members of the community that may be may choose to receive notifications if this is not done, in my opinion, puts these lines of communications in line with the encrypted or inaccessible lines of communication by the public and should be addressed with Denver Police Department's communication access policy. This is defined in last year's Colorado. Legislation that revised Colorado based statute 20 46502, which I and other matters have requested multiple times from the police department and have not received any any information. I'd encourage the Council to inquire about that as well. Um, but I would like specifically to ask if, uh, DPD addresses Hot Shot spot notifications as part of the communications access policy for journalists and what they should be providing to a more real time. I think that there is a great benefit to our community community for potentially dangerous situation.
Speaker 2: That's the time we have allotted for each speaker. Gregory La Berge is joining us in chambers.
Speaker 4: Honorable Council members appreciate the opportunity to speak. My name is Gregory Le Bear's. L a b e rg. I live in Denver, Colorado, 1371 Cherokee Street. I just I just am some evidence division for the Denver Police Department. So the cases you mentioned earlier this week, we were active participants in the investigation of those tragic cases that happened in our city, as we are every night of the week and every day of the week. So I'm responsible for all crime scene operations, as well as all forensic science operations within the city and county of Denver . That includes DNA analysis, fingerprints, video processing on all of the different types of sciences that we use to help to try to investigate crime. We led the nation earlier in the decade, 2012 2013, in actively pursuing crime guns. You'll hear things called crime guns. And so we we took active steps with ATF to interdict and to trace crime guns to the best of our abilities in 2015, as is when we introduced ShotSpotter, when we introduced the concept of using ShotSpotter on a limited basis within the city of Denver. Since that time, 2015 to about the end of last year. We've seen a 262% increase in the number of shell casings we recovered. And just to give you context. Any shell casing that hits the streets of Denver that we know about and ShotSpotter plays an important part of that. We, within 24 to 48 hours will recover that shell casing and it will be included into a database which is searched across the city and the region, if necessary, to link shootings together. It's called NAEP and IBM, the National Integrated Ballistic Information Network. Also, since 2015, we've seen 133% increase in the number of recovered firearms within the city of Denver. Crime guns that are also test fired and their shell casings are compared to outstanding cases. So that can help us to identify potential suspects in crimes. Also, we've seen a 468% increase since 2015, mainly due to ShotSpotter in the number of matches we've seen on the database. That gives us investigative information. So all of these systems together feed into our workflow within the crime laboratory to help detectives and help investigators across the city and county of Denver do something about crime guns in a very timely manner. The program has been so successful that ATF has modeled our program across the nation, and I think later you will have someone from ATF speaking to that. But I would urge support for the continued use of ShotSpotter as as part of Denver's approach to limiting the impact of crime, guns in our community and the senseless loss of life. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Our next speaker is joining us online and it's Kimberly Morse. And Kim, if you could raise your hand, please. We have a name, but it's Jay. And so we want to make sure that it's you. We'll get you into the Q Kitchen and you can introduce yourself.
Speaker 9: Okay. Give me just one moment to pull up my notes. Good evening, counsel. I'm here to speak about the ShotSpotter contract as both a Denver resident and a volunteer with the task force to reimagine policing and public safety, though not on behalf of the task force. In June of 2020, this council proclaimed Racism is a public health crisis in response to the murder that brought about this proclamation. Residents from all across the city and across many demographics came together to reimagine what it would take to make Denver a city in which every person was safe. This community led task force developed a set of strategies and specific recommendations to help our city prevent, reduce and heal harm. And the strategy to minimize unnecessary interaction with law enforcement includes a recommendation specifically to remove electronic surveillance apps. And it. Active investigation. I prohibit future investments in electronic surveillance in overpoliced communities. Current shirts. Excuse me. Current ShotSpotter deployments occur in neighborhoods that have historically had the least investment in basic amenities, like nearby access to grocery stores, well-resourced neighborhood schools and clean air. But they've had the most investment in policing. Bessel van Dale Cook, a top clinician and researcher on trauma, says that behaviors of traumatized people are not the result of moral failings or a sign of bad character, but rather they're caused by actual changes in the brain once it has been traumatized and trauma is manifested as physical disease , mental illness, substance abuse, poverty and crime. And our current model of public safety makes us less safe because of its role in the cycle of trauma. A recent article highlighted Spd's own data showing that just 3% of ShotSpotter alerts resulted in arrest in 2020. Under the current contract, that's about $11,000 per arrest. Last year, John Hopkins University and York Academy of Medicine each released findings of their own respective ShotSpotter studies, concluding that the technology had no significant impact on gun related homicides or arrest outcomes. But it did increase the demand on police resources. One study even determined that it was policy, not technology, that was more cost effective for reducing urban gun violence. Last month, Councilwoman CdeBaca suggested several common sense adjustments to Denver's budget, in which 4.7 million would lead to better safety for all and deliver greater value to our community. Suggestions such as funding youth employment and job training and renovating a full service, mental health and substance abuse treatment facility would align with the task force recommendations and provide better return on our investment for our neighbors and our community. So whether it's finally, excuse me, fiscal responsibility or backing up this council's proclamation that racism is a public health crisis, I request that you vote no on this multiyear agreement. Denver does not need to ramp up policing in neighborhoods that are already overpoliced. Please work with the task force and the community at large to invest in resources that will heal the community and reduce violence. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Our next speaker online is Jeffrey Russell.
Speaker 4: Hi. Good evening. My name is Jeffrey Russell. I'm a supervisory special agent with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, otherwise known as ATF. I do apologize for my raspy voice. I'm just getting over being sick. I would like to point out that over the last decade or so, the Denver Police Department, the Denver Police Department , crime lab and ATF have led the way across the nation to a scientific and forensic approach to a violent gun crime. And certainly a ShotSpotter lies right at the heart of that process. I would like to draw attention to the fact that ShotSpotter is a forensic technology that is the foundation for a scientific chain of testing that occurs in the Denver nationally renowned Denver Police Department crime laboratory. Some of this testing, as stated earlier, is DNA, fingerprints and Niven, which is ballistic imaging. So what does this do? This ShotSpotter allows us. Sine scientific specificity in initiating our investigations, in carrying out our investigations in and in the culmination of our investigations. Every aspect of what we do is wrapped in science. The results are. Speak for themselves. We we have impactful results in violence, disruption. And we are able through this process and ShotSpotter that starts it out, are able to identify firearms traffickers that illegally and knowingly put firearms crime guns into the hands of violent offenders. I would also be remiss if I did not point out that this process and again, that ShotSpotter initiates and launches also exonerate people as wrongdoers. In summation, I would like to again reiterate that shot swatters, the technology that makes the entire scientific process and ensuing impactful community results possible. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Next up, we have DeRay. And it looks like we don't have Dre with us. Okay Keith there's versus online.
Speaker 3: There's a small issue with the attendees names. DeRay would be listed as Elizabeth and I believe has raised his hand. There's three showing for that same link.
Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you, Councilwoman CdeBaca. So, DeRay.
Speaker 3: Yes. There you go. They need.
Speaker 2: To. Are they under Elizabeth Epps?
Speaker 3: He? Yes, he just got advanced. He's in the queue right now.
Speaker 4: I'm here.
Speaker 2: Okay. Go ahead, please. Introduce yourself for the public record interview.
Speaker 4: I'm DeRay McKesson. I help lead Campaign Zero, a national advocacy organization focused on ending police violence. So what I want to talk about ShotSpotter. We have research, ShotSpotter across the country encouraging you to vote against this contract extension tonight. Remember that ShotSpotter is a piece of software that will not allow they will not allow the technology to be validated by a third party vendor. So when people have talked previously about this technology is actually recording gunshots. Remember that we have no proof that they actually can detect anything other than loud noises. They will not allow this technology to be validated by any third party. That's what our also assumes that every single alert sent to the police is a gunshot. The only way that we would ever know that it's not a gunshot is if the police in the city actually go into the spot. A tool and log. It is not a gunshot. We have not seen any public data about Denver's false positive rates. And that's important because in Chicago, there's a 22 month period where no Chicago police officer had noted that anything was not a gunshot. We know that not every alert sent through ShotSpotter is actually a gunshot. But the way the system is set up is that they are stupid at every single one is. And that's not true. When the issue of shell casings that was spoken about by a member of the police department for a minute, these shell casings are often unusable that they even the Denver's own data, these shell casings are not leading to an increase in arrests. They're not leading to any demonstrable decrease in guns on the street. That's not even data that they can provide. But we have police officers going to scenes after the shooter is already gone and collecting something that is not even being able to be used as evidence in court. And remember that there is research by Dennis Mares that shows that 911 is actually eight times more effective at finding found at crime incidents than ShotSpotter. So the request would be to invest this money in making that one better that you and I both know that anybody who is shooting a gun is now waiting for an alert to be sent to the police department by a technology that's never been validated. And they're not going to be there when the police actually arrives. This does not decrease gun violence. This doesn't actually help interrupt crime. And Denver's own data shows that it doesn't hold people who use guns in various ways accountable for their actions either. This really is a waste of money and again, technology that the company will not allow to be validated by a third party at any part of the process. In all that, we know for sure is that it detects loud noises. Remember that ShotSpotter doesn't even they they publicly know that they do not work on the 4th of July because they cannot differentiate between gunshots and fireworks. That's all I have to say.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Our next speaker joining us online is Keith Prior.
Speaker 4: Yeah. Hi, kids. Prior 2418 Champ Street. I think it's a valuable tool to have in the toolbox, and I don't think that it's an either or. I think that we should be investing in our youth and having a job opportunities. And I do believe that we should be investing in our mental health and having rehab and and getting the mental health situation under control. But we also have a skyrocketing gun violence issue in the city. We've had mass shootings just last week. And so we need to have this tool in the toolbox as well as invest in our mental health, as well as invest in our youth and as well as invest in our homeless. And so, you know, it's just a matter of priorities. And, you know, we definitely need to prioritize our public safety in all of the forms and and avenues that that takes place. And our Denver Police Department is key to that public safety. And giving them tools in which to be the most effective at keeping our community safe is essential. So I do want this to be supported, and I do want you to vote yes on actually enacting this contract so that the Denver Police Department can work as best as possible to keep our community safe. And I also want you to invest in mental health and also invest in housing solutions and invest in our youth. We can do all of it. It's not a matter of sitting there saying one does not have to exist with the other. So we need the tools, we need the police, we need safety. And that's going to basically help all of those other aspects to basically help keep our community safe so that others can get the help that they need. But this is critical and it is critical for having a safe community. And I really implore you to support this contract, because it does give us an additional tool to keep our community safe. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Our next speaker is Brock Johnson.
Speaker 4: Hello. Thank you very much for having me. I won't take full 3 minutes. My name is Frank Johnson. I'm a constituent of Denver. I just want to express to you my strong opposition of the implementation of ShotSpotter. Independent peer reviewed studies have consistently indicated ShotSpotter does not reduce gun violence, but leads to increased unnecessary and potentially hazardous police interactions. This is due to the technology's inability to discern between a gun shot and a firework upon tire construction noise and things like that. Furthermore, by reviewing the city of Chicago's implementation of ShotSpotter, it becomes clear that it is most often deployed on a racially biased basis, further harming our communities of color. Thank you very much for your time and your work. I encourage you to vote no.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Our next speaker online is Kayla Frawley.
Speaker 3: Good evening, council members. My name is Kayla Frawley. I am a mom in Central Park and a resident of District eight. And at 79, 65, East 21st Avenue, I'm here to share my strong opposition to a 21 1514 resolution approving proposed agreement between the city and county of Denver and shortstop spotter. I remember hiding under my desk at my child's daycare center, calling 911 multiple times because of a shooting down the street or a lockdown we were in or lock in. Whether it's keeping my son home from school for fear of him being a statistic. The other week when.
Speaker 2: We had.
Speaker 3: A tick tock trend about school shooting or how I used to ask him to get away from the windows in our old apartment, I know my stress is likely shared with all of your constituents. All of us are impacted by gun violence, just as we saw the shooting last week when our community lost leaders and parents and vital historic community members in 2019, the Denver Metro had the third most mass shootings per capita in the country, and we are actually the fifth highest state when it comes to mass shootings of a million people. Residents are aware that we have to seek better solutions and invest in cost effective routes to reducing gun violence. And we have to take an equitable stance to community safety by reducing violence down onto our communities of color. Many people are aware of the Associated Press investigation of ShotSpotter. Like many of my colleagues and other constituents have mentioned already tonight and this investigation, they found pretty serious flaws based on thousands of documents and multiple interviews. They found the system to fire false alarms and fireworks car backfiring or quote. Loud sounds, unquote. And because of this, they found many judges actually would throw out ShotSpotter evidence in cases rightfully worried that the technology's results have mistakenly put innocent people in jail. We know that spot shelters are put in neighborhoods that are considered crime spots, which more often than not are disproportionately in communities of color. This is one way that ShotSpotter has already unfairly targets communities of color. And since implementing the Spire Charters Program in Denver, taxpayers have paid 6 million for the program since then, since 2015. At the same time, we have more gun violence since the program started and has sustained. It has also become apparent through a study published in the National Library of Medicine in April 2021 that implementing ShotSpotter had no significant impact on firearm related homicides or arrest outcomes. This program is not sufficient nor cost effective, and would put our communities of color in more danger by completely missing the mark on enhancing community safety and preventing gun violence. I strongly encourage and ask that you vote no on this tonight. We can come.
Speaker 2: Up with a better solution. We send a lot of provide the speaker electronically. Our next speaker is joining us online as well, Shannon Hoffman.
Speaker 3: Good evening, members of Council. My name is Shannon Hoffman and I live in District ten. I am here tonight to speak in opposition of the $4.7 million contract with ShotSpotter. Thank you for providing this hearing. So I and other community members can express our thoughts. Please vote no on this contract. On Monday, December 27. Sorry. At 5:15 p.m. I go to work, go pick up Robert. And as I did so many times over the last four years, I walked to the back of the shop, pulled around and walked out the back door at 5:20 p.m., two doors down from the shop where the supremacist terrorist shot and killed two indigenous community leaders who I love and admire and know. Approximately 5:25 p.m. that night. I share this with you reluctantly, because the trauma from this incident has spiraled throughout our community. But I share to say I am aware of how gun violence is affecting our community. And yes, we need to do something. We need to act. But we need to act in preventative ways. We need to act in generative and reciprocal ways. That is what my friend taught me. And that is what she taught her community. Do not use her death to support this anti-black and brown tool of violence. Surveillance is not generative. It does not promote the well-being of generations to come. To place these recording devices in the inverted L surveilling black and brown communities. This does not align with recommendations 53 and 55 from the Denver Task Force to re-imagine police and policing. But what might we do with $4.7 billion that is generative and inspiring? We could do, as was suggested during the budget hearings and apply these funds toward a facility that provides housing and mental health and substance abuse supports. We could provide multiple safe outdoor spaces and ask people and ask of people across the city during the rise go bond discussion. We could improve or provide sidewalks. We could add probably 30 miles of bike lanes. I have mentioned this to you before, but I think it's worth saying again that in 2021, DPD reported that they attribute 94 arrests to ShotSpotter and they attributed 68 arrest to it in 2018. So that's an average of 81 arrests per year. So this is a $940,000 contract per year divided by 81 average arrest. That's $11,000 per arrest. And that's just ShotSpotter. That doesn't include the cost of personnel or resources, nor does it take into account the costs when ShotSpotter incorrectly alerts an officer in the case of fireworks or a car backfire. And as we have heard, it is never ShotSpotter has never been tested against fireworks or car backfires. How easily at the.
Speaker 2: Time we have allotted for each speaker, our next speaker is Harmony Cummings.
Speaker 3: Hi. What if we could invest in proactive instead of reactive measures? I like bullet before it goes into my child. Or into your child. I want a bullet before it goes into a concertgoer. I want to prevent the bullet before it goes in to someone sitting in a movie theater. I want to prevent the bullet before it goes up in a King Soopers. And I want to prevent the where it goes into a mother and activist at a tattoo parlor and the tragedies that played out last week. How many gun tragedies will it take? What if we need to invest in much needed mental health care? What if we invested in afterschool programs? What if we expand it? Or every towns model for gun safety fun. And Moms Demand Action. Be Safe storage program. And other programs that promote gun safety. What if we could expand awareness and implementation around Colorado's Extreme Risk Protection orders, where authorities can remove guns from someone having a mental health break or someone who is posing threats on others like the shooter last week who wrote three self-published books detailing what he was going to do and how it's going to play out. Who was on police watch list from 2018? Bang, bang, bang. I want to prevent the bullet before it goes into my child. Your child or into your brain or mine. It's I just don't know what else it takes. Maybe the council should go back and watch the recordings from the height of Black Lives Matter, in which we made pledges to do better to our communities of color and see that policing them in this unfair manner doesn't work. Calling the police is terrifying for a lot of people. And I don't want cops charging in, anticipating gunfire that isn't real and causing more harm. Three months ago in Arvada, someone came in wanting to do a mass shooting and a local person that had a concealed carry weapon or a concealed carry permit shot the shooter before they killed scores of people to have the police come in and shoot them, killing the hero of our situation. I don't want these things to happen anymore, do you? Let's invest in things that are preventative instead of reactive, because by that point it's too late and people that you love and maybe you are dead. Let's do things better and more smart going forward.
Speaker 2: Thank you. That concludes our speakers this evening. That was our 30 minute courtesy public hearing. Thank you for the members of the public that spoke to us and that signed up in anticipation of questions from members of Council on Council Resolution 21 1514. Counsel pro tem twice.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. A few questions. I'm sorry I wasn't at committee to get a number of these answered, so some of it might feel repetitive from. I was looking at the PowerPoint that was presented in committee and you shared that 2020 saw 3093 ShotSpotter alerts 2021 as of early December, 3843, a nearly double from the 2018 number. When we started using using ShotSpotter, it was 2018. Was it the same geography that we have now?
Speaker 7: So it was actually 2015 when we started using ShotSpotter. But we have incrementally increased our coverage areas. So particularly from 2018 to 2021, there has been additional areas that have been added that have that have led to that dramatic increase.
Speaker 1: And it's 14 square miles of the city. That's where we ShotSpotter roughly. What did we start with?
Speaker 7: I don't remember the the square miles that we started with, but we started with an array in East Denver and then established an array in West Denver. And then I believe we added East Colfax, Montebello and then lower downtown.
Speaker 1: Got it. Okay. So can you give me a picture of what response looks like in West Denver? Obviously, some of the heavy activity that that that we see. There was a map that was in the PowerPoint of firearm related, I guess, crimes, but I'm not sure how that corresponds to ShotSpotter alerts. Can I can you give me a picture of what that looks like?
Speaker 7: Yes. And thank you for that question. So. So what happens is the the percussion, the, you know, the gunshot or quite honestly, of the firework or the backfire is is heard. It's caught by the sensors. However, there is some science that goes into reviewing that particular shot, looking at the sound waves and being able to identify specific to gunfire, being able to differentiate it because of its sound pattern from from a backfire or a firework. And so so that alert is actually listened to by individuals that that work for ShotSpotter. And they review the, you know, the scientific data, they listen to it, and then they make that determination. Is this gunfire that I forward on to DPD or is this something that I suppress because I strongly believe it to be something other than gunfire? So if they identify that it's believed to be gunfire, it is forwarded to our dispatch center. Our dispatch center notifies the officers. There's also a notification that goes to officers entities in their vehicles, as well as to their to their handheld devices, their cell phones, which allows them to specifically vector to that exact GPS coordinates so that they can be within 25 meters of the exact location where that where that gunshot occurred, which gives them that opportunity to recover that evidence and tend to those victims.
Speaker 1: So in terms of the 3843 alerts, are those alerts that were confirmed, gunshot alerts versus. Yes. Noise? Yes. Okay. And then of those 308 3843 gunshot alerts, what's the timeframe between when ShotSpotter kind of marks the noise to when they send it to DPD to respond to?
Speaker 7: It's a very short time period, so a matter of seconds, 2 minutes.
Speaker 1: And one in a person like a operating center or something is listening to every single one.
Speaker 7: Of their. Yes, they have extensive staff that are listening to these and and, you know, being able to to pick up the percussion, you know, verify the science and then make that determination, whether it's actually gunfire or not, and then forward that alert.
Speaker 1: So and then what's the time frame between? Because I remember hearing in committee, I think somebody said every single one is responded to.
Speaker 7: That is correct.
Speaker 1: Do you guys at at DPD, maybe at the district level, keep a timing account of when we receive it and when officers arrived? Because I feel like for for West Denver, if we're heavy in alerts, officers are responding all the time.
Speaker 7: So ShotSpotter alerts are given a priority one. So our priorities go from 0 to 6. And so ShotSpotter alert is given a priority one designation. So that is something that that a dispatcher would send an officer to faster than they would send them to an auto theft or car accident or something like that. And so and so, yes, you are getting a more timely response to a ShotSpotter alert than some other event. And but just just like any other event where we have to, you know, identify a priority, we may there may not be an immediate response to a particular ShotSpotter alert because of the the sheer volume of not just ShotSpotter alerts, but other priority one calls that are occurring within the police district. Certainly corresponding 911 calls would would be helpful in in adjusting that priority and seeing that officers are dispatched even quicker. The other thing that I think is important to mention that I did discuss at the hearing that you were not able to attend, is that there's also additional follow up the next day and that serves to purposes in my mind. The first is that we're able to do an even more extensive search for evidence in the daylight. You know, so, you know, often things are difficult to find in the daylight. Maybe it's even snowed overnight. So it provides us that opportunity to do another search for evidence. The other thing that it does is it provides us that opportunity to to to knock on doors and and make sure that this community, who already may have a reluctance to to call the police. I think it demonstrates that we definitely do care, because I recognize there are some people who don't call the police when they hear the sound of gunshots because they think no one cares.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Okay. So it could be anywhere from minutes and hours to a day.
Speaker 4: No, no, no, no.
Speaker 7: So, I mean, I would say anywhere from from just a minute to several minutes, because there's there's a number of priority one calls that are occurring at one time, but certainly not a several hour or a next day situation. So so there is a proper response to these. These are considered to be high priority for us.
Speaker 1: Okay. How many? End up in officers responding and nobody's their lights are off. Nothing is happening at the at the home, at the property, on the block. How many feel inconclusive, I guess.
Speaker 7: Well, that's difficult to assess. So, I mean, I can tell you that over 600 of them, we recovered recovered evidence, whether that be a weapon or that be an opportunity to make an arrest or recover shell casings. We do. You know, if we if we talk to a neighbor and they say, oh, yeah, you know, the neighbor's car backfired, or we we find remnants of fireworks, for instance. We do report that back to ShotSpotter to let them know that that their diagnosis was incorrect. And we have an annual account review where we go over our data versus their data to to to make sure that they're meeting that that that mark of of accuracy.
Speaker 1: And what is that account review kind of deliver for you all in terms of a grade or. Um.
Speaker 7: So they, they're, they're, they're part of, of the agreement is that they will have an above 90% accuracy rate. And each time that we've reviewed the account with them, they have been able to demonstrate that they're that their accuracy is far above 90% and. In our numbers that we independently review are the same.
Speaker 1: What's what does it actually end up being?
Speaker 7: You know, it's roughly between 97, 94%, actually.
Speaker 4: Okay.
Speaker 1: Um. So back to that map that was in the presentation for committee. So it's not a map or ShotSpotter alerts, but a map of aggravated assault with a firearm. What's the association of showing that map when we're talking about ShotSpotter? We didn't see a map of ShotSpotter alerts.
Speaker 7: Correct. So we have not shown where the exact you know, it's sort of an investigative privilege, you know, to identify the specific boundaries of where the shot spotters are. But the purpose for showing that particular map of this persistently violent hotspot locations in those five locations in the city, that that make up for a large percentage of homicides in a large percentage of our aggravated assaults environment involving a firearm. That's just to demonstrate that we have the technology placed in the right locations, because that is where we are seeing the most persistent gun violence.
Speaker 1: Okay. And then my last question is around the history on the contracts. Since 2015, have these been three year or five year contract agreements?
Speaker 7: No. So actually up until this point, we have just renewed a one year contract. But in our contract negotiations with them, I think it's also maybe important to to say that we we originally began our relationship with ShotSpotter in 2015, and it was really kind of a single source situation. But because there have been more vendors that have entered the space, we felt it appropriate to send it out to RFP. We also thought we would do our due diligence given some of the negative publicity, the access article and such. So. So we did enter into an RFP process and they came to us with a number of proposals, one of which being the five year proposal, the five year contract proposal, which within that proposal comes some substantial savings, which is why we are opting for the five year contract.
Speaker 1: Okay. Just in terms of sharing data, sorry, that was not my last question. This is my last question. Just in terms of sharing data, even with council members, I have had exchanges with with district leadership and officers about results or, you know, what did ShotSpotter say about something that residents were online about last night? But I've never really seen a report of here's the activity in your council district. Here's what it's resulted in as any as a demonstration of effectiveness, because I think it is a tool for knowledge. But, you know, for West Denver, you know, we definitely want safety as an outcome and increased trust that, you know, their phone call is going to matter or that CPD is picking up on something that just happened. And to routinely I think we hear that, you know, gunfire, nobody cares. Nobody responded. And so just want to kind of marry some of those a little bit better into here's what we know about response rates or effectiveness rates when it comes to why this kind of software is useful to you.
Speaker 7: Sure. Sure, I appreciate that. So a couple of things. So, yes, we have identified the ability to to provide ShotSpotter data specific to Council District. We have historically done that specific to police district. And we've been able to provide reports to those police districts so that they so that they recognize the rate at which we're recovering evidence , the number of arrests that are made specific to ShotSpotter, the number of of, you know, guns recovered, evidence recovered and things like that. And we think that that's important because, you know, we have officers that are responding to these things every day. And we want to demonstrate to them that there are fruits to their to their efforts. But certainly we are able to I checked with our data folks just last week, and they are able to do a specific report that that that can identify all of those data points for you by council district.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 2: All right. Thank you, counsel pro tem Torres and Division Chief. Next, we're going to go online to Councilwoman CdeBaca.
Speaker 3: Thank you. I have a long list of questions. I was cataloging some of the ones asked by people who spoke tonight. So I'll start off with a couple of questions that came from speakers. Did ShotSpotter identify any activity in last week's shooting?
Speaker 7: Yes. So the I believe the the incident at 12 and Williams was picked up by ShotSpotter.
Speaker 3: Was that the one? The Broadway tattoo shop.
Speaker 7: No I believe that was the the the residence at 12th and Williams.
Speaker 3: So was there a911 call first or did the ShotSpotter alert you guys first?
Speaker 7: I don't recall the sequence of if the 911 call for service came first or if the ShotSpotter alert came first. But certainly they both were beneficial to us.
Speaker 3: How often do we assess which came first?
Speaker 7: You know, I'm not sure that it's that that we've identified that it's important which came first. I think that certainly we want community members to to call the police and let us know of criminal activity that's going on. However, we recognize that there are segments of the community where that's less likely to happen. And so I think it's important to have technology in place that can allow us to have that that information without that that corresponding call.
Speaker 3: That's a fair response. But given that we want to be data driven, I think it's critical that when we're spending millions of dollars, we are understanding which comes first, because if in a large amount of those cases, you recognize that the 911911 call came first, then it actually tells us we don't necessarily need the technology that we're paying for. So I would hope in the future that we're checking which comes first so that we can have that data in the future. Additionally. We heard from the speakers that these technologies have disproportionately been placed in historically black and brown communities. Will this contract move any of the current shark spotters or does it just expand on that?
Speaker 7: So there's no plans to move any of the current ShotSpotter arrays. Our data shows that the ShotSpotter arrays have been placed in the appropriate locations because of the persistent gun violence that occurs in those areas. There is an opportunity with this new contract to expand by two square miles and the placement of that is unknown. At this time. We would have to do sort of a deep dove into into the data to determine which is the best location to add those additional square miles.
Speaker 3: So I'm a little bit confused about that or those comments because you're saying that the technology is effective in decreasing current gun crime or historic gun crime. But you're saying that we have evidence to add more, which would technically mean that they haven't been effective if it's only within two miles. So what evidence that gun crime has decreased in the current coverage area.
Speaker 7: So that so what I'm saying is that clearly the locations that the arrays have been placed are the right locations, given the fact that this is where the gun crime is currently occurring and has occurred since 2015, when we began our relationship with ShotSpotter. ShotSpotter, as part of the contract offer, has offered to allow us to add two square miles wherever we choose, but where we choose to, if we choose to take advantage of that opportunity so that that location will be based on on a data driven needs assessment.
Speaker 3: Can you give me the actual data points that you're using to as evidence that this technology is effective where it's at? What are the what what are the apples and apples that you're comparing? What's the data point that you're comparing?
Speaker 7: Well, I mean, I think if you if you look at the presentation earlier for the safety committee that shows the locations of our persistently violent gun crime, and that is where our ShotSpotter arrays are located. So that demonstrates to us that.
Speaker 3: Only correlation causation or so I'm confused about how we know we're decreasing gun crime in an area. If you're telling us that the gun crime has increased in the areas where ShotSpotter is currently at.
Speaker 7: Well, you know, unfortunately, gun crime is has increased everywhere. And and this is one tool among a number of tools and community partnerships that we are hoping to leverage going forward to address the gun crime issue.
Speaker 3: Interesting. Can you speak to a comment made about real time notification plans for the public? Is there a real time notification plan for the public when ShotSpotter gets an alert?
Speaker 7: I'm not exactly sure what that means. If that means notifying the community that there that there has been what is believed to be a gunshot heard in their neighborhood. I would say no. However, there is going to be a police response to every one of these ShotSpotter alerts in an opportunity for whether it's through neighborhood surveys or other contacts with officers in the area investigating gunfire to to communicate with community that there has been an incident of gunfire.
Speaker 3: So you mentioned that 75% of 911 in callers did not know a location from where shots were fired. Do you have raw numbers?
Speaker 4: Or.
Speaker 3: What was that?
Speaker 7: I don't think I'll let you finish your question, but the percentage that I mentioned was 85%, and that is that 85% of people not knowing where the word gunshots are coming from. That's 85% of shots, letters that didn't have a corresponding 911 call to it. We are also, though, aware of the fact that when we do have 911 calls relative to a shots fired incident, quite often they are unable to identify exactly where those gunshots came from. So, you know, they may hear or believe that it came from behind them or in front of them when really they they don't know. But the ShotSpotter technology is able to identify exactly where it came from and even vector officers in two locations that they couldn't see from the street.
Speaker 3: Okay. That's actually a good segway to the false positives conversation. I was a little bit confused about some of the numbers you mentioned. You stated that the false positive rate was between or that 94 to 97% of the alerts were for gunfire. But earlier, you had mentioned that 100% of alerts were gunfire. So can you tell me a little bit about our false positive rate and maybe just talk a little bit about false positives? And how is cite as a sound that's not a gunshot is logged.
Speaker 7: Yes. Thank you for that question. So as I said. So the the the sound is picked up by the censors. It's reviewed by a technician with ShotSpotter. If they determine based upon the science and based upon their their hearing of that particular sound, they forward it to DPD for a response. We respond, and we may not necessarily recover shell casings, but that could be because the shots were fired inside of a car. It could be that that a revolver was used where there is no shell casings to recover. However, there are instances where it would be reasonable to believe that it was in fact not gunfire, because we are able to at the location where we were directed to go, we find remnants of fireworks or we knock on doors and they say, Oh, no, that was my next door neighbor. When they have an old car, when they're pulling out of the driveway, I heard it backfire. And those are documented in an unfounded ShotSpotter go report and maintained by our data analysis unit. And then when we do the annual account review with ShotSpotter, we go over those instances. In fact, it's automatically reported to ShotSpotter when we believe that they were incorrect about a shot fired or what they reported to be a shot fired.
Speaker 3: So what is that rate? How often do we say that it's not gunfire?
Speaker 7: We say that we don't believe it to be gunfire less than 5% of the time.
Speaker 3: And then what data points tell us that this technology is effective at stopping or disrupting violence or solving crime. Are we simply using. Because you mentioned earlier one case where there was some assistance toward solving a crime. Can you tell me exactly how many shell casings have been used successfully in court cases? How many court cases? What percent of court cases? How many alerts resulted in a shooter being found? How many alerts are we getting versus 911 calls about shootings? Like, can you tell me a little bit about these metrics of effectiveness?
Speaker 7: So. So. Talked about the roughly 3800 alerts in 600 of those incidences. We actually recovered physical evidence in 120 of those situations. We recovered a gun and I'll have to identify my information specific to arrests. But we are also able to speak specifically to to the number of arrests. That are made specific to. So over 90 arrests just. Just this year. Specific to ShotSpotter. So. So I think that that demonstrates that that the tool is effective now in terms of reducing the incidence of gun violence. I just think, again, this is one.
Speaker 4: Tool.
Speaker 7: That we intend to continue to use, along with a number of other tools, as well as community partnerships to address gun violence.
Speaker 3: Before you jump through that, can you tell me of the 90 arrests? How many resulted in a conviction related to that?
Speaker 7: I can't. And that's only because it is very difficult for us to get court data. But I suppose that I could have someone undertake that exhaustive research and and identify how many of those specific arrests resulted in a conviction. Understanding, though, that some of those probably haven't even gone to trial yet.
Speaker 2: And Councilwoman CdeBaca, I'm going to go ahead and interject there. We've got two other members in the queue for questions as well. And so wanted to provide them some time. If you have a couple more questions, go ahead. But then I'm going to ask that we move along to Councilman Hines and Flynn.
Speaker 3: Just a couple more questions. Has a third party, some kind of neutral vendor, ever evaluated ShotSpotter as effectiveness?
Speaker 7: Yes. Yes. Appreciate that opportunity to address that. So I'm aware of at least three independent reviews that have been done.
Speaker 3: By who?
Speaker 7: One by Edgeworth Analytics, another by Project Safe Neighborhoods, and another measuring the effects of ShotSpotter on gunfire in Saint Louis County, Missouri. There's been a number of other third party reviews that have been done that have demonstrated not just the effectiveness of the system and being able to recover evidence, but also the benefit of being able to quickly locate a victim and get them to the hospital so that they can be treated further for their injuries. I think it also bears mentioning that of the departments across the country that have employed ShotSpotter technology, over 90% of them have renewed their their. Relationship with ShotSpotter.
Speaker 3: Of the counties or the cities like San Antonio, Charlotte and Los Angeles who have ended their contracts with ShotSpotter. Do you know why those contracts were terminated or not renewed?
Speaker 2: Okay. We're going to go ahead and move on. Councilwoman CdeBaca, if you'd like to get back into the queue. You can go ahead and do that. Councilman Hines.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Council President Chief Thomas, thank you for being in the hot seat and for answering our questions. So I see that, you know, the municipal government, one of our core charges is to further public health, safety and welfare. And I see that this is a conversation about whether ShotSpotter furthers public safety. And I hear that. So I just have a few kind of topics. The first is I hear from the community that ShotSpotter is placed in underserved communities. And so a couple of questions about that. You had mentioned that there are five hotspots in the city. I have you know, there was a press release about five hotspots in the city several months ago, and two of them are in my district civic center. And Colfax around the Gothic Cathedral. Are are those two of the five hotspots? Yes. Okay. So I just wanted to make sure that there wasn't just two random, you know, referrals to hot spots that that we were actually talking about the same things. I would say that District ten is inside the inverted L and, and so I'm not saying that that's, um, that there aren't ShotSpotter areas outside the inverted L, but I know that, you know, the public has made comments about how ShotSpotter was placed in, you know, historically black and brown communities and underserved communities. Um, district tennis. 82% white. So. Um. I also hear that ShotSpotter funding could be better placed elsewhere. I'm curious, though. So the Department of Justice, I think in one of your slides, you've mentioned that the DOJ is providing funding for some of ShotSpotter. Do you know how much the DOJ is contributing?
Speaker 7: I don't. So I will say and I think I have some some people come in to rescue me.
Speaker 4: So I'll just talk about.
Speaker 7: So for 2021, for this year, $835,000, roughly is coming from the general fund. And then $267,000, roughly, is coming from from jack rounds.
Speaker 6: You. I'm sorry. You said from Jack Reynolds.
Speaker 7: Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. So. So now. So. So the total invoice amount for. For 2021 is $835,000 roughly. And then Jack Rand. So justice systems grants are paying for 267,000 of that total.
Speaker 6: So the this contract, the proposal is for $4.7 million. Would the DOJ pay for some of that 4.7 million and we would get some back or we would pay 4.7 million grant.
Speaker 4: Or.
Speaker 7: $4.7 million is the term of the contract. So that is the amount, the contracted amount and of that contracted amount, a percentage of that is being paid through a previously approved general funds and then another percentage of that is being paid by by grants. So those those percentages have already been worked out. To come to that $4.7 million total.
Speaker 6: Okay. So the city's contribution from our fund is $4.7 million?
Speaker 7: No, no. The total contract amount is 4.7 million.
Speaker 6: Do you know what the city's contribution is?
Speaker 7: Okay. So I'm being told that essentially of that $4.7 million, about 30% of that is being paid for through grant moneys.
Speaker 6: Okay. So, 1.3 million. I'm just doing napkin math, so. Okay. Okay. Got it. Um. And then I did do a quick Internet search of Project Safe Neighborhoods that seems to be a Department of Justice project that as I write or did I mean, I did that search 5 seconds. So maybe I was running the wrong. One. But it's through the Department of Justice.
Speaker 7: Correct. Correct. And then. And then there's other.
Speaker 6: I'm sorry.
Speaker 7: I'm just. I'm just referring to the other reviews that I mentioned as well.
Speaker 6: All right. Thank you. So another thing that I hear from the community is it's difficult for the public to determine the accuracy of ShotSpotter. So as I mentioned, the project Safe Neighborhoods, you mentioned to others, I didn't do a search on them because I knew I was next. Is it I think I know the answer to this, but I want to ask anyway, is it possible for the public to access the ShotSpotter data?
Speaker 7: Tell me what what data would you be wanting the public to have access to?
Speaker 6: I guess so. I'm trying to figure out how can I think that you have provided in your in your initial presentation, you provided some compelling statistics that make me want to, you know, want to to continue those statistics. I also hear from the community, you know, not only just in the public comment, but but, you know, I've gotten quite a few emails with what seems to be quite a bit of compelling research saying that ShotSpotter is not effective. And so what I'm trying to do is I'm trying to I'm trying to come up with some sort of third party way to validate. And, you know, you mentioned the three independent evaluators. I don't know any of them. And so I was thinking, what if the public can review it or, you know, like this is ultimately hardware and software, the hardware or the, you know, the microphones. The software is the the data that triangulate and pinpoints the information using technology. So if we could have a forensic analyst and a computer analyst come together and, you know, from a an objective third party, then I could slice through whose data is the right data and whose data is wrong. I mean, you know, like, I guess, how do I how do I determine that your data, the statistics that you provided are compelling and the published data is not the other way around. You see what I'm what I'm trying to get at?
Speaker 7: I do. But I think I would rely on ShotSpotter providing their data to the community, which they're not going to do. I mean, they you know, they're not going to sell that or provide that to anybody. They'll certainly review our data with us as we are reviewing our own data. During that, you know, during that that period where we reviewed the effect of this of their of their project or their annual account review.
Speaker 6: Yeah, well, I mean, if you rely on the wolf to count all the chickens, you know? Yeah. You know, I don't know if I want to rely on ShotSpotter to say that ShotSpotter is not effective.
Speaker 4: Well, or vice versa.
Speaker 7: I, I appreciate that viewpoint, but I think that the fact that we know that we are coming in contact with victims that we may otherwise not have been able to come in contact with before they succumb to their injuries and be able to get them to treatment. The the opportunities that we have had to actually recover the the weapons used in crimes, the opportunity to recover evidence that ultimately is able to lead to a prosecution, the opportunity to connect ShotSpotter alerts with video evidence that that ultimately leads to a prosecution. You know, that seems, you know, pretty compelling to show that that the technology works.
Speaker 6: Okay. Thank you. I might have more questions, but I don't want to waste time thinking through the questions. Thank you. Council president. All right. And thank you, chief.
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilmember Hines. Councilmember Flynn.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. Chief. Is Denver's primary purpose for using ShotSpotter to respond to reports of gunfire that might not have otherwise been reported by the public and to recover whatever evidence may be found at that location.
Speaker 7: Yes, I couldn't say it better myself. So thank you. Thank you. That is our primary reason for our relationship with ShotSpotter is it gives us that opportunity to go to that exact location and recover evidence that is useful towards connecting other crimes, solving crimes, and being able to save lives.
Speaker 4: In your long experience in law enforcement, Chief, how typical is it for a person who fires a gun to remain on the scene long enough for a responding officer to show up, whether it's ShotSpotter or a citizen calling in 911? How often do you actually find the person? And you may not know this.
Speaker 7: But if you don't. Well, I mean, I think it's fair to say that's a rare event that I would think someone actually stays on the scene long enough for the police to get there and take them into custody. I think it's even a rare occasion that we have a Halo operator that is able to vector a camera into the location where the ShotSpotter alert has gone off and see a suspect running away. Certainly that has happened a number of times. However, again, the most effective use of this tool is to be able to get to that location and provide quick aid to any victim that we may encounter. And then again, to recover that evidence.
Speaker 4: Let me ask you, you said most gunshots don't generate 911 calls from a public. You said about 85%. Is that the number?
Speaker 7: Roughly, yes.
Speaker 4: Roughly. So about 15% of gunfire. And actually, now that I think about it, you said with the ShotSpotter arrays that we have covers, how much of the city.
Speaker 7: 14 square.
Speaker 4: Miles, 14 square miles out of 110, excluding that airport out in Kansas or wherever it is. So about 110 acres. 14% of that. So about, you know, maybe 15, 16 acres or percent, rather. Okay. So it's when you were asked how often does a911 call come in before the shot? Spotter report is not really relevant to about 85%.
Speaker 7: Of the calls.
Speaker 4: That occur and only 14% of the city landmass.
Speaker 7: That's a pretty that'd be a pretty.
Speaker 4: Insignificant data point, wouldn't it?
Speaker 7: Well, yeah, but I think I need to clarify, though, that that 85% of of I think we're I think we're talking about. Those those shot spotters that are within that array, those ShotSpotter alerts that are within those those five arrays within that 14 square mile coverage area, 85% of those do not have a correspondent.
Speaker 4: Exactly. And that's the only that's the only data you could derive, because there's no ShotSpotter in my district, for example, where I see people complaining a lot about hearing gunfire. We don't know if they actually did or if it's fireworks or whatever. So it doesn't even include that just the 14% of the city. And 85% of those reports are not called in by the public. Correct. Thank you. Has DPD ever in your data analysis.
Speaker 7: You ever compared shots fired calls.
Speaker 4: Within ShotSpotter areas to calls in areas that aren't covered by the public? In other words, do we have we obviously have many more reports of gunfire in the areas that ShotSpotter covers. We have, whatever, 85%.
Speaker 7: Divided by.
Speaker 4: 15% is. Have we ever done a comparison to see other areas of the city.
Speaker 7: How those.
Speaker 4: Reports compare?
Speaker 7: Well, certainly in those other areas outside of that 14 square mile area, the only way that we know that there has been gunfire in those locations is if there's a911 goal. So we have no way of knowing those instances where people chose not to call the police either because they didn't recognize it as gunfire or they they decided that maybe somebody else was probably going to call it because they heard it, too, or because they just didn't think the police cared. It's actually very.
Speaker 4: Rare, isn't it, for a police officer to personally witness gunfire erupting in front of them?
Speaker 7: Sure.
Speaker 4: It's okay that that did happen. And right outside my council office in in Harvey Park, you know, where an undercover unit was nearby with a running gun battle.
Speaker 7: Yeah, exactly. Yes.
Speaker 4: Yes. Thank you. Do you? Do you know what is the experience with evidence recovery and including shell casings in areas that are not covered by ShotSpotter? Maybe Gregg knows this. How successful are we when we respond outside the ShotSpotter areas to recovering evidence, including shell casings?
Speaker 7: Well, again, I don't I don't know that. That we could really identify our effectiveness there because again, we're only responding to 22911 calls that we receive. We recognize that there's some inaccuracy with with regard to location. So I can say that there are instances where we do go to where community members think that there's been gunshots and recover evidence. But I would say that the large majority of times we aren't able to find evidence because we just can't get to that specific location because it's just very, very difficult for someone who hears gunfire as they're, you know, inside of their home to identify exactly where it came from.
Speaker 4: It would be very hard to verify a false positive, wouldn't it?
Speaker 7: Certainly you're not there to hear the noise. You show up.
Speaker 4: Five, 10 minutes later. How the heck can you? I'm responding to the notion that we should be able to categorize easily a false positive. Well, there was no gunfire here because I didn't find a shell casing. But like you said, you might the person might have fired a revolver or it could have been the casing could have ejected inside a vehicle. And that's moving that sort of thing.
Speaker 7: You know, certainly. But I don't just want to I don't want to discount the value of community members calling in. Yes, there. That's what we prefer. We we wish we could.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Thank you, Chief Gregg, I just have two questions for you, I think. Yes. And how many do you know? How many shell casing profiles? Your fabulous crime lab.
Speaker 7: Which has, as was noted.
Speaker 4: Is is nationally renowned. How many shell casing profiles have we recorded in 1919 is the national. National Integrated Ballistic.
Speaker 7: Information.
Speaker 4: Network. It's correct. It's like.
Speaker 7: A fingerprint.
Speaker 4: File for bullets or for cases like I call it like a topographical analysis for a bullet. Like it looks at the topography, like looking at a topographical map. Same idea. 2020. We recovered 10,484. Yeah, 2021. It's an estimate because they don't have all of the data in yet. But it's 11,000 536, really. And that includes areas not covered by ShotSpotter. Do you know how that's not that's not just ShotSpotter, right? That's the city. Yeah. That's everything we took in. Okay. But, you know, your questions are scientifically based. They're good questions. The best way to answer them without doing a deep statistical analysis over time series, I have the background in statistics, so I heard what you guys are all saying. Actually, Councilwoman CdeBaca also look at the differences across the years, I think. You. What you could do is you could look at the differences across the years as it as it as it expanded in miles. Right. And you could almost figure out additions of each square mile, resulting in X number of increases and shell casings, for example. But it's a more what I'd call a multivariate problem, because concurrently with the advances, you've also had quite a bit of increases in in gun crimes, too, for various reasons. Right. There's different reasons for it, but it's all occurring concurrently. So trying to parse one cause from another is quite difficult. Action can be done with good experimental design. So what we're relying on is really the delta or the increases year on year. And what I presented to you was from 2015 when we had what I think it was one or two square miles up to now where we have 14. So you have the effect of having more coverage. Yes, right. But those are pretty dramatic increases. And the other one declines. Let me ask you, Greg. The bottom line that I'm that I'm trying to understand is when when firearms are recovered by DPD.
Speaker 7: And turned over to.
Speaker 4: Your lab and you can test, fire them and compare the casings, how often are you able to link recovered guns.
Speaker 7: To.
Speaker 4: Other criminal incidents or other gunshot incidents? And then this is memory based, so it's about 25% of the time. How much? About 25% of the time. So about 25% of the firearms we recover. We can link to other incidents, which means that we can close more cases. Yes. And potentially charge more or or one of the. Yeah, I think one of the other benefits is if you if you if you have a responsible party with the firearm and it's the firearm is test fired and quickly compared to the database and you have several matches, it makes a more compelling court case with that individual right now, whether they were actually present at each one of those, they can answer that. But it makes a more compelling case in terms of bringing charges or remanding over in custody, in terms of isolating that person for a while and then allowing the case investigation to occur. So, you know, the other day I was trying to get back to a question you have, but I don't I know your it's your floor.
Speaker 7: I'm not. That's that. Those are all my questions.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. Okay.
Speaker 2: Let's introduce yourself for the public record.
Speaker 4: Okay. Dr. Gregory Lubbers, Le BRG, I'm director forensics and evidence division for the Denver Police Department. So that's crime scene and forensics. I'm at 1371 Cherokee Street in Denver.
Speaker 2: Great. Thank you. All right. We've got a few more council members in the queue and we've heard from CdeBaca and Haines. We'll go back to them, but we'll go ahead and go right now to Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, madam. Madam President. So my questions go back to some of the same questions that Councilman Flynn was asking.
Speaker 1: About.
Speaker 2: How we tie the ballistics to Taliban. And I wanted to just ask first, is that. Where that work takes place to to basically I.D. a shell casing, to a gun that it was shot from. Is it done out of our lab or is that done through an ATF facility? I know there's a direct tie in because part of that was sort of created within DPD. And it's something that ATF has has adopted and is using nationally now, right?
Speaker 4: That's correct. So ATF provides us funding for I think we have three or four people now that work in the crime lab that support the efforts of what you just said, which we call triaging or we're triaging shell casings and recovered firearms. All of the work, as you alluded to, does occur in our laboratory seven days a week, not 24 hours a day, but close. But we have personnel that work across the weekend, so there's no delay.
Speaker 2: So so would you argue that that is a direct or very clear difference between some of the other cities that are using this same technology?
Speaker 4: I would argue that it is. I mean, you're only as strong as the weakest link. So ShotSpotter is getting us certainly contributing to more shell casings. But what you do with them once you have the matters and it has to be fast, it has to be accurate and has to be put out to detectives and others in task forces to do something about it downstream. We've done that well as a business process.
Speaker 2: So you sat here through our earlier conversation about the legislation that we just passed. So in order for you to really link that shell casing to a particular gun, having that serial number is a critical part of that, is it not?
Speaker 4: It's a part of it. But if we have the gun in possession and then we took the gun from a party, save from a search warrant, we will still test fire that gun. And whether even if it doesn't have a serial number, we can still compare the parts of that gun that's made up of parts without a serial number to evidence that we collect around the city. So it doesn't impede our ability to do that without a serial number. It without having a serial number, we can't do a trace, which is a trace to try to find the originating owner or from.
Speaker 2: Where it was sold originally.
Speaker 4: Where it was originally sold doesn't mean that's the owner today. Right? But it could be a starting place when previously you would have none.
Speaker 2: Okay. Those are all the questions I have. Thank you so much for reading. All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. We're going to go back online. Councilwoman CdeBaca.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Just two final questions in diving in a little bit to what ShotSpotter office offers or promises. They promise 90% detection, but not accuracy. Do you, Detective Thomas, have any numbers on accuracy that ShotSpotter has promised to you all?
Speaker 7: Bless you for telling us. And so so they are promising accuracy in location. So their promise isn't just that they will accurately detect gunfire, but they'll also located in a 25 meter location.
Speaker 3: What percent accuracy are they promising for detecting gunshots?
Speaker 7: I'm not sure I understand your question. So. So they are promising accuracy in the detection of gunfire. So when they forward us an alert.
Speaker 4: They are.
Speaker 7: That is actually the detection of gunfire. And there they're promising the accuracy of the location where it comes from within a 25 meter radius.
Speaker 3: So I think we're saying the same thing. But let me let me say it back to you there. They're promising that they will detect the sound. They're not actually promising that they will accurately identify the sound as gunfire.
Speaker 7: Oh, they will. They will they will accurately detect the sound or determine the sound to be gunfire. And they will direct us to the location of that gunfire within 25 meters.
Speaker 3: So that's not what they publish anywhere. Is that written in our contract that they're promising us 100% accuracy in detection, that is gunfire?
Speaker 7: I think we're staying away from the facts. I never said 100% detection. They are promising accuracy within a very high percentage that they will accurately detect the gunfire. So the alerts that they pick up that that that that is, in fact, gunfire and that the location where they determine that to be is within 25 meters of where it actually occurred.
Speaker 3: You said a very high percentage. Do you have a number for that percentage nineties? And that. Okay. I would love to see where they make that promise to us, if you could send that to us. Also, if this contract is approved, is DPD planning to hire a third party independent evaluator to assess its effectiveness for the next go round?
Speaker 7: That's certainly something that we can consider at this point in time. No. We are convinced of its effectiveness. We are also aware of a number of independent reviews that have been done across the country that tout its effectiveness.
Speaker 3: Awesome. Thank you. That's it for my questions.
Speaker 2: All right. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Hines.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Council president. I wonder if Mr. Russell is still in the queue online. He was the the representative from ATF.
Speaker 2: I believe it was Jeffrey Russell.
Speaker 6: Correct? No, Mr. Labuschagne. May I ask you instead that this is a bit of a I'm asking you to represent ATF, so please, if you don't don't know the question or don't know the answer. Now don't make stuff up. Do you know what about Denver? He mentioned in his testimony that that Denver's program with ShotSpotter has become a model that the nation has used. You know what? What do we do? What? Why are we a model?
Speaker 4: Well, my team created it, so. Yes. And it's really comes down to to leveraging the resource, the crime lab resources and being timely with getting the shell casings from out in the world into the lab to get imaged. And then for other things like fingerprinting and DNA and other methodologies, most other places would do those things in order, like A, B, C, D. We do them all concurrently by cross-training our scientists to do both ballistic work, fingerprint work and DNA work, which sounds elementary. But actually in our world, they're highly specialized methods. But we've created what we call crossover analysts to do it. And we got federal grant money from the National Institute of Justice to do that pretty large amount. So really leveraging not only the laboratory part of it, but also the information that comes from the matches between the shell casings that are found out in the world as well as the shell casings that come from fire and firearms. We do that very quickly and put it together as a report and we get that out to law enforcement very quickly within 24 to 48 hours. So not only do we do the physical processing of the evidence quickly, we congeal or put a report together that puts the the information together that allows police officers to act very quickly on the street. So that's the whole program was built between those two major elements. And that's what the ATF helped us with really back as far as 2009. But really in 2012, late 2012, we worked very carefully with them and said, you know, we need resources very hard for us to get resources. And the government, the federal government came forth to support us, to have someone that they paid for in the lab to leverage that federal dollar, just like we were talking about BGA and and DOJ assistance before in terms of the JAG grants. They they still support us with personnel in the crime lab to do all of those activities that we just mentioned.
Speaker 6: Okay. Thank you. And that was one of the question. Thank you. Minimum or council president.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Hines. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Resolution 21, Dash 1514. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Madam President. We've heard a lot of.
Speaker 4: Testimony and evidence tonight that, for instance, that ShotSpotter hasn't reduced gun crime.
Speaker 7: So we should get.
Speaker 4: Rid of it. Its purpose isn't to reduce gun crime. It's to detect gunfire. We've heard that it hasn't led.
Speaker 7: Necessarily to an increase in.
Speaker 4: Arrests. Again, its purpose is not to increase arrests.
Speaker 7: Is to provide a tool.
Speaker 4: To detect gunfire that may or may not lead to an arrest. We've heard that it hasn't reduce gun crime or I'm sorry, convictions.
Speaker 7: Its purpose is not to produce convictions.
Speaker 4: That's why we have a district attorney to use whatever evidence may be derived from this tool to assist her in prosecuting any of these crimes. Rejecting ShotSpotter for not doing something that it's not intended to do and for which we don't use it in the first place, is like.
Speaker 7: Me throwing out my refrigerator.
Speaker 4: Because I can't use it to cook my dinner. I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this contract.
Speaker 7: And I look forward to having it possibly expanded into other areas where we are experiencing.
Speaker 4: Very high levels of gunfire so we can keep our community safer. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilmember Flynn. Councilmember CdeBaca.
Speaker 3: In you. I am obviously not in support of this contract tonight. We've heard from people that simply detecting a loud sound is not sufficient for such a large investment of scarce safe safety dollars, just simply detecting sounds. When we look at how many of those detections lead to arrests to even have a chance for a conviction, it's not substantial enough for us to continue investing in this way, especially since we've never taken the time to align with 911 calls to determine if 911 calls that came in sooner actually led us to the location sooner and an arrest. Ultimately, this is not an investment that the public is interested in making. According to our yearlong Community Re-imagining Policing Task Force. This was a topic discussed at length and there are actual recommendations that I hope council members have seen that recommend we no longer continue paying for these kind of surveillance technologies. And so for those reasons and all of the reasons stated by the speakers tonight, I will not support this contract and also would like to see if my if my colleagues pass this contract, I'd like to see an independent evaluator coming in to assess the effectiveness before we ever vote on this again. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman CdeBaca. Councilman Hines.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Council President, I. I still struggle with this. You know, regarding fireworks, I can't tell the difference between fireworks and guns. Gunshots either. I think some of my colleagues would would agree with that. But, you know, like I hear compelling statistics from the police department. I also hear compelling statistics from the public. And they don't they don't correlate. So I'm trying my best to reconcile that. And, you know, one way is to look at what other studies have done. And when I see articles online, I see that Chicago's 117 square miles of ShotSpotter has an uncertain future, and Charlotte and San Diego have ended their contracts. I also hear Chief Thomas has said more than 90% of ShotSpotter contracts have been renewed. So again, like in a in a tough spot of how to reconcile that. Um, another way is to have a third party review like a computer and forensic analysis of the software. Um, but I would, I would likely agree with Chief Thomas if I were ShotSpotter, I probably wouldn't give it, you know, the software out for public consumption or review. Um, another way is to provide narrow windows for review like we've done in the past for the one year contracts. But this is now a five year contract. Um, so I struggle with it not because I disagree that our city should provide safety to the public, because I believe that is a core charge of any city. But because I have trouble verifying that the $3.29 million, the 4.6 minus the 30% that the feds are chipping in. Um, I have trouble verifying that this $3.3 million through the people's funds will further test per excuse me best for their public safety through this purchase of additional ShotSpotter technology as opposed to using it in another way. So I will say that we have heard some testimony and I've certainly gotten emails about how this is disproportionately impacting black and brown communities. And I I'm not sure I agree with that because, again, two of the five Denver hotspots are in my district. So I still struggle with it. I just wanted to put that on record. And I would agree with Councilmember CdeBaca. If we do move this forward, I would strongly encourage a third party analysis of Denver's approach to ShotSpotter. Thank you. Council President.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilmember Hines. Councilor Council Pro-Tem Torres.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much, Madam President. And thank you to the APD and Dr. Lavers for for being here tonight. You know, one of the things that I know in District three we don't want are gunshots that have no response, period. And and that, I think, is a reality that that I've grown up with. And so I don't want to reverse course on a district that where there is a response. Now, whether it's verbally saying we can identify whether or not that's noise or if it is actually a gunshot. Where I'm uncomfortable is with broader outcomes. So ShotSpotter being there for evidence recovery, for identifying kind of when a gunshot is goes off. How does that translate into other things for a department is is where where I want to see kind of dots better connected in West Denver, particularly as we're seeing gun related crime increase. So I also struggle with, I think, the time frame and jumping to a five year period of time. And that may be my only reservation about this right now because those answers feel a little disconnected for me and be able to demonstrate to District three. Here is why this investment is is good, is solid, is helpful to Westwood, to Barnum, to Barnum West, where we see kind of the greatest density of that activity in the district. And and I don't know if that's true, but I also don't want to move back to many pieces where we're unable to find anything out about gunshots that were heard last night because nobody made a phone call. And and we know there are so many reasons why that happens. So I I'm also in that place of kind of struggle. What I would like to see is some of that data conversation. And that's not to, I think, expose where the arrays are at or what what kind of area of the city they're covering. But I also want to know that X number of those 3000. 800 alerts went off in my district and here was the response to that and be able to demonstrate to community that that this is what the outcome is. So no matter what the vote is tonight, that is something that I would like to to pursue with CPD. So thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Counsel Pro Tem Torres. We're going to go to Councilwoman Sawyer online.
Speaker 3: Things that I'm president. I won't rehash everything that my fellow council members have said this evening. I think, you know, both sides of this are pretty clear and it's not an easy decision. That said, you know, District five is a little bit different than a lot of other districts in the city in that we regularly hear from our residents that they want more support from the police, that they want more whatever interventions to assist in in tackling this this incredible increase in crime that we have seen, unfortunately, resulting from COVID and in the last 18 months. So, you know, I certainly hear what some of the people who were speaking tonight said and agree with some of my council members on the concerns about the length of the contract and things like that. But at the end of the day, I think Councilman Flynn said it best. This isn't a this is not, you know, a silver bullet, this, so to speak. This is a tool. And in a time when our officers need every tool that they can get at their disposal to help fight crime because they are severely understaffed, because they are all exhausted and frustrated, as is everyone in the community with this uptick in crime that we're seeing. I think that, you know, it's really important that we provide the tools that our safety departments need in order to be able to do their jobs effectively. And this is one of those tools. Thanks, Senate President.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilmember Sawyer. Councilmember Sandoval.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. I just wanted to say that my Council District two has also been asking for more resources. And I remember meeting with my police commander the week after that. The police officer was found by using ShotSpotter. And had ShotSpotter not been activated in northwest Denver twice. I think two lives could have been drastically lost. And that is not something that I want. And although I do understand the concerns from the people, the public comment and the length of the contract and even the price of the contract, it is a lot of money when you think about $4 million and what you can do it with $4 million. When we have a public health crisis on our hands, we have a pandemic on our hands. We have kids who are going without. And yet, at the same time, I want to make sure that I am giving the police department the tools that are needed to make sure that they're doing their job. I think one thing that has gone with COVID is we all are doing more with less. And I think we're all tired of doing more with less. I hear the fatigue from the police officers. I hear the fatigue from the commander. And if the police department feels that this is what's needed to be able to help solve some of the crime that is happening. And I will just say it did solve two of the crimes that happened in Council District one. And I was shocked when I heard that there were shots fired and they were not able to find the police officer had they not had this technology and his life was spared. So with that, I do support this contract this evening. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilmember Sandoval, we see nobody else in the Q. I'll go ahead and weigh in. You know, back in 2015, when I was first elected, listening to my constituents and listening to the community in District 11 and Division Chief Thomas, at that point in time was commander for the District five police department that covers Stapleton Montebello in Green Valley Ranch. And this was a tool that the community wanted. They actively those monthly, you know, DPD community group meetings. That was the question all the time was we hear shots fired. I don't feel comfortable calling at 2 a.m. in the morning waiting to get somebody. Is there some other tools out there? And that was, I think, when it was mostly covered at that point in time. And it has helped us in the community. You know, I'm all for getting more data on how we can do better and utilize the tool in a better way. But at the end of the day, I represent the constituents of District 11, and this is something that they asked for and that they have been very supportive of. And on a personal note, you know. If there would have been this technology on December 31st of 2014, my nephew Toshio Gillmor would still be alive today. He was shot in Loughery at some apartments. He went and tried to get help. He banged on doors. We had testimony that he banged on doors. Some kids opened a door, saw somebody who had been shot and slammed the door. Toshio didn't have any place to go. He found a couch. He laid down on the couch. He bled out and he froze to death. Toshio was an African-American man. If this technology would have been deployed at that point, it would have triangulated it. We would have had a squad car at least, at least of driven by to see if somebody was hurt. We have many parks. We have many rec centers. We have many school fields that shots are fired. And if we don't have this technology and nobody calls it in, somebody quite possibly could be dying. And so I am in full support of this tonight because I am listening to my community. And I want to make sure that if something violent happens, if there is a gunshot, if somebody illegally discharges a firearm in the city and county of Denver, I want our police department to know. Because that bullet has to come down somewhere. It's either going to come down in your house, on your car, and God forbid, it comes down to a person. And so I am in full support of this tonight. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Resolution 21, Dash 1514, please.
Speaker 1: CdeBaca. No. Sawyer. I. Torres. I. Clark.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 2: Flynn.
Speaker 4: I. Herndon. I.
Speaker 1: Hines.
Speaker 6: I.
Speaker 1: Question.
Speaker 4: Hi.
Speaker 2: Ortega. I. Sandoval.
Speaker 1: I. Madam President.
Speaker 2: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce results.
Speaker 1: One May 10 hours.
Speaker 2: Ten I's Council Resolution 21 Dash 1514 has been adopted there being no further business before this body. This meeting is adjourned.
Speaker 9: Restaurant, a vaccine only restaurant night. I betcha you'll be full that night. 67% of the people in Jefferson County have told you they want to be protected. So businesses I don't I don't know. I'm not a business person, but it seems.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Agreement between the City and County of Denver and ShotSpotter, Inc. to provide wide area gunshot detection, location, and forensic analysis service for the Denver Police Department. Approves a contract with ShotSpotter, Inc. for $4,700,000 and through 12-31-26 to provide wide area gunshot detection, location, and forensic analysis service for the Denver Police Department (POLIC-202161439). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 1-18-22. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 12-15-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_12202021_21-1444
|
Speaker 1: Thank you. I'll do a recap under resolutions. Council member Hines has called out Resolution 1438 for a vote and Resolution 1444 for comments under bills for introduction. No items have been called out under bills for final consideration. Councilmember Black has called out Bill 1475 for a vote and under pending, no items have been called out. Madam Secretary, please put the first item on our screen. Thank you. Council member Hines, please go ahead with your comments on resolution one four, four, four.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Council President. This is I guess I should have made sure this is a resolution for the contract at the for security. Of course. Now, I can't find it in an account. And this is the Securitas contract, correct? Okay, great. I want to thank Securitas and Safety and general services and so many people for for working through this. It appears that there was a bit of a miscommunication in the process. I want to thank Councilmember Ngige for delaying this vote for a week. Securitas has sent a correction letter to two current employees and that has helped fix any of the potential miscommunication. And and I just want to thank Securitas and SEIU because they are now partnering in the worker hiring and retention process, which has really helped really helped with the retention. Now that you know that they're working arm in arm, there is a memorandum of understanding as well. And I want to thank again thank everyone involved for working with that. I also want to thank Dan as well for for helping facilitate the conversation and bringing people together. I don't see Dan here tonight necessarily, but but I do want to make sure that the airport also gets some recognition and credit. So thank you. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Hines. See, no one else in the queue will go ahead and move on. Madam Secretary, would you please put the next item on our screen? All right. It looks like we've got it there. Councilmember Herndon, will you please put Council Resolution 1438 on the floor for adoption?
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Securitas Security Services USA, Inc. for security personnel services in City facilities, excluding Denver International Airport.
Approves a contract with Securitas Security Services USA, Inc. for $25 million and for three years, with two one-year options to extend, for security personnel services in City facilities (GENRL-202161226-00). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 1-3-22. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 11-30-21. Pursuant to Council Rule 3.7, Councilmember Kniech called this item out at the 12-13-21 meeting for a one-week postponement to 12-20-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_12202021_21-1438
|
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Hines. See, no one else in the queue will go ahead and move on. Madam Secretary, would you please put the next item on our screen? All right. It looks like we've got it there. Councilmember Herndon, will you please put Council Resolution 1438 on the floor for adoption?
Speaker 4: I believe that council resolution 21, dash 1438 be adopted.
Speaker 1: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded comments by members of Council on the Council Resolution 1438. Councilmember Hines.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Council President. Here I am again. I want to thank my colleagues for giving me a little bit extra time to to reach out to brothers. I did have a conversation with them last week. They said that they would follow up. I did not get that follow up. So I will be in a vote. Thank you.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Hines. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Resolution 1438, please. See Nevada.
Speaker 5: I. HINES No. CASHMAN All right. ORTEGA Hi. Sandoval. I. Sawyer. I. Torres. I. Black. I. Clark.
Speaker 0: All right.
Speaker 1: Flynn.
Speaker 0: Hi.
Speaker 5: Herndon Madam President.
Speaker 1: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 5: One May 11.
Speaker 1: 911 IES Council Resolution 1438 has been adopted. Madam Secretary, please put the next item on our screens. Councilmember Herndon, will you please put Council Bill 1475 on the floor for final passage?
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed First Amendatory Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Brothers Redevelopment, Inc. to revise the scope of services and budget, increase the maximum contract amount, and extend the term for the administration of the Temporary Rental and Utility Assistance (TRUA) Program.
Amends a contract with Brothers Redevelopment, Inc. by adding $1,262,255 for a new total of $2,795,855 and one year for a new end date of 12-31-22 for administration of the Temporary Rental and Utility Assistance (TRUA) program (HOST 202161105-01). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 1-3-22. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 12-1-21. Pursuant to Council Rule 3.7, Councilmember Hinds called this item out at the 12-13-21 meeting for a one-week postponement to 12-20-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_12202021_21-1475
|
Speaker 1: 911 IES Council Resolution 1438 has been adopted. Madam Secretary, please put the next item on our screens. Councilmember Herndon, will you please put Council Bill 1475 on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 4: Yes, Madam President, I move that council bill. Excuse me. 20 1-1475 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 1: Thank you. It's been moved and seconded comments by members of Council on Council Bill 1475. Councilmember Black.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam President. As a Walker runner and cyclist, I spend a lot of time on our streets and I support Vision Zero and I support lowering speed limits to achieve Vision Zero goals and save lives. I know that the police department supports lowering speed limits, as does the auto club. And I recently learned that some delivery companies like UPS actually monitor their trucks to ensure that their drivers. Adhere to the speed limit. My problem with this bill is, though, that it will trigger spending. $1.5 million from our Vision Zero budget on new 20 mile per hour signs. I know this bill itself doesn't allocate any funding, but we've learned from Dottie that if we pass this, that they will then have to replace signs and put new signs in. According to his own data, our most dangerous streets by far for pedestrians and cyclists are arterial streets, which make up only about 16% of our streets, but account for 80% of pedestrian fatalities, 69% of bike fatalities and 75% of head injuries and 71% of bike injuries. In contrast, our local streets, which make up two thirds of our streets, only account for 10% of bike impaired incidents. So with finite resources, funds, I believe, should be prioritized to address the issues on our arterials, on our high injury network streets like Federal Colorado Boulevard in Hampton. In my district, I've advocated for safety improvements for many years on arterials where we have serious safety issues. A couple of examples are on Quincy, where seniors and people with disabilities living at Denver Housing Authority, Syracuse Plaza, and the families that live at an adjacent development, also Denver Housing Authority have been begging for six years for a signal so that they can safely cross Quincy to get to school, the park transit and more. The not is warranted, but for years we've been told there's no funding. South Colorado Boulevard is very unsafe. In the past two months, two pedestrians were hit while crossing at Amherst. I've been advocating to make Colorado Boulevard safer for years. Dottie doesn't disagree. There's just no funding. Last week, tragically, a man was killed while crossing Evans. I've heard from many of my constituent constituents asking me to prioritize funds for these various crossings. Also, we really want people to bike and walk to our rec centers, to our parks, to schools, to shopping and transit. We want to get them out of their cars. But it's really dangerous to cross our arterials. I just believe that our vision $0 should be directed to our most dangerous streets. So while I do support lowering speed limits, I am not supporting this bill simply because it will take precious dollars away from our Vision Zero budget. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Black. Next up, we've got Councilmember Cashman.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam President. Denver's population continues to grow. We're around. We're approaching 750,000 people. You can go to the movies. You can buy whatever you need at Home Depot, get your hair done at the barber, the stylist, get groceries at King Soopers, have dinner at Wash Bar Grill and without an abnormal weight. But when you get in your car, life gets difficult. People get impatient and cut through our neighborhoods because the collectors and arterials are not moving fast enough for them. Since Mayor Hancock has declared his commitment to Vision Zero in 2016 to bring deaths and serious injuries close to that zero number, 380 people have died on Denver streets , some 7% of those on local streets. Almost 80 people have died this year, the most in recent memory. What we're doing isn't working. Denver Drivers need to take a deep breath, leave earlier and slow down. We need that message to go out loud and clear. We need to slow down. That's not someone else. We need to slow down. The severity of injuries, the frequency of injuries, the frequency of fatalities increase speed increases. The severity of injuries increases most dramatically for children and older adults. Posting slower speeds on online locals is only a part of a comprehensive program of changes that Daddy has in mind to send that needle a vision zero in the proper direction. This bill is presented because the default speed, now 25 miles per hour on postage streets, is in ordinance and needs to be changed by amendment. Speeds on our collectors and arterials can be changed by Dottie as policy. As a result of the speed limit reduction feasibility study completed in August, that department will be looking at what additional changes to postage speeds need to be made and collectors and arterials in school zones and elsewhere. As Councilmember Black noted, the most intense focus is now and will remain on our high injury network, where the bulk of serious injuries and deaths take place. We need to lower postage speeds to encourage people to drive more slowly, and we need to re-engineer some of our roadways, roadways to cause them to drive more slowly. In discussion with daddy leadership, I'm convinced of their plans to be more aggressive in doing just that. But that is not something that is done by ordinance or I would be doing just that here as well. And for those who say posted speed limits won't change a thing. I would simply say that it will if you observe them. Slower speeds do reduce injuries when collisions occur. Posted speeds have no effect on people who don't care. We can raise them or lower them, and those people won't care. But for the vast majority of drivers, who do they serve as an important reminder to slow down? We need to slow down. This is not being done as a feel good measure. It's an important beginning to changing the culture that we need to slow down. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember Cashman. Councilmember Flynn.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Madam President. The most effective way to slow down traffic is to stop building our streets so that they induce higher speeds. You can't build a local street that's 40 or 48 feet in width and put a 20 mile an hour speed sign on it and expect people will go 20 drivers will go the speed that the street invites them. We built so many of our streets, especially in my district, in Councilwoman Blacks in the postwar years, when people were moving out to the edges of the city and the automobile was every family had an automobile, at least one or two, and they're way too wide. And as a result, we get I don't know if every other council member has the same experience, but one of the most frequent complaints that we get from constituents is speeding on local streets. My office has purchased five solar powered driver feedback signs, the kind of tell you how fast you're going at up to a certain speed and then tell you to slow down if you're going five or ten miles faster than that. I am going to support this bill tonight, although I believe that it won't be very effective. I think if we're not enforcing the 25 mile an hour default speed limit, we might as well not be enforcing the 20 mile an hour speed limit. But as Councilman Cashman said, it sets the tone that we are looking for people to slow down no matter where they are. One of the problems I have with this vote is that I asked two months ago today I asked DPD and Dotty for data. On accidents crashes in the city and county of Denver for the last five years. I did not receive that data until Wednesday of last week. So I spent a lot of time looking, focusing mostly on my district because that's all I had the time to do. There were 2238 accidents on a system wide on freeway, arterial collector and local streets. Of those, 126 were on local streets, 5.6% citywide. And those six, almost six years, there were 349 fatalities, 15 on local streets, 4.3% when I drilled down on the fatalities because there were 15 on local streets. So I examined those in particular. And a number of them, several of them, at least including one in my district, would not have been impacted at all by this change. The one the one I'm referring to in my district was a woman who was had not set the brake on her car properly in her driveway. And when she got out, walked around the back of her car, it rolled over her and she died. The same thing happened in Council District one on Osage Street, I believe it was where a guy was working under his car. When it stalled and when it restarted, it ran over him and he died. But this this speed limit is not going to affect so many of our not just the fatalities, but the serious bodily injuries for pedestrian fatalities occurred on local streets. When I read the police reports which were forwarded to me again only on Wednesday, none of them would have been impacted by this change, given the circumstances under which they occurred. Many of them are unrelated to speeds at all. In my council district, of the 2238 crashes, there were 115 over those six years, and only one one of those fatalities was on a local street. It was a motorcyclist who, on his own volition, decided to go way too fast and hit a hit a tree. Hit a neighbor's tree. Having said that. Madam President, I would I would suggest that Dottie and CPD begin to get serious about our street design and stop designing streets that tell drivers to go 35 while we put up a 20 mile an hour sign on them. I had this experience with the recent Laredo Heights development, where we struggled, in some cases unsuccessfully, to narrow streets and to tighten curb radii in order to induce slower speeds. But the reviewers told us, Oh, no, that's not the current standard. It has to be a certain radius or it has to be a certain with to accommodate the traffic and to let it go at speed. And so I hope that our practices catch up with our vision at some point and maybe by approving this ordinance that will happen. Thank you, Madam President and Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Flynn. Councilmember Hines.
Speaker 0: Thank you, council president. And thank you, Councilmember Cashman, for this bill. I'm in support. I would say Councilmember Flynn has a good point. Urban design is the best way to ensure people go the speed they should go. Just as Councilmember Flynn said, I hope that Dottie considers that when we consider implementing shared streets and the 50 to 80 trail, both of which should prioritize people and cyclists and attenuate cars. So as we consider that, we should start thinking out of the box until we get good urban design in our streets, we should do whatever we can to achieve Vision Zero by 2030. Our fatalities are going the wrong way, and the right answer isn't to move the 2030 goalpost. It is to do all the things we can at all times to achieve zero pedestrian and cyclist fatalities. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember Hines. Councilmember Ortega.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Madam President. I just wanted to weigh in on this issue as well. I'm not convinced this is going to solve the problem, particularly on our arterial corridors. Over two years ago, I had asked that we do an amendment to the budget which we were successful in doing to add money to take care of the intersection at 14th and federal. That is still one of the worst intersections in the city for accidents and fatalities. And I know that the West Colfax Group has been working on sort of a redo of Federal Boulevard in that general area, looking at what is referred to as the Cloverleaf. However, there could have been some additional. All measures put into place to mitigate the additional deaths that have happened from that time until now. And I think just given the data on the vast number of the accidents and fatalities that are occurring on are purely arterial corridors, is is not necessarily going to solve the problem where it is the greatest. By lowering the speed on what are known as residential streets. So I will be supporting this tonight. I do think slowing traffic down in our neighborhoods is important, but I also think it's important not just for drivers but for our bike riders as well. In my neighborhood, I often see people on bikes that do not stop it, stop signs, and that is a contributing factor, whether they're on a bike or whether they're on a scooter. People think that they can just ignore the rules on the streets, and that is part of the problem. And so there's got to be some education that needs to happen as well. But we have to pay attention and prioritize the fatalities that are occurring on our arterial streets and at intersections where at 14th and federal you have traffic, foot traffic moving around, trying to get to Denver, Human Services, trying to get to the train. And they're rushing to be able to catch their their bus or their train. And that is a huge contributing factor to the fatalities that we've seen at that intersection. And I will be following up with body to try to figure out what is going on and where are they on that. And I do have to admit that I've been lax in not doing that follow up, because I thought that was being incorporated into some of the work that's being accelerated with the Colfax and federal intersection. But I will be supporting this tonight. I just think we have to keep our eye on the ball with the arterial corridors. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember Ortega, Council President Pro-Tem Torres. Thank you, Madam President. I'll be supporting the bill tonight. I think one of the things that our office takes a lot of calls on our internal residential complaints about speeding. We see it on a regular basis. Repeat crashes at first, next court 10th and Knox Court fifth and Perry 17th, and Julian on a regular basis. And I know that I agree with Councilman Flynn. We may not see this won't fix the problem. I think it's one of the many things that we have to employ to try to chip away at it. I hope to see some good outcomes, but I know our work is a long path. So thank you, Councilman Cashman, for sponsoring this this effort. Thank you, counsel pro Tem Torres. And I am happy to support this this evening. We do need more tools in order to slow down traffic. And really the width of streets is an issue and education as well. And one of the things that we've also not talked about is the widespread drag racing that we have throughout our city as well. And I know that the the you know, lowering the speed limits to 20 isn't going to necessarily address that. But I think those earlier comments that we need different tools to accomplish just keeping pedestrians and others safe on our streets and so happy to support this this evening, but would also like to see Dottie step up and implement more of those traffic calming traffic mitigating tools. But all along with that, educating the community as to why we may be taking a lane of traffic away, why we might be removing some things in the neighborhood to make it safer for residents and people who are biking, etc.. And so really look forward to seeing Dottie move more in the space and become more assertive around how we do this in our neighborhoods. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 1475, please. See the doctor. I.
Speaker 5: No.
Speaker 1: Clark. I went.
Speaker 0: By Herndon. Hi.
Speaker 5: Hi.
Speaker 0: Hi.
Speaker 5: Katherine.
Speaker 0: Hi.
Speaker 5: Ortega. I. Sandoval. I. Sawyer. I.
Speaker 1: Torres. I. Madam President, i. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 5: Good name of a nice.
Speaker 1: 11 Eyes Council Bill 21 Dash 1475 has passed. That concludes the items to be called out. All bills for introduction are ordered published. Council members remember this is a consent or block vote and you will need to vote I.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance reducing the speed limit on streets and highways where speed limits are not posted.
For an ordinance reducing the speed limit on streets and highways where speed limits are not posted. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 12-1-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_12202021_21-1331
|
Speaker 1: I think, Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results. 12 Hours, 12 Eyes Council Bill 21 Dash 1325 has passed. Thank you, Libby and Jesse Paris for commenting on that. I was going to say members of the community, but we only had Jesse on that one. So up next, we've got Councilmember Herndon. We'd like you to please put Council Bill 1331 on the floor for final passage.
Speaker 4: Yes, Madam President, I move that council bill 21, dash 1331 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 1: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. The required public hearing for Council Bill 1331 is open and I see we have Brad Johnson here for the staff report.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Good evening. Council members Brad Johnson in community planning and Development bringing in today rezoning requests for 901 Navajo Street from 802 to CMC. Applicant here is Denver Housing Authority or d h a. We're in Council District three in the Lincoln Park neighborhood just southeast of the 10th and Osage Light Rail Station. And again, the request here is for urban center and neighborhood context mixed use with a maximum height of eight stories. This would allow a mix of residential and commercial uses, including in the same structure within the townhouse general and shop from building forms. And again, applicants DHEA. The request is to get a zoning district that would allow for residential development as existing light. Industrial zoning would not allow for new residential zoned residential units there. Just a little more zoom in on this on this property as it exists today. There's an industrial building on the site and you can see some kind of outdoor storage stuff in the rear of the lot there. It's just under a year and a half and it's right along, as I mentioned, the rail tracks there. So we did, of course, provide the railroad safety report to the applicant. Existing zoning on the site again is that light industrial zoning key there again does not allow for new residential units does have the UO to billboard use overlays so that allows for offsite general advertising devices is not proposed to be retained with the three zoning . Immediately to the north and cross the street to the east. You see Cemex a zone districts, which is what's being requested here on the site. To the south and to the west you see a mix of light industrial and further to the west, a heavy industrial zone district. As you move further to the east, up into the neighborhood, a block or two away, you'll start to see cracks. Five and you t you be. Would just point out that that YouTube is a what's called a protected district in, uh, Denver zoning code. Uh, but I would also point out that, uh, uh, the closest property from the subject property to a protected district is something like 230 feet, something like that. Keep that in mind. Existing land use on the side is industrial and we'll see more of that down to the south, to the north and northeast, you'll see some multi-unit mixed use development and then directly across the street, some multi-unit residential course to the west immediately, as is the real corridor and railyard facilities further to us in that. This is the existing structure on the site, this kind of utilitarian industrial building. I'm used to the cup. Right and middle. Right. Some of that multi-unit mixed use development to the north or on Navajo. Uh, bottom right is, uh, townhome project immediately across the street to the east that at the time this picture was taken, um, was still under construction. And then this last picture on the bottom left is looking down Navajo and you see kind of that one and two story industrial development still there on either side of the street. Again. How broken is DHS? As I mentioned a couple of times. This property was purchased through a program called DHL Delivers for Denver or D3 program. That program does stipulate that development on the side of housing must include 40% of that housing as operated as supported housing, or that it's restricted to tenants earning below 30% of area median income. So we're talking about supportive housing are very, very deep with affordable housing. And I just want to mention now that Megan Young, key host, is here and available to answer questions after the presentation. We followed the required process in terms of notification and posting for a map amendment. We have received nine letters of opposition from, uh, from individuals. Those the high points of, or the kind of recurring themes of our position relate to the building height that would be allowed with this Cemex eight zone district being inconsistent with what's actually built on the ground in the area across the street and to the north. Uh, some concerns in there about, uh, views from private property off to the west to the mountains. And then some recurring concerns in those letters about the impacts of this development might have on demand for on street parking in the area. We didn't receive any official R.A. letters to CPD. But I think you'll see in your application materials that there is a letter of support in there that was provided to the applicant from the Lime Llama, Linkin Park, R.A.. So moving into the criteria will start with consistency with adaptive plans. These are the plans that are applicable to the site. We found that this rezoning meets numerous goals, objectives and policies of 2040, just a few of which are shown here. More. More are included in discussing your Stafford work. In terms of blueprint Denver Future neighborhood context is urban center and that does call for high intensity residential and employment uses, which uh, this Cemex Cemex eight zone district would allow. And therefore we found consistency with neighborhood context of the rezoning. Bear with me as I go through these next few slides. I just want to point out that this particular property actually has some dual designation on it as it relates to these aspects of Blueprint. Denver So you can see, for example, in this one, the majority of the site, sort of the more internal portion of the site has one designation. And then the piece that is there along and fronting Navajo Street has a different designation. So I'll have to I'll be speaking to both of those. So starting with future place type, the majority of the site again is community center and that calls for getting a mix of commercial and residential and office uses on the site. It actually calls for heights. Uh, of up to 12 stories here. And so, uh, certainly for that portion of the site, we did find the C max eight zone district to be within the range of what would be supported by blueprint driver in terms of feature place type. And then for the portion out along Navajo, uh, it's identified as high medium residential. So that calls for also a mix of uses, including primarily multi-unit residential. Uh, and that area steps down in terms of what it calls for, uh, for height, eight storeys. But again with the same six, eight, seven district we are, uh, the request is right in line with what's called Form Blueprint. Denver In terms of feature place type on that edge as well. Future Street type is local and designated, which footprint Denver provides for much flexibility in terms of what uses and what forms can happen adjacent to a local and designated street. So we did find this rezoning to be consistent with future street type. The growth strategy. Again, you have a dual designation here. The majority of the site is designated as community centers and corridors and says that blueprint says that properties designated as such around around the city are intended to accommodate 20% , 25% of new housing and 20% of new employment through 2040. So certainly this Cemex eight zone district would support both of those uses. And so we did find it to be consistent with. That part of the growth strategy for that part of the site. Next part out along Navajo Street, it's designated growth strategies high and high, medium residential areas and D and you see context. That calls for properties designated as such around the city to accommodate 15% of new housing and 5% of new employment. Around the city through 2040 and we did find the CM exchange rate zone district would would allow both of those things and therefore it would be consistent with the growth strategy. Oh. Sorry. There's a little bit nuance. So this is kind of a funky shaped parcel. It is located at the western terminus of Ninth Avenue there. And so you have a street that dead ends, but you have a property that's sort of creeping over. If the street was to go through would be sort of taking up the area that that is the generally that width of the right of way there. However, that little sliver there, which is about 50 feet and it's kind of a vertical dimension there in terms of depth, if you measure it that way, is part of what blueprint Denver classifies as a manufacturing preservation district. Uh. This is this is kind of what happens when you do city. You drive boundaries on city wide plans. You know, you use the centerline as a guide. And in this particular case, with this property, it ends up with this slight mismatch between where the property line is and where the line for the Manufacturing Preservation District is . However, Blueprint Denver anticipated that type of thing coming up and does provide for some flexibility with interpretation for this type of thing. And so even even though a bit of the site there is included in that area, we still did find it as a whole to be consistent with Blueprint and. And then to look at the area plan the long llama Lincoln Park neighborhood plan that plan we found this rezoning to be consistent with many of the high level policies of that plan. But I want to focus here on this slide on on the area specifically that this site is located with. And so that plan identifies what it calls character areas, where it identifies kind of vision and objectives for different areas around the plan area. And this area is in the character area called transit oriented development. So the policies generally center around sustainable higher intensity housing and employment uses and pushing for those, particularly as it is located immediately adjacent to that 10th and Osage station. In terms of high uh in this area calls out for heights between three and 12 stories as being appropriate including for this site. We did find this rezoning to be consistent with the MSA with guidance from this neighborhood plan. We also did find that this rezoning would result in uniform district regulations and would further the public health, safety and welfare of the community by implementing those plans I just mentioned. And also given the fact that there's. The restriction I talked about on on the side would clearly result in people affordable and supportive. Supportive housing. There's that that's worth mentioning here as well, I think. In terms of justifying circumstances. Again, the ADAPT plans call for a different kind of transformation of this of this property. The area itself has transformed significantly over the last decade, perhaps more particularly with the development that's occurred just to the north of the site and to the northeast. And then obviously this is in the public interest and that it would result in deeply affordable housing and or supportive housing on the site, which, of course. Everyone knows is badly needed. And then finally we found that this reasoning would result in consistency with neighborhood context, zoning, district purpose and intent. And so with that, based on the criteria for review and the Denver zoning code staff does recommend approval of application 2021 I that's 000 21. Thanks.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Brian, for the staff report. We've got two individuals signed up to speak this evening. Our first speaker in chambers is Chris Pelkey. Introduce yourself for the record.
Speaker 0: Of course. Thanks for having me. Chris Bilkey, the chief real estate investment officer, Denver Housing Authority. My dress is 2663 Dexter Street number. So thank you for allowing us to speak and talk about some of the history here. This site was identified back in fall 2020 following the historic partnership of the DOJ delivers for DMR Bond Program and really in an effort to accelerate affordable housing production in the city. That includes very low income and supportive housing to serve homeless individuals. Part of this pipeline was to identify working with agency partners, strategic sites. So we're well located next to. Light rail bus services, as well as creating a mixed income community. And thus far we've acquired more than nine sites. So this is one of the earlier ones that we identified and working with hosts and other agency partners was approved prior to the acquisition and prior to the placement of the three funds. We did a concerted committee process where we worked with the R.A. over multiple meetings to make sure that the site was appropriate for the use of DH three and this particular future development. But it would require a reason why we're here today and indeed is intention post an approval tonight would be to work with the community and do additional studies that allows us to think about how to complete the overall South Lincoln Home's redevelopment hopes master plan and with adopted plans blueprint and with traffic studies to understand that the connection to nine and connection of the light rail. And then with that that developable parcel would be issued for a request for proposal to qualified development partners. And with selection of a development partner, we would further design. And part of that design effort would be to engage the community and really understand concerns and address that the achievable become the long term owner of the land through ground restructure as we have with other three partnerships. So we can we will hold that development partner to all the obligations consistent with the intergovernmental agreement next year with the city as well as anything that comes through that pre-development effort. I'm happy to answer any questions as they may come up.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Chris. We're going to go ahead. Our second speaker for this hearing is Jessie Paris online.
Speaker 10: Yes. Good evening. Members account for those watching at home. My name is Justice Blossom, Personal Representative for Black Star Movement for Self Defense, Positive Action, Social Change, as well as the Unity Party of Colorado and for a long black nose. And I'll be the next mayor in 2023. I'm in favor of this rezoning, as you know. And as we stated on numerous council hearings, we have probably portability crisis in the city. Any time that this council gets a rezoning of this type, I'm in favor of. I just have a few questions. The first question is the presenter stated that 30% of excuse me, 40% of those are going to be at 30% are lower level. What is 60%? I think we're going to do a traffic study wondering if that have been done. Is the study going to be done? Is there a parking study? It's pretty alarming that the opposition in regards to this report on what is this square feet of units going to be, how many units are going to be in the South Lincoln project and are there going to be one or two bedroom? If someone could answer those questions, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. That concludes our speakers questions from members of Council on Council Bill 1331. We have Councilmember Ortega first.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Madam President. So I would first like to ask Brad. If so, I'm looking at an aerial map on Google Earth, and it looks like this site abuts the old Burnham yards. Is that correct?
Speaker 0: Well separated by the rail line, but. Yes.
Speaker 7: Okay. And does RTD go along the edge of that corridor?
Speaker 0: I mean, sorry if I can just look at my man. Yeah, I think the. The real line is kind of immediately abutting.
Speaker 7: The site.
Speaker 0: So. That's okay.
Speaker 7: It's the. Okay. So I know this has been abandoned in terms of railroad use, but the site has been purchased by C don. Right. Where they're in the middle of acquiring it with the intention of relocating part of the rail line so they can do the widening of I-25. And so I want to know how much. How much of a discussion there was around building a project adjacent to what might now have free and particularly freight that carries flammable liquids, hazardous materials. And what kind of mitigation, if you will, has been looked at as part of this project being within a close proximity to I don't know exactly where the rail line would be proposed to go. I mean, in in many cases across our city, our freight line parallels our commuter traffic. Right. So I don't know if that would be the case or not, because I think a lot of that's still in flux. But one of the things that I routinely ask is if this ends up being built abutting the tracks, what discussions were there around ensuring that the safety of the people who will be in those structures is is being addressed? It's part of our responsibility as elected officials under homeland security to ensure that we are addressing these issues. It's also part of our hazard mitigation plan that we have to submit to FEMA every year. So I just wanted to ask how much that was part of the conversation with DHS around this particular project?
Speaker 0: Well, yeah, and I appreciate that. I will probably defer most of that to the application. But I'll just say that we were certainly aware that we were aware we are aware of and routinely provide that study, the railroad safety study on two applications. And we did so in this case and I've had some preliminary discussions with the applicant in preparation for this that they could they could probably speak more to the actual concept for the actual site in terms of what's going to happen on that site. I mean, I have no idea either what's going to end up or where the rail line might be relocated to. So I don't even want to try to. And probably nobody in this room knows all that. Yeah, I don't think so. I won't even try to speak to that, really. But in terms of mitigations and things of that nature, I want to have a chance for the applicant to respond to that. That's right.
Speaker 7: Is that Chris? Go ahead.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Housing authority. I appreciate the question again is this rezoning allows us to then figure out what that program looks like. Stories, bedroom mix and earlier question allows us to then do a lot of the additional studies to respond to this new CMCs eight zoning. The other thing I did not mention as part of the D3 program, DOJ is committing 300 vouchers to this pipeline, so half of the very low income units or permanent supportive housing units that go in this development would have to go through a HUD environmental review process. Part of the part 58 review. And in that, there is always a lot of consideration that actually, as the city does for us to look at noise mitigation, environmental, even health and safety issues, and then with that process provides mitigating measures that the applicant would have to follow to satisfy. So we actually went through this just north. Our first phase in Mariposa was 400 unit senior disabled project where we had public housing dollars among public housing subsidy. So that required us to do a lot of measures within the building, in the building design to respond to those mitigation factors.
Speaker 7: Is that the senior building to the north?
Speaker 0: Correct? Yes.
Speaker 7: Into your admin building?
Speaker 0: Yep. Okay. That's the 1035 voltage.
Speaker 7: Ah. Yeah. So I did want to mention that we were successful in securing some funding as part of the 2022 budget in our Department of Transportation and Infrastructure will be issuing an RFP to identify an engineering firm that will be hired to look at which approach to use that will then provide some guidance to our agencies so that as they are reviewing requests for permits, rezoning applications, etc., they will have some very clear guidance on how to ensure that life safety issues are being addressed as part of development activity. So I'm assuming this is not a project that is going to be shovel ready any time in the immediate future, given that you have to go through the HUD environmental process, correct? It's just acquiring it with part of the funding. I think that's part of the host the funding that was approved by city council to ensure that we've got sites to to be building and to secure those vouchers, etc.. So accurate.
Speaker 0: That is accurate. And then as we select the development partner and then they'll develop they'll propose a program that will work with them jointly and with the city and our state partners to make sure that all the requirements for the funding that's required is met prior to an application to likely get tax credits to develop this.
Speaker 7: So just for your information, one of the things that will be happening is there will be some outreach to external partners or development interests to ensure that there is some back and forth conversation around the recommendations that will come out of that work done by an engineering firm. So that's why I thank you. All right. Thank you, Madam President. And I hear Mike's not on.
Speaker 1: But thank you, Councilmember Ortega, for your questions and the reminder about my mike. Megan Yankey, you had come up. Did you want to address some of the questions as well? Go ahead and introduce yourself and we can get it on the record. Megan Young from Host just wanted to come here to speak on behalf of the supportive housing element of this building. And just wanted to reiterate what Chris Bulky had to say about the voucher component and how much goes into the environmental review. We had a project at Walnut Street Lofts recently or within the last few years up in the Reno area that had to go through noise mitigation, different environmental things to just pass their environmental review. So I expect that we would have the same level of scrutiny in this particular case as it comes from vouchers, where we are the administrator of the Environmental Review as well as a funder and get financing eventually in this project. All right. Thank you, Megan. Next up, we've got Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 0: Yeah, thank you, Madam President. And Chris, I think I might have heard in your answer to Councilmember Ortega, but are you far enough along to have any wish list guesstimate to how many units this property might be able to provide? I know it depends on the bedroom, Max, etc.. You know, Paul, it's a little difficult to know based on, you know, some of the other studies that we need to do and even bringing in a private or even a public access, you know, bring in ninth and connected dosage. But if you taking my developer brain, you might net, you know, develop castle at an acre and usually typical 9% tax credit projects affordable and has a mix of very low income or supportive housing not requiring as much parking on site, you could probably yield 90 to 100 units. Okay. Thank you. That's all I need. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Cashman, Councilor Pro Tem Torres. Thank you so much. Chris, my question is for you as well. Some of the actually, all of the letters of opposition came from across the street was that land formerly owned by DOJ and DOJ homes at one time.
Speaker 0: Yes. And that was part of the Wing and Hope six redevelopment where there was a goal to have homeownership opportunities. And certainly at the time, as we saw of that back in 2012 looking at townhome. So we were working in the city and part of that plan was that was approved by HUD. We elected not to develop the highest and best use on that site so that we can get homeownership opportunities within the neighborhood. Part of the stabilization and program goals for the Hope six grant. Great.
Speaker 1: The you may have answered it, but I can't I can't remember if it was mentioned here in a previous meeting that we had, because I also had a question about the other 60% and what kind of affordability would be attached to that section of the project.
Speaker 0: Certainly. And I can tell you from experience and I invite Haley Joel here, who's been a great project manager for us and working to develop our request for proposals. And as we launched the three partnership with the city, we did do a roundtable with a lot of permanent supportive housing developers to understand how to design this program , all of which have a mission to do all affordable, usually doing a mixed and mixed affordable model. So likely, you know, up to 80% AMI or 60% AMI would be the remaining portion of that. Again, that all depends on, you know, what program, who we're trying to serve, larger bedroom types, you know, all going into that process . And that's where this great partnership has allowed us to, you know, bring to the table a host the state, to really look at each one of these projects and evaluate what's the right thing for the site and in consideration what the community has asked for.
Speaker 1: Okay. And as a result of the D three project, this would remain a Denver Housing Authority asset permanently, right. It wouldn't be something that that could be sold in the future.
Speaker 0: Correct. DHEA is part of this program, will do a ground is a long term premise and with it have the city's covenant that was included in the intergovernmental agreement.
Speaker 1: Okay. So will be perpetual affordability associate. Okay. Thank you so much.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, counsel pro tem Torres. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 1331, Council Pro Tem Torres. Thank you so much. And thanks to DOJ and to host all of you for being here and putting so much into this project, and particularly a development that at some level is going to be 100% affordable. And it's always, I think, that 30% and below that transitional housing that we're always reaching for and I always find really hard to acquire. So I appreciate the project that made that available and something that you've been building toward on on this one. It's come up even in our conversations about the safe outdoor space that's in LA and Lincoln Park, that that hasn't been an easy project to take to get off the ground, largely because people really wanted to say, but what's the long term plan? That associates are not permanent, they are not a home. And and this is one of the projects that we point to, to say, but we are building them. We will be putting actual units of homes on the ground in Lincoln Park that provide that actual transition. So I really appreciate that this is one of those examples of where we're setting that forward. I did read every single one of the letters that was submitted, and just you want to say this doesn't affect the area that was designated as a historic cultural district that we designated recently for Lima, Lincoln Park. And this is exactly what was envisioned by the development not just of the DOJ property in the long term vision for Mariposa, but of the D-3 effort citywide and really to identify these locations for supportive housing. So I just want to thank you all and thank you for, I think, this larger vision for that area that's coming together of every neighborhood should have multiple layers of affordability, should be a neighborhood that's easy to access transit. This is only one of the two grocery stores in my district and they are on the farthest ends. But, you know, grateful for allowing Lincoln Park to also have a grocery store that is walkable. So a lot of different things. I think that that that make this a really suitable place for additional affordable, especially transitional housing. So I look forward to voting yes. And I appreciate the votes from my colleagues and support as well. So thank you. Thank you, Counsel Pro Tem Torres. And I'm also happy to support this this evening that meets all of the criteria and excited to see this get going. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 1331, please. CdeBaca.
Speaker 5: Torres I Black Eye Clark.
Speaker 0: Nine.
Speaker 7: Foot.
Speaker 0: High.
Speaker 5: Herndon.
Speaker 0: High High five.
Speaker 5: Cashman Ortega Sandoval High Sawyer I.
Speaker 1: Madam President, I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results. 12 US 12 Eyes Council Bill 21 Dash 1331 has passed. Thank you to the folks who presented this evening and the community members as well. Councilman Herndon, will you please put Council Bill 1332 on the floor for final passage?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 901 Navajo Street in Lincoln Park.
Approves a map amendment to rezone property from I-A, UO-2 to C-MX-8 (industrial to mixed-use 8 stories), located at 901 Navajo Street in Council District 3. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 11-9-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_12202021_21-1332
|
Speaker 1: Madam President, I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results. 12 US 12 Eyes Council Bill 21 Dash 1331 has passed. Thank you to the folks who presented this evening and the community members as well. Councilman Herndon, will you please put Council Bill 1332 on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 4: Yes, Madam President, I move that council bill 21 desk 1330 to be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 1: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. The required public hearing for Council Bill 1332 is open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 0: Yes. Thank you. Members of City Council for hanging in there. Just one more public hearing of the night. And as Andrew had promised earlier, this is a very targeted text amendment proposed for the Denver zoning code.
Speaker 1: And before you kick off, do you want to introduce yourself?
Speaker 0: Apologies. I'm a barge with the Department of Community Planning and Development, and I'm here with a text amendment to the Denver Zoning Code to correct an error that was introduced into the zoning code with the 2021 bundle of Denver Zoning Code text amendments. That bundle was adopted by City Council in the summer, and the error inadvertently reduced the maximum building footprint that was allowed for detached accessory dwelling units on zone lots greater than 6000 square feet in basically all of the single unit districts in the urban edge neighborhood context. That includes the zone district that was justified earlier this evening to a couple of areas of East Colfax. We'd like to get this corrected. The proposed amendment would have no impact on any other zoned district or building form. We're using a process allowed by the zoning code to begin the adoption process with Council Committee. So Planning Board has not considered or made a recommendation on this proposed text amendment. The next few slides just quickly walk you through what happened here. We're looking at a portion of the detached accessory dwelling unit building form table in Article four of the Denver Zoning Code. That's the urban edge neighborhood context, specifically at the maximum building footprint on a couple of lot sizes for single unit zone districts, the maximum building footprint being the portion of the lot area that an accessory dwelling unit building form can cover, like looking at a lot fewer dimensionally. It has historically been 864 square feet for detached views on lot 6000 to 7000 square feet and 2000 square feet on lots greater than 7000 square feet. This is the public review draft for the bundle of text amendments and you see various proposed changes marked up there which circle those two maximum buildings. Footprints are not marked up as a change, and yet those numbers are different. So just going back to that previous slide, we had 864 square feet and 1000 square feet. Now we're seeing 650 square feet in 864 square feet with essentially a kind of unfortunate cut and paste error. And because that page was filed for adoption with the text amendment, that became part of the official code when that bundle was adopted. So if you look at the code as it's on the website right now, it will have those two maximums of 650 and 860 square, 64 square feet in this form table, which is different than all the other detached accessory building form tables across the code. So the proposed fix is quite simple. Change the numbers back to 864 and 1000 square feet to be consistent across the code. Looking at the review criteria, the comprehensive plan has a number of relevant goals. Probably the most relevant is the first one listed that proposed revisions should ensure that the zoning ordinance remains flexible and accommodating. And you kind of see that as being a keep the code up to date and relevant recommendation, which is also mentioned in Blueprint Denver that the code should continue to respond to the needs of the city by remaining modern and flexible. We'll also just note the blueprint recommendation that we've talked about more this evening that directs us to remove barriers to constructing accessory dwelling units while also creating context sensitive form standards. This is an inadvertent barrier we talked about that ideas in Denver project that we're kicking off now is really going to look at all of the other barriers. But this area is right now, there's actually plans and process in affected zone districts where the design was made thinking that the maximum building footprint was one thing accidentally changed. They can't get the approval until the zoning code is updated. So we're bringing this forward sooner. The looking at the blueprint equity concept staff believe that this text amendment will have a largely neutral impact on the three equity criteria that we look at. And that it'll further public safety, health and welfare by providing clarity and predictability in zoning regulations and by ensuring consistent application of adopted plans, and that it will result in uniformity of district regulations and restrictions. So staff based on a finding that these review criteria have been met. We recommend that City Council adopt this Denver Zoning Code Text Amendment.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you very much for the staff report, Abe. And we have one speaker online this evening, Jessie Paris.
Speaker 10: Yesterday, the members of council, those watching at home the numbers just as we saw Paris Hilton represented for Blackstar a move to self defense positive as a command for social change as well as the Unity Party of Colorado and frontline black males. And I'll be the next member in 2023. And I live in just a councilman Herndon's district, and I'm in favor of the amendments in my 80 years or so so far of creating affordable affordability, affordable housing in the city, along with safe outdoor spaces and tiny home villages. So this amendment is much needed. Please pass this mine so we can get this error corrected. And that's all I have to say. And then I have a Happy New Year. Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Thank you.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you very much, Jesse. And the same to you. That concludes our speakers questions from members of Council on Council Bill 1332. Councilmember Ortega.
Speaker 7: I just wanted to ask you one question, Abe. So it looks like this does not apply to any of the mixed use districts, correct?
Speaker 0: That is correct. So the way our accessory dwelling unit standards are set up now, they only apply in residential zone districts and only apply as accessory to a single dwelling unit use. So in a mixed use district, you might see things that look like an Adu or like a carriage house, but they were permitted in a different path because in a district like that you can there's a lot more flexibility. You could have two primary building forms, for example, and one just might just look like an idea.
Speaker 7: So even though there are many of our mixed use, some districts that have residential structures, the lots are treated much differently than they are if they were residentially zoned. So the example that I've used before at 38th and Eliot and I think the last time I brought this up, somebody said those were two separate lots. But the house behind the house in the front that was built is so close to the first structure, the initial structure that I it's hard for me to believe that they're separate lots and it's significantly bigger than the house and the front. So if people wanted to do that all up and down 38th Avenue, where these residential structures are that may be zoned as mixed use, they could continue to do the domino effect that happened with that house on the corner. Is that correct?
Speaker 0: Yes, I am familiar with the project at 38th and Eliot. And so the house is facing 38. And then there was just that homeowner may have owned the other lot at one point, but it's.
Speaker 7: Separated.
Speaker 0: Sold off separately and a project permitted by the mixed use zoning happened on it. That's much bigger than the house. Of course, they could have sold both the house and the other property and then a big, bigger project would have covered both. So because it's.
Speaker 7: It's a mixed use or commercial, there is no setbacks that typically are required in residential zones.
Speaker 0: That's right. Although there are building code restrictions that would, you know, generally mean that buildings have to have at least some separation unless they have a really high fire rating.
Speaker 7: Okay. And I know we're not talking about mixed use zones in this particular application, but I just had to understand and wrap my brain around how we're allowing that to happen and could see that happen all up and down a commercial corridor where what maybe once was zoned as residential structures, maybe. I don't know if this goes back to the 2010 zoning changes that happened that turn some of our commercial corners into mixed use, zoned districts, and now allow something that could not only impact, you know, the the corridor and potential parking for some of the businesses, but it then has an impact on the properties across the alley as well. So I don't know that that's something that we're looking at to do a fix on or if we think that that is just okay to happen. And I don't know how many commercial corridors we zoned or up zoned from residential structures to commercial that this would apply to. But I think it'd be worth looking into to see, you know, where we would then create this domino effect that then has neighbors screaming at all of us for something that may be an unintended consequence. So I just wanted to raise that. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Great.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Ortega. Abe, did you have any response or.
Speaker 0: Yes, Councilwoman Ortega, I'll just mentioned that we we are looking at those kinds of concerns. We probably put it more in the bucket of the blueprint recommendations that talk about the design character of our commercial centers and corridors and how they transition to residential areas. And we actually have on our wish list a project to look at, look at those centers and corridors across the city and the zoning tools that apply there. We don't have it on the immediate schedule, so it's probably, you know, a couple of years away. But that's, I think, an important conversation to have. I don't know the specific history of 38, but a lot of those corridors, even before 2010, did have some kind of commercial zoning, even though in many cases they have some single unit houses still on them.
Speaker 7: Thanks.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you. Thank you, Abe. Councilmember Sawyer. Thanks, Madam President. Abe just wanted to say thank you. We discovered this story in the rezoning in East Colfax, which is in the Southern District. And it's a real simple, straightforward, quick change that was fixing a clerical error and just wanted to say thank you for that. Thanks. All right. Thank you. Councilmember Sawyer, the public hearing this closed comments by members of Council on Council Bill 1332. It looks like we don't have any comments and so happy to support this correction this evening. Madam Secretary, I just want to make sure council members. Okay, you're you're not in the queue for comment. I'm not. It's just deleting me out for some reason. Okay. All right. Very good. Just wanted to make sure, Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 1332. Please see about the.
Speaker 7: Quite.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: Flynn.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 4: Herndon, i.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: Cashman. Ortega, i.
Speaker 5: Senator I. Sawyer, i. Torres, i. What i.
Speaker 1: Madam President, I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results. 11 811 Eyes Council Bill 21 Dash 1332 has passed. Thank you for being here and doing that presentation. On Tuesday, January 18th, 2022, Council will hold the required public hearing on Council Bill 21, Dash 1455 changing the zoning classification for 2000 Blake Street in five points
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance amending the Denver Zoning Code to correct an error in the detached accessory dwelling unit building form standards in the Urban Edge Neighborhood Context.
Amends the Denver Zoning Code to correct an error in the maximum building footprint for detached accessory dwelling units in E-SU- Zone Districts. The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 12-13-21. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 11-9-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_12132021_21-1182
|
Speaker 1: The communication regarding the veto of Council Bill 21 1182 has been received and filed. Councilmember Sawyer your motion to override the veto on Council Bill 21, Dash 1182. Thank you. Council President I move that council bill 21 dash 1182 passes notwithstanding the disapproval or objections of the mayor. It has been moved and seconded. Questions and Comments on Council Bill 21, Dash 1182 Council Member Sawyer. Thank you, Madam President. Given that we've been having these discussions for a year and between Councilwoman Ortega and myself, have held almost 100 meetings with stakeholders, community members, business owners, council members, city officials, lobbyists, tobacco companies and countless others. I don't think we need to rehash all of the issues tonight. It really comes down to priorities. Do we as a council want to override this veto in the name of public health? Or do we want to let it stand in the name of profit?
Speaker 6: Councilman Ortega and I brought this.
Speaker 1: Bill because we truly believe in prioritizing public health and we have.
Speaker 6: The support of over.
Speaker 1: A hundred local institutions and organizations in this work. We have the data to show that reducing access reduces youth usage of tobacco and vape products. Denver has the opportunity to be a leader in fighting this epidemic. As we have always.
Speaker 6: Said, we.
Speaker 1: Agree with the mayor's office that this should be.
Speaker 6: Done on a state level. And if this veto override fails tonight, we're.
Speaker 1: Committed to continuing these discussions. But we have seen that when Denver leads, others join us. Look at the tobacco 21 law. Denver did it first and then the state changed the age to 21. What about the COVID mask mandates? When Mayor Hancock announced that he was requiring masks, even though Governor Polis hadn't, he was making the decision to prioritize public health, even though it was controversial. And what happened? Governor Polis announces statewide mask mandate. That's what we're talking about tonight. Denver has an opportunity to lead this conversation and prioritize the public health of our kids. No legislation is perfect.
Speaker 6: And all legislation has consequences.
Speaker 1: Intended and.
Speaker 6: Unintended. But this legislation is narrowly tailored.
Speaker 1: Includes exemptions for things like harm reduction. And we've worked hard over.
Speaker 6: A year to incorporate much of the feedback.
Speaker 1: That we've heard. I believe truly that imperfect action is.
Speaker 6: Always better than perfect inaction.
Speaker 1: I want to be the kind of politician that finds solutions to the.
Speaker 6: Challenges that face our residents. So I'm going to urge my colleagues to join.
Speaker 1: Me in voting to override this. Madam President. Thank you, Councilmember Ortega. Thank you, Madam President. Pro tem. First. I want to share that. It's it's been an honor to work with Councilwoman Sawyer on this project in trying to ensure that we are prioritizing public health as we have done and have led on tobacco issues in the past . I am tired of seeing big tobacco using millions of dollars to hire. Minority individuals from our community to defend their efforts, meaning big tobacco, to continue to target our communities and especially our communities of color, to ensure that they grow and maintain their lifelong customers. Who become addicted to these products. And then you heard how we as the public pay for the additional costs in our increased increases to health care because of so many people whose lives are being impacted and these are preventable deaths. This has always been a public health issue that we have focused on by bringing this issue forward and targeting our kids, especially. But at the same time, we're protecting adults. And make no bones about it. The tobacco industry has continued for many, many years to target children. And minority communities to be their lifelong customers to continue to pay the increased costs in tobacco products. But they're paying with their lives, and that's what we're trying to address. So I would just plead with my colleagues to allow this law to be overridden. The veto to be overridden allowed the law to stay in effect. And then the work that some of my colleagues talked about addressing the enforcement side and sadly, I'm I was surprised last week that. So much focus was on the enforcement when we could have been having those conversations at the beginning of this effort. When we started this over a year ago. But those came up on the back end of this process, and they should have been part of the discussions that we were having on the front end. So I just again will be supporting the move to override the veto and hope that my colleagues will support that. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 0: Yes, thank you.
Speaker 5: Madam President. Pro tem. I made my vote last week without.
Speaker 3: Meaningful comment, so I think it's important that I make comment this week.
Speaker 5: I have struggled more with determining which way to vote on this bill than I have with any but a very.
Speaker 3: Few other issues.
Speaker 5: That I've been faced with in my time on council. The considerations.
Speaker 3: That have found their way into this discussion are.
Speaker 5: Varied and complex, and the competing issues hit very close to home for me. I was a small business owner who worked with.
Speaker 3: Other small business owners.
Speaker 5: For the better part of four decades.
Speaker 3: I'm intimately familiar with their.
Speaker 5: Bedrock contribution to our economy, as well as the pressures that these entrepreneurs face under the best.
Speaker 3: Of daily circumstance, no less when shifting.
Speaker 5: Economics or government regulations add more complexity.
Speaker 3: To their day.
Speaker 5: That's why I proposed the amendment to delay implementation of this bill should it pass.
Speaker 3: By a full year from July of 22 to.
Speaker 5: July of 23. For just over five decades, I have been a parent for the past, nearly to a grandparent, and I've watched my kids, my grandkids and their many friends try to make their way through the minefield of challenges thrown at them, not just by the natural unfolding of life, but by companies who make their living offering products tobacco, alcohol and marijuana among them. Whose presence in the marketplace, I believe, presents more of a threat to my loved ones ultimate well-being than a benefit.
Speaker 3: Whatever challenges to clarity the above elements to the debate have presented for me, I am crystal clear that we.
Speaker 5: Have a responsibility to do our best to provide safe passage for our children. I believe good parenting and good government both have a.
Speaker 3: Role in that effort. This bill was presented to me by the sponsors at being aimed at keeping.
Speaker 5: Tobacco out of the hands of kids. And it is that focused context that I have.
Speaker 3: Considered its merits.
Speaker 5: What I like about this bill is that it reduces the availability of the smaller flavored smoking devices. Menthol cigarets and flavored tipped cigars that are.
Speaker 3: Appealing to young would be smokers.
Speaker 5: They would not be available in Denver. My concern about the bill is all of those.
Speaker 3: Products will remain easily.
Speaker 5: Available across our borders and many through online retailers with a few quick keystrokes. I'm also concerned that this bill would impact retailers selling larger vaping devices that these discussions have revealed are not particularly attractive to youngsters and that some folks use as a way toward smoking cessation. I would be very pleased with a statewide policy or a federal mandate that we have been told for years is.
Speaker 3: Coming eliminating flavored to make tobacco products.
Speaker 5: Excuse me. As we know. Should this bill pass? It does not provide any kind of silver bullet. Excuse me. Should the bill pass.
Speaker 3: Be it local, statewide or national? It's not a silver bullet to keep kids off tobacco.
Speaker 5: However, the vote goes this evening. We must work in partnership with our Departments of Excise and License and Public Health and Environment to increase the team of inspectors that are available to enforce the requirement that tobacco products of all sort be available only to those 21 and over. We must insist that anyone wishing to be licensed to sell.
Speaker 3: Tobacco products in Denver.
Speaker 5: Be required to employ enhanced verification techniques to reduce the opportunity for those under 21 to take fake I.D., to purchase tobacco.
Speaker 3: Products. And we must dramatically increase the penalties.
Speaker 5: For those selling to those under the age.
Speaker 3: Of.
Speaker 5: 21 or in any way enabling the transfer of tobacco products to those.
Speaker 3: Beneath legal age. We must redouble our educational.
Speaker 5: Efforts to make it ever more clear the harm the consumption of all tobacco products does to young bodies and minds.
Speaker 3: What don't we know about the impacts of the mayoral veto.
Speaker 5: Of 21 Dash 1182 was upheld. We don't know how many more kids will go into Denver stores with fake IDs to purchase these products. We don't know how many adults will purchase these products in Denver and pass them.
Speaker 3: On to underage.
Speaker 5: Individuals to begin or deepen their tobacco habit. If the veto is overturned in 21, dash 1182 passes into law. We don't know how much tax revenue that previously came into our coffers from flavored tobacco sales will go elsewhere, and we don't know how many businesses will relocate. We don't know how many of the retailers that.
Speaker 3: Will be restricted from selling flavored tobacco will find.
Speaker 5: A new business model with which to move forward. We don't know to where and in what numbers kids will.
Speaker 3: Go elsewhere to find.
Speaker 5: These products. We don't know what form of underground.
Speaker 3: Business might spring up to meet the new.
Speaker 5: Denver need for products that the bill would ban. We also don't.
Speaker 3: Know.
Speaker 5: What other municipalities will be encouraged to join Denver.
Speaker 3: In finding ways to discourage teen tobacco use.
Speaker 5: Further limiting the supply of kid friendly products. So what it has.
Speaker 3: Come down to for me is I have no faith that big tobacco that lied to us for so long.
Speaker 5: Will suddenly develop a social conscience and join in real.
Speaker 3: Partnership to reduce tobacco use and children. I have no faith that the action from Washington that we've awaited is soon to come. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported a decline in high school students current use of e-cigarettes down from.
Speaker 5: 27.5%.
Speaker 3: In 2019 to 19.6% in 2020. However.
Speaker 5: An overwhelming majority nearly.
Speaker 3: 85% of high school students who used e-cigarettes in 2020 reported they use flavored e-cigarettes. My faith is not high that if 21 dash 1182 does not pass, that a second effort will produce a bill with as strong a commitment to keeping flavored tobacco.
Speaker 5: Out of the hands of kids.
Speaker 3: While I recognize the.
Speaker 5: Challenge this puts on retailers, Mayor Hancock, while expressing his concern.
Speaker 3: For affected.
Speaker 5: Businesses, did not say we should not limit supply. He said it would be more.
Speaker 3: Effective if we.
Speaker 5: Did it on a metro wide or.
Speaker 3: Statewide level. I think our chances of leading the way to a positive.
Speaker 5: Outcome for our kids is to do just that, be among those who.
Speaker 3: Are leading the way. With that in mind, Madam President, pro tem understanding.
Speaker 5: That we have other work to be.
Speaker 3: Done to keep kids from getting hooked on tobacco.
Speaker 5: I think this bill will do more to lead us in the.
Speaker 3: Right direction than if we turn it away. I reversed my position.
Speaker 5: From last week and will vote to support the implementation.
Speaker 3: Of 21 Dash 1182. Thank you for your patience with my comments.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Clark.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 5: I know I did articulate last week that and shared my concerns with the bill that we passed, ensured my preference for what I thought would have been a better path. I continue to really believe that we need to firm up enforcement, significantly, raise the fines for selling anyone who is selling to kids and and really be aggressive and make it a lot easier for the folks who do enforcement to take away and for businesses to lose their license for selling to kids. I believe in that framework. I believe that there are are a lot of people on all sides of this who are very supportive of that. Right. And I just want to say, you know, I've got a world of respect for the folks that I sit up here and serve with. And we don't always agree. We don't always come to the same conclusion. But I believe that everyone up here is committed to keeping tobacco out of the hands of kids. It's a question of how we think we best get there. And I think that there are a lot of, you know, small business owners who believe strongly in that and want that regulation and that control and that enforcement and that accountability. And so.
Speaker 3: You know, I said last.
Speaker 5: Week that I really felt like we should tackle that and then we should implement a flavor ban where appropriate within that framework. And that it was I was disappointed that the amendment.
Speaker 0: To create.
Speaker 5: A carve out for stores that were 21 plus didn't pass. And I thought that it didn't pass because there.
Speaker 3: Was that lack of faith.
Speaker 5: In our current fine structure and our enforcement and and in the ability to take license away. We have found a way to make 21 plus stores work for marijuana to to keep kids out of those stores and to keep kids from accessing marijuana through those stores. And I really believe that if we could get if we can get the enforcement and the fines.
Speaker 0: And.
Speaker 5: Taking away of licenses there, then we can also create a pathway for 21 plus tobacco stores. But that's that.
Speaker 3: That wasn't what made it into.
Speaker 5: This final bill. So there didn't last week for me there didn't.
Speaker 3: Appear to be a pathway.
Speaker 5: To that end to what I thought was a better way.
Speaker 3: Was a more tactical. And I think I said to the that this issue needs a scalpel to use that scalpel.
Speaker 5: To really carve this out, protect our kids without, you know, as much of a blunt instrument. But we it does make a difference. And I do think that there is a pathway. I have talked I spoke with the mayor. I spoke with other members of this body and feel that the mayor has taken steps to start working with excise and license and the city attorney's office.
Speaker 3: To that end, I believe that we.
Speaker 5: Can tackle this issue with the scalpel that it deserves and protect our kids in a more meaningful way if we take that route. I'm. I'm remain very open to conversations about flavor bans where appropriate as we move forward and solve the problems that I think led to the 21 plus amendment not going through. And I and I hope that we can get there. And I think that this is a this is a better path to that end that I was looking for last week. And so I will be switching my vote and I will not be voting tonight to support the override. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 1: Seeing no one else in the queue. Council members just remember that nine affirmative votes of council are required for the adoption of this motion. Madam Secretary, roll call, please. But. Sawyer I. Black Knight. CdeBaca, I.
Speaker 5: Clark No. Flynn No.
Speaker 1: Herndon.
Speaker 3: No.
Speaker 1: Hines.
Speaker 3: All right.
Speaker 1: Cashman. Can I. Ortega, i. Sandoval. I. Madam President, I. Eight eyes, four nays. The motion to override the veto on Council Bill 21, Dash 1182 has failed. Council Bill 21 Dash 1182 has successfully been vetoed. There are no proclamations.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance amending article XI of chapter 24, D.R.M.C., to ban the sale of flavored tobacco products and accessories.
Amends Article IX of chapter 24, D.R.M.C., to ban the sale of flavored tobacco products and accessories. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 11-17-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_12132021_21-1443
|
Speaker 1: New items have been called out under bills for final consideration. No items have been called out under pending. No items have been called out. Madam Secretary, please put up the first item on our screen. Councilmember Hines, would you please put Council Resolution 1443 on the floor for adoption?
Speaker 3: I believe that council resolution 21, dash one, four, four, three be adopted.
Speaker 1: It has been moved. And seconded comments by members of Council on Resolution 1443. Council members say the back. Thank you. I'd like to go on record as a no for this contract. I've been consistently appalled by this organization's. Mistreatment or advocacy against the interests of the most vulnerable among us in service of revitalizing rivers. Their tagline is Revitalizing Rivers and Reconnecting Communities. But they have consistently ignored communities and also taken positions on other items that would do the same in other contexts protect our communities, protect reconnect our communities. And they've taken positions against it. And so I'm confused as to why we're engaging in a contract with an organization for advocacy, given that their values seem misaligned with our own. So I want to go on record as a no for this tonight. Thank you. Thank you. No one else in the queue. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Resolution one four, four, three. See the Barca? No. Clarke Friend. Flynn. I turn, then I try. Cashman. Can I. Ortega, I. Sandoval, I swear i. Black. I. Madam President, i. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. One name 11 eyes. 11 Eyes, Cancer Resolution 20 1-1443 has been adopted. Madam Secretary, please put the next item on our screen. Council members say the but can go ahead with your questions and comments on resolutions one, four, five, eight and one four
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Fourth Amendatory Agreement between the City and County of Denver and The Greenway Foundation for advisory services.
Amends a contract with The Greenway Foundation by adding $175,000 for a new total of $1,364,000 and three years for a new end date of 12-31-24 for advisory services to the City, including advocacy, fundraising and environmental education programs related to the South Platte River and its tributaries as needed (FINAN-201415058). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 1-3-22. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 11-30-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_12132021_21-1458
|
Speaker 1: , five nine. Thank you. Is there anybody here from host? I'd like to ask most of my questions to host, not the providers. Thank you for being here. I am concerned that we have not seen any RFP go out for these shelter providers, and I'm curious as to how you all have been dealing with the many complaints we've brought to your office that we've gotten from constituents about the operations at both of these shelter locations. Yeah. Thank you for those questions, Councilwoman. My name is Angie Nelson and I'm the deputy director of the Department of Housing Stability overseeing our homelessness resolution and housing stability work. So to answer your first question regarding the request for proposals or our procurement process, so we entered a procurement process for shelter operations partners in the summer of 2020, making awards in late 2020 and in some instances in early 2021 and have been operating under those contracts. And so for both of these proposals, they were actually proposed during the procurement process back in 2020 under our larger notice of funding availability. So that's how these provider partners were chosen. So I've had several communications with your office, and you were specifically part of a meeting where we were told that at the rescue mission, Debra Butt told the service provider out of Atlantis that their contract with the city did not require them to comply with ADA requirements and they were denying people who needed help completing their ADLs. There was a comment there about protecting our relationship with the shelter provider instead of protecting the people who are in the shelter. I'm very concerned about that and would like to know how that's being addressed and what in fact, are there requirements around ADA ADA compliance? So I'm not sure exactly what comment you're speaking to, but I think always we're trying to support our folks experiencing homelessness are vulnerable neighbors as well as those provider partners who are stepping in to provide really lifesaving services in that meeting. And after that meeting, as we've communicated with your office, we are. We reiterated that there is no exception to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. That was not. Exception granted to any agency. And conversations have been had with rescue mission to help to clear that up. And so in that communication was also shared with your office. And how do we, in an ongoing fashion monitor compliance with failure? So all contracts with the Department of Housing Stability have a process for ongoing compliance as issues or complaints are brought to our office. We work to understand from both the folks who raise those complaints, as well as the agencies involved what might be going on and to help provide a speedy response. And so that's what we've been working towards. So there's both the ongoing monitoring that happens with our contracts as well as any complaint driven monitoring that occurs. So how many complaints have we had of both of these providers? Where are we tracking that at? I don't have that information for you tonight. I do. To go back to my team and see, as you know, host is a new organization in the city. And so we are still working on some of our operating procedures that that help us to have all of these different tracking mechanisms in place. But I'll have to do some work with my team to get a response on exactly how many. What is the protocol then for complaints from shelter guests and advocates in shelters? So each shelter contract that we have with the Department of Housing Stability requires that our partners have their own complaint, process and procedure internally external to that. Historically, we've worked through the Office of Human Rights and Community Partnerships as a place for guests to be able to lodge complaints that can then be addressed. As I mentioned, we're working on some additional operating procedures that can help us to have a more clear written procedure that's available to everyone, but don't have that currently in place . When will we have that in place? I don't have an answer for that right now. I think it would be wise for us to have that in place before the end of the year. It it seems a little crazy to me that we haven't had a protocol in place for complaints and that we would allow the contractors to monitor themselves. That wasn't what I said. Primarily, I said that our contracts, so our contract staff at host provides monitoring. So when you have monitors, no protocol in place at the same exact time for receipt of complaints, there's not a formal. Process just for the Department of Housing Stability. So in the absence of a protocol, the default is that there is no real monitoring. There is ongoing contract compliance monitoring, contract compliance, but no complete protocol and monitoring of enforcement or of actions taken when a complaint is lodged. So we're not an enforcement agency. We are the Department of Housing Stability. Well, we should have an enforcement mechanism when there are civil rights allegations in these places that are taking care of our most vulnerable adults. So I would love to see that happen or be created very soon. I'm assuming that there's no protocol for accountability when you guys do receive a complaint. It's just a conversation. I'm sorry. I'm not sure how you want me to answer that question. It's pretty inflammatory. And so I'm not sure what I meant to say here. There are ways in which we document that are complete was received in the most recent instance. We received a complaint and responded immediately to the person who complained to your office, specifically into all city council members. And so that's typically our accountability is quick response and in reply to all members of council trying to keep things very transparent. And so I don't know exactly how to respond with the insinuation that we have no accountability or we have no responsiveness to these vulnerable community members because it's simply not the case. Well, it would be inflammatory if it weren't factual. We've had two murders, two deaths in our shelters that have, in my opinion, given us a reason to create some protocols for accountability if these if we're going to allege that these are safe places. The recent issue we spoke about with the COVID outbreak and the identification of individuals who had COVID. What have we created a protocol since that interaction to get them vouchers for a longer term? Because we were told that they were. That you all told us they were put in respite care, but that it wasn't a substantial period of time. So I'm wondering when they're moved to respite care or a motel, are we extending the length of their stay in those spaces so that they're not forced to return before they're well. The regulations around activated, rested are created in cooperation with the Department of Public Health and Environment. All of the protocol around release date or length of stay is determined in partnership with public health and public health and environment. And so I'm not sure what conversation you're referring to that you and I specifically had regarding cold mouth from host. Okay. So I'm assuming it was an email that laid out the protocol around activated that referral. That referral stays in place. We have the opportunity to help folks who have an active COVID infection to isolate safely for an isolation period, again defined by public health and environment and public health and medical partners. What does that length of time? Dependent on various factors such as symptomatic disease. It's between seven and 14 days, depending on individual situations. Does it go below seven days? Not that I'm aware of, but I'd have to look into that. I would appreciate that. And my final question with our shelters. Do we have any metrics of success that we require from the shelters? Do we ask them to track how many people are getting into a pipeline for permanent housing? So every shelter contract has its own. Package of outcome measures. So most of our shelter contracts do have specific benchmarks to to meet in terms of efforts to stable housing. And so. Depending on whether a program has. Robust case management supports versus more just.
Speaker 6: Shelter.
Speaker 1: Provision. Sort of depends on the level of outcome that a certain contract would have. I recognize that we don't have a backup option. And this is one of the pieces of the puzzle. And so tonight, I have to vote in support of this. But I think that now, given the time we've had with COVID and the issues that have come up in our shelters, I think that host really needs to kick into gear with some protocols to deal with the excessive amount of complaints that we've been receiving not only from residents, but individuals, advocates who are working in the shelters and witnessing from an unbiased place what exactly is happening every day in these shelters. And so just wanted to put that out there and we'll be in communication. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Secretary, please put the next item on our screen.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Lease Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Catholic Charities and Community Services of the Archdiocese of Denver, Inc. for property located at 4330 East 48th Avenue.
Approves a lease agreement with Catholic Charities and Community Services of the Archdiocese of Denver, Inc. for $30 and through 12-31-23 to operate a City-owned emergency shelter located at 4330 East 48th Avenue in Council District 8 (FINAN- 202159483). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 1-3-22. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 11-30-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_12132021_21-1444
|
Speaker 1: and witnessing from an unbiased place what exactly is happening every day in these shelters. And so just wanted to put that out there and we'll be in communication. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Secretary, please put the next item on our screen. Council Member Can each go ahead with your comments on resolution one, four, four, four? Thank you. Council President Pro Tem. This is a contract for security services here in our city facilities and I think maybe up to 40 some facilities. So Human services, different buildings. And we have had some history with our service contracts in the city recently, as we saw at the airport where the janitorial staff went on strike, we actually had disruptions to the workplace. The disruptions included, you know, a work stoppage, two separate days. And, you know, in spite of the efforts of everyone at the airport to to provide backup disruptions due to labor unrest are bad for our city and they're bad for business. And so one of the first priorities I have when I look at our service contracts is to make sure, are we doing everything we can to avoid economic disruption? Are we doing everything we can to live up to our city's values in those contracts? Some things are within our control. To set terms for other things have to be determined between the workers and the employers outside the city's control. But the important thing always is that there is a commitment to do those negotiations and those discussions and that we as a city have assurance that there's not going to be disruption. We had a conversation in committee about the Securitas security contract a couple of weeks ago, and we received numerous reassurances that there would be good dialog with the workers and with their representatives, and that has just not occurred yet. I'm disappointed to hear that there is a lot of confusion among workers, and this happens when contracts turn over, right? There is a policy now that says you have a right to keep your job, but there are questions among those workers about the terms that they're going to be keeping those jobs under. And the best way to avoid the disruption that can occur with workers maybe getting cold feet, not being sure if they want to stay on, not being sure what's happening is to work in partnership. It is to sit at the table. It is to work together and to make sure that all the communication is as clear as it can be. To make sure that the parties understand what the commitments have been made and that those commitments are going to be kept and that the workers will have a seat at the table . I'm disappointed that those things have not occurred. And so with that, I am asking for this council to, you know, delay this for one week in the hopes that this company will sit down with the workers representatives and assure us in their next appearance before this council that we will not have disruptions because the conversations and the collaboration have not occurred. This is security contracting. It's not janitorial. It's much more complex to find workers to back up and to be in place. We just can't risk another round of disruption in one of our service contracts where it is avoidable. Where good conversations and good dialog can clarify communication, clarify intent, and wherever possible, get to as much certainty as possible before this council is asked to vote. So for those reasons, I hope that my colleagues will stay engaged in the week that intervenes here and that they will express their similar support for this dialog to continue. This does not require a vote tonight. This is a special motion that we created when we moved our contracts from two reading bills to one reading bill. And so I think it's an important tool. I don't use it often, but this is an example where I think more partnership and dialog is needed. I understand we're near the end of the year and this is an important contract and we always wish the administration brought these things a little quicker to us so we weren't quite under such a tight timeline. But I think the importance of avoiding disruptions that are foreseeable and preventable is important enough to make sure the parties understand the seriousness of getting to the table and talking. So with that, I think the Council President for accepting my motion tonight and invoking of this rule, and I look forward to hearing that some dialog and communication clarifications have been made so that we can feel good that this contract turnover will occur smoothly. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Hines.
Speaker 3: I thank you. Council president. I want to thank Councilmember for her comments. I want the record to know that she is not alone. I agree and I'm sure others do too. Thank you. Council President.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Council Resolution 144, four. We'll be back before Council for consideration on Monday, December 20th. Madam Secretary, please put the next item on our screen. Councilmember Hines, go ahead with your comments on Resolution 1438.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Securitas Security Services USA, Inc. for security personnel services in City facilities, excluding Denver International Airport.
Approves a contract with Securitas Security Services USA, Inc. for $25 million and for three years, with two one-year options to extend, for security personnel services in City facilities (GENRL-202161226-00). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 1-3-22. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 11-30-21. Pursuant to Council Rule 3.7, Councilmember Kniech called this item out at the 12-13-21 meeting for a one-week postponement to 12-20-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_12132021_21-1438
|
Speaker 1: Thank you. Council Resolution 144, four. We'll be back before Council for consideration on Monday, December 20th. Madam Secretary, please put the next item on our screen. Councilmember Hines, go ahead with your comments on Resolution 1438.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Council President Pursuant to Council Rule 3.7, I'm calling out this resolution to postpone consideration until Monday, December 20th.
Speaker 1: No motion is required. Do any members of council have comments? CNN. Councilmember Hines. Council Resolution 1438 will be back before Council for consideration on Monday, December 20th. Okay, that concludes the items to be called out. All bills for introduction are ordered published. Council members remember this is a consent or block vote. You will need to vote ie. Otherwise this is your last chance to call it an item for a separate vote. Councilmember Hines, will you please put the resolutions for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor?
Speaker 3: Thank you. Council President. One moment. All right. I'm going to hope that the council secretary will check my work. I'd like to make a move. The resolutions be adopted in bills on final consideration, be placed upon final consideration, and do passing a block for the following items. 20 1-1523. 20 1-141 121. Dash 1433. 20 1-14, four, five. 20 1-1460 21. Dash 1461. 20 1-1462. 20 1-1463. 20 1-1464. 20 1-1330. 20 1-1414. 20 1-1415. 20 1-142 821. Dash 1430. 20 1-144 220 1-144 620 1-144 721. Dash 1453. 20 1-145 420 1-145 820 1-145 920 1-146 520 1-146 620 1-142 220 1-144 120 1-132 620 1-132 720 1-132 820 1-132 920 1-143 920 1-1440 20 1-140 520 1-140 820 1-141 221. Dash 142 421. Dash 142 521. Dash 1417. 20 1-1, four, two, three.
Speaker 1: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, roll call. Black. I see tobacco. I Clark.
Speaker 5: All right.
Speaker 1: Fine.
Speaker 5: I.
Speaker 1: Herndon.
Speaker 3: I. All right. Hi.
Speaker 1: Cashman. Kenny Ortega. I. I swear, i. Madam President, I. Madam Secretary closed the voting and announced the results. 12 US 12 eyes. The resolutions have been adopted and the bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass. Tonight there'll be a required public hearing on Council Bill 21, Dash 1365 designating the East Seventh Avenue Historic District Steel Street Extension as a district for preservation and a required public hearing on Council Bill 20 1-1429 Designating Concretion Hall at 3001 South Federal Boulevard as a structure for preservation.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed First Amendatory Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Brothers Redevelopment, Inc. to revise the scope of services and budget, increase the maximum contract amount, and extend the term for the administration of the Temporary Rental and Utility Assistance (TRUA) Program.
Amends a contract with Brothers Redevelopment, Inc. by adding $1,262,255 for a new total of $2,795,855 and one year for a new end date of 12-31-22 for administration of the Temporary Rental and Utility Assistance (TRUA) program (HOST 202161105-01). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 1-3-22. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 12-1-21. Pursuant to Council Rule 3.7, Councilmember Hinds called this item out at the 12-13-21 meeting for a one-week postponement to 12-20-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_12132021_21-1365
|
Speaker 1: We have two public hearings, hearings tonight 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. Host promotes you to speaker. When you're promoted, your screen will flash to say reconnecting to meeting. Please don't leave the meeting. You will be reconnected and you'll need to turn on your camera. If you have one and your microphone you will see the time counting down at the bottom of your screen. Once you have finished speaking, you'll change back to participant mode and see your screen flash one more time. All speakers should begin their remarks by telling the 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're 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 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 Hines, will you please put Council Bill 1365 on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 3: I move that council bill 20 1-1365 be placed upon final consideration and to pass.
Speaker 1: It has been moved. Can we have a second? It has been seconded. The required public hearing for Council Bill 1365 is open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 6: Good evening, council. I'm Jenny Guttenberg, senior city planner, community planning and Development. I'm also here with my colleague Becca Dyer Show, who is learning the ropes of our historic designation process and whom you'll be seeing more of in the future. She may assist me tonight with any design review questions that you might have for this historic district proposal. We are considering 19 properties on the east side of the 607 hundred blocks of North Steel Street in the Congress Park neighborhood. This is a new historic district proposal, not an amendment to the existing East Seventh Avenue historic district. The designation process is community driven and applications can be submitted by a variety of persons that you see listed on the screen. This application was submitted by three property owners who live within the boundaries of the proposed district. They spent the last two years developing the application and reaching out to other property owners to inform, educate and solicit their support for the proposal. The owners. Applicants of this district designation are Ken Fuller, Jane Pretzel and Tom Heath. The district is located within the Congress Park neighborhood and includes 19 primary structures 18 that are contributing. This is within Council District ten and blueprints under the areas within the urban neighborhood context and low residential area. Future place type. Current zoning is USAC. This is a dis contiguous historic district in two separate sections and was done in this way to avoid overlapping with the existing East Seventh Avenue historic district boundary. You can see by this map that a major justification for creating this new historic district is to include both the east and west sides of the 607 100 block of North Steele Street. The east side was left out of the 1993 East Seventh Avenue Historic District designation. This proposed district stands on its own with a period of significance from 1912 to 1990, while the existing East Seventh Avenue historic district has a period of significance prior to and including 1943. The proposed district meets all landmarks preservation ordinance designation criteria. It maintains its integrity. It is more than 30 years old. It meets three of the ten significance criteria. And it provides a historic context for consideration by the Landmark Preservation Commission. I want to mention the design review requirement for designated properties. Over the past several months, Landmark Preservation Staff engage property owners within the proposed district to clearly explain the design guidelines and design review process, including two community meetings, one in August 2021 and another in October 2021, as well as email communications with individuals. One of the major responsibilities of property owner who owns a historically designated property is to maintain its historic character. When a property is designated, it is designated as is and requires no improvements by the city. Maintaining a property's historic character is achieved through Landmark Preservation Design Review for any exterior alterations that require a zoning or building permit . Landmark preservation has no purview over interior alterations of designated property. Exterior alterations are guided by the design guidelines for Denver landmarks, structures and districts, a set of flexible principles that provide predictable regulations for owners, applicants and staff. Any zoning or building permits submitted prior to the effective date of designation and that does not require any changes by the applicant or CPD after the effective date does not require landmark preservation design review. Total demolition of designated structures is highly discouraged and difficult to achieve, requiring a review by the Landmark Preservation Commission. I'd like to note that landmark designation does not impact zoning of a property or properties that falls under the Denver Zoning Code. For example, 22 of the city's 57 historic districts are currently zoned for ADU use. The landmark preservation design guidelines have been successfully applied to many new constructions within those historic districts. In respect to significance criteria, the proposed district meets three, meets A, B and C. The proposed deal should extension has a direct association with the historical development of the City of Denver for its close association with the City Beautiful Movement and the development of the East Seventh Avenue Parkway, which runs between the two blocks of the proposed district. The City Beautiful Movement was the philosophy of urban planning and design that emphasized grand public buildings, curated public spaces, and the incorporation of greenspace throughout the city with the goal of instilling civic pride and encouraging moral.
Speaker 1: Virtue among.
Speaker 6: All citizens. It began in Denver in 1904 with the election of Mayor Robert Speer and extends through the 1920s. Mayor Speer's vision included developing an extensive park and parkway system modeled on the city beautiful movement in Europe. This included beautifying Cherry Creek, constructing civic center and establishing the network of parks connected by boulevards and greenways. The houses in the proposed district were constructed between 1912 and 1924, when the City Beautiful Movement was in full swing in Denver. This movement included the creation of pastoral parks and parkways throughout Denver, including the East Seventh Avenue Park. With the shift in the parkways designed as it meets the proposed district at Steele Street, is notable making a 607 hundred blocks significant as a marker between the older formal part of the East Seventh Avenue Parkway and the newer section where bungalows and other more modest housing styles flourished. The proposed district is also significant for its direct and substantial association with Judge Raymond D. Jones, who owned and lived at 17 or Steel Street for over 40 years, and who is actually here with us this evening. Judge Jones was a well-known personality on Steel Street who played an active role in the civil rights movement. And Denver was a notable attorney and judge and was the first African-American to serve on the appellate court in Colorado. Born in Pueblo, Colorado, Jones studied political science at Colorado College, one of only five African-American students in attendance in 1964. After graduating from Colorado College, Jones went on to earn a law degree from Harvard University in 1971. He then worked in New York City on Wall Street, but returned to Denver to clerk for the chief justice of the Colorado Supreme Court, Justice Edward Pringle. He was appointed as a trial judge for the Denver County Court, where he served for two years before serving for nine years on a Denver district court and two years as the chief justice of the Aurora Municipal Court. In 1988, he was appointed an associate judge of the Colorado Court of Appeals. The first African-American judge to hold such a position. He remained in this post for 15 years. Later in his life, Judge Jones taught at Colorado College and Metro State University. He helped spawn the Sanctuary Association of Black Attorneys and Cleo Parker Robinson Dance Theater. Finally, the proposed district is significant as it embodies the distinctive visible characteristics of the Craftsman style. 1619 structures exhibit the distinguishing characteristics of the style. Defining features include low pitched gabled or hipped roofs wide overhanging eaves, often with exposed rafter tails, ridge beams or knee braces in full or partial with porches with substantial square or tapered columns supporting the porch roof. The bungalows in the proposed district were constructed between 1914 and 1924 at the height of the Styles popularity in Denver. The only structures not built in the Craftsman Spot Craftsman style include one four square and one central passage double pile. But these two homes were built within the period of significance and are representative of their era of construction. There's also one structure originally built in the crescent style that has been significantly altered and lost the defining features of this architectural style due to a fire in the 1980s. The District retains its integrity of location, design, workmanship, materials, setting, feeling and association. There have been some alterations to primary structures in the district, including window replacement and the construction of retaining walls. However, these changes do not negatively impact the historic character or integrity of the historic district. Pictured on the screen in the lower right is a structure damaged by fire 716 North Steele Street. It required extensive repair and the original design was altered, including the addition of an attached garage, additional dormers and a closure of the front porch. These alterations impact the integrity of the original structure. Therefore, is not contributing to the proposed district. The 1912 to 1990 period of significance reflects the district's many areas of significance, starting with its construction during the late city beautiful movement and extending through its association with Judge Raymond Jones, who lived in the district during his active life. The district reflects the city beautiful air development of properties in central Denver along streetcar lines and adjacent to parks and parkways. It also represents the evolution and changing demographics of the Congress Park neighborhood from its early 1900s residential expansion to the city's urban renaissance in the 1970s and 1990. And November 2nd, the Landmark Preservation Commission unanimously approved the designation application and forwarding it to City Council for consideration as it meets all designation criteria. The Landmark Preservation Ordinance also provides an opportunity for planning boards. Make a recommendation to City Council regarding designation of historic districts. Planning Board may review proposed district designation with respect to its relationship to the Denver Comprehensive Plan. The effect of the designation on the surrounding neighborhood and such other planning considerations as may be relevant to the proposed designation. A quick reminder that the proposed historic district is located with the U.S. Zone District. That's urban single unit, which designates a minimum zone that size of 5500 square feet. And the blacks typically have a consistent pattern of 50 foot wide lots. Currently, editors are not allowed in the zone district. The proposed district reinforces the vision of comprehensive plan 2040 through the preservation of important architectural and historical assets in the Congress Park neighborhood, primarily through the vision element of strong and authentic neighborhoods. And within that vision goals one, two, three and six. The proposed district will preserve the city's authentic, historic character, enhance design excellence, and contribute to a strong sense of community identity. Designation of the proposed district advances these attributes of quality design through design, review of new infill and alterations by using a set of predictable design standards. The proposed district is within the urban neighborhood context, a low residential future place type. This context and type includes predominantly single and two properties with accessory dwelling units and duplexes being appropriate when they can be thoughtfully integrated. Buildings are lower in scale and closer to the street, typically with alley access, which is the case in this neighborhood. Blueprint Denver also notes that public parks such as the Seventh Avenue Parkway are vital components of the quality of life infrastructure. And these cities and spaces are planned to remain parks. This proposed historic designation maintains these neighborhood attributes. The district would allow for alterations and growth or infill that is compatible with existing neighborhood character through Landmark Design Review, aligning with multiple recommendations within Blueprint Denver. Overall, the application is consistent with Blueprint Denver recommendations and reinforces the plan's policies. It also helps advance the blueprint under metric related to increasing the sense of the city subject to design focused standards like the design guidelines for Denver landmarks, structures and districts. Lastly, this designation resulted in part from the Black's inclusion in the Congress Park Neighborhood Survey via the City Citywide Building Survey. Discover Denver, a public private partnership between the city and historic Denver, and thus also contributes to measuring the success of that program. The proposed district is also guided by the East Central Area plan. The plan identifies the proposed district as an area of historic significance, which is defined as a collection of structures and features identified by the Citywide Building Survey. Discover Denver that is significant for its history, architecture and culture and is potentially eligible for local historic designation and application of other tools that will maintain its character. The proposed district also aligns with multiple recommendations within the East Central Area plan, including Policy L nine, six and C one, each of which strives to maintain the character of buildings and neighborhoods through historic preservation and designation. Historic designation would help preserve the character defining features of the district. There would be no direct effect on the surrounding neighborhood, as the designation would only impact the two blocks in question, and there would be no zoning changes to accompany the district designation. And as mentioned, the designation would not change the blueprint down to a future place type or neighborhood context. The intent of the designation is to recognize this unique district, the buildings that define it, and their contribution to the historic fabric of the Congress, park, neighborhood and city of Denver as a whole. On November 17th, the Planning Board unanimously recommended approval of the proposed district designation as City Council based on these criteria. Since the date of your staff brief, CPD received comment from 28 individuals, two registered neighborhood organizations and one interested party historic Denver regarding the proposed historic district. Public comment includes responses to the city hosted online survey. Emails submitted to LPC staff and verbal comment provided at the LPC Public Hearing and Planning Board meeting. Some respondents provide a comment multiple times through the various communication channels, and of those some shifted their support throughout the process. Currently of the property owners within the proposed district boundary who have provided comment 12 are in.
Speaker 1: Support to.
Speaker 6: Or neutral and one is in opposition. Since the START group was submitted, one additional Denver resident submitted comment and support to the proposed district, which was forwarded to you before today's meeting for your consideration. Based on landmark preservation ordinance designation criteria, the findings of the Landmark Preservation Commission that the application meets the criteria for designation of a district and the recommendation of approval by the Denver Planning Board staff recommends approval of this application. Thank you. And I'm happy to take any questions.
Speaker 1: Thank you. And we have a 19 individuals signed up to speak this evening. I'm going to call the first few speakers that are participating in person. And after those speakers, we will call the next few that are participating virtually. If you're here in person after your name is called, please make your way up to the front bench. And we will start with Caroline Caselli. Hi. My name is Caroline Casali. I'm the owner at 610 Steele Street. Thanks for having me here today. I'm here in opposition of the historic district. My understanding is that this is already sort of a done deal that you guys are going to vote for the historic district. And my understanding is also that this is a progressive city council and that you care about racial and social justice and that the number one priority of the city council is to focus on affordable housing. So I'm not totally certain how it's possible to then go forward to then add additional regulatory burden on top of existing homeowners when, you know, when the number one goal is affordable housing. I personally, you know, when I've spoken with my neighbors, my understanding is that this the genesis for this application came out of the fact that there was a fear that Judge Raymond Jones large lot was going to be divided and developed. So instead of, you know, focusing just on that particular lot and having that focus be just about having his lot preserved as the neighborhood with the neighborhood character, they decided to go for the entire the entire block. You know, this this has kind of a couple of different effects. Like I'm a CEO of a company called Haven Connect. We streamline affordable housing applications. So I've seen a lot of this kind of NIMBYism before. And, you know, I'm personally I'm also affected, right. Because I have single pane windows. Oh, by the way, not great for climate change. And, you know, my utility bills are over $200 a month because of my single pane windows that are not energy efficient. While I am frantically getting bids to try and get my windows ordered by Friday as per the deadline. I'm also having to pull like an emergency loan essentially because of this designation. And so I know there's other homeowners who don't feel comfortable speaking out because of fear of retribution from some of the neighbors who are also trying to remodel their homes. And so this doesn't you know, this impacts me personally and also it seems to me to be a major affordable housing issue, especially considering the fear that Raymond Jones, you know, Judge Raymond Jones lot is going to be developed rather than just focusing, you know, kind of more specifically on that particular anxiety, essentially. So I would urge you to reconsider and thank you for your time. Thank you. David Hill in Chambers. After David, we'll have Kendra Fuller. Kendall Fuller.
Speaker 3: Hello. My name is David Hill. My wife and I live at 740 Steel Street. We strongly support the application for historic landmark designation. We moved to our house about five years ago after living in a similar bungalow in Platt Park, and at the time the.
Speaker 0: Historic character of Platt.
Speaker 3: Park was starting to change as more and more houses were being torn down. That trend has only worsened as it has throughout the city. We were drawn to Congress Park in part because of the neighborhood's well-preserved historic houses, including those across the street from us, which are part of the Seventh.
Speaker 5: Avenue Historic District.
Speaker 3: Oddly, the houses on our side of the block were not included in the district when it was created in 1892.
Speaker 0: That made no sense to us as.
Speaker 3: The houses were built at the same time and share the same architectural history and character. This new extension will correct that oversight. Historic designations are one of the few tools residents have to preserve the city's cultural and architectural treasures.
Speaker 5: Historic preservation is, in fact, one.
Speaker 3: Of the stated goals of Denver's comprehensive plan 2040, and that goal is even more explicit.
Speaker 5: In Blueprint.
Speaker 3: Denver, where historic designation is encouraged as a tool to promote design quality and to preserve the character of an individual structure or district, or where there is historic architectural, cultural and or geographic significance. I believe the application for historic landmark designation of SEAL Street is consistent with both of those planning documents, and I urge you to vote . Yes. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Kendall Fuller. I'm kind of fuller. I'm one of the applicants. I live at 756 Steele Street. Thank you, Jenny and Becca, for the excellent representation of our application. And thank you for allowing us to be here today. As I said in my dining room last week, listening to Judge Raymond Jones and his son Raymond Jr give an interview to Colorado Public Radio. I knew we made the right choice to honor Judge Jones's legacy in our application. They consistently used the word wonderful to describe their life on our block. The retelling of the story of his trip to Selma, Alabama, that Judge Jones made as a 17 year old student reflected his life mission to fight injustice. His passion was revealed as he described how his time on the bench was influenced by the words and deeds of Thurgood Marshall. We honor his presence here. In the early 1900s. City leaders chose then to create open space parkways, sidewalks and streetcars to create the best neighborhoods they could imagine as the city expanded. Denver was experiencing rapid growth in the 1920s as it is now. The Bungalows and Foursquare designs influenced the builders at that time. This is evidenced by the line up of the homes on the 607 hundred blocks of Steel Street, which are incredibly consistent in nature despite being built by different builders. All the houses provide generous porches to welcome us home. You have heard from us. We have done our homework and comprehensive outreach to every neighbor. We have renewed friendships and we have made new ones. We know what we're asking for and can see directly from the neighbors across the street. What designation means? These houses can both look back at their origins and forward to becoming the neighborhood of the future. When change arrives, we want someone responsible to oversee the transition from yesterday to tomorrow. Thank you. Thank you. Uh, David Wise. And next one after David will have an uphill.
Speaker 3: I'm David Wise. I'm a licensed architect with an advanced degree in urban design. I've lived and I have sorry. I've lived in Denver for 40 years. I've lived on Steele Street for 25 years. Historic designation will provide clear guidelines and common sense design review for any work on houses in the neighborhood. It will use well-established standards and procedures. Everybody will be playing by the same rules.
Speaker 5: With regard to density and affordability.
Speaker 3: Designation will not prevent adding dwelling units. Marionettes are allowed, but without sacrificing the historic.
Speaker 5: Character and.
Speaker 3: Design integrity that made the neighborhood modest, livable, diverse and desirable in the first place. Design review will ensure human scale and compatible design with all new work. State tax incentives will help make that work more affordable. I believe designation will further Denver's stated planning goals, including retaining our unique character, supporting our active pedestrian environment, preserving front porches , encouraging the retention of smaller houses, and allowing for the missing metal housing by accommodating basement 80 use. As well as detached it is. I know many of my neighbors well, and we believe in the inclusiveness of the city. This is not an effort to exclude anyone from our neighborhood. This part of Congress park is the opposite of a gated community. We welcome a mix of owners and renters, many of whom have gone on to buy their own homes. Many of us started out in small apartments in the higher density areas of Capitol Hill. We know how critical housing affordability has become for us and for our children. I'm no stranger to.
Speaker 5: Urban.
Speaker 3: Living and the challenges of paying for housing. My 40 year career as an architect includes the conversion of warehouses and the housing. Integrating high rise housing in the urban core and the innovative live work housing for artists and others. Historic preservation is not the enemy of affordable housing. As a board member of the Lower Downtown District, we created the design approach that made loft apartments possible. And in those days, affordable? No longer. In 1989, I instigated the Walkable City Symposium for the Urban Design Forum. And for seven years, I wrote a column. To heighten citizen awareness around land use policy to give them tools to navigate. Their own experience in urban living for life on Capitol Hill. It's true that large spec houses feel inflation. And that will be tempered. Their character will be tempered by designation. Spec houses are destabilizing. It's certainly a concern of our neighbors, but it's certainly not the only concern.
Speaker 1: Mr. Wise, that's your time. Thank you very much, Emma Hill. Hi.
Speaker 6: My name is on a hill and I live at 740.
Speaker 1: Steel Street in Denver.
Speaker 6: My husband and I bought our first bungalow in Platt Park in 1995.
Speaker 1: It was small.
Speaker 6: In the 875.
Speaker 1: Square foot starter home, but.
Speaker 6: We loved the wood.
Speaker 1: Floors and green tiled.
Speaker 6: Kitchen and we became attached. 20 years later, we moved to a larger bungalow at 740 Steel Street. Even before we moved in, we were invited to the block's.
Speaker 1: Annual holiday party. Our new.
Speaker 6: Neighbors were an engaging group of.
Speaker 1: Teachers, health care workers, artists.
Speaker 6: Salespeople and civil servants, many of whom have lived on the block since the eighties nineties. We had a lot in common, including a.
Speaker 1: Passion for historic homes. Conversation would turn to radiators, living room would work, how to find a refrigerator for a small.
Speaker 6: Kitchen.
Speaker 1: Or how to stay.
Speaker 6: Organized despite our.
Speaker 1: Closets.
Speaker 6: A few years later, at the 2019 potluck, we learned something new. We learned that the home of Judge Ray Jones had been purchased.
Speaker 1: There were rumors.
Speaker 6: About what would happen to the property.
Speaker 1: And we were concerned.
Speaker 6: So we made inquiries about historic designation. Turns out we are a perfect fit. As part of the process, I visited neighbors on both sides of the 700 block of Steele Street, asking whether they supported the historic designation. Each and every neighbor said yes. I was not surprised. I know our neighbors and like me and my husband, they have put time, energy and love.
Speaker 1: Into their historic homes and have become attached.
Speaker 6: Steele Street is unified in their desire.
Speaker 1: To become part of the East seven historic district he supported. Thank you for your time. Thank you very much. We'll go online for Kevin MATTHEWS. Good evening. Can you hear.
Speaker 3: Me? How do you mean? Can you hear me?
Speaker 1: Yes, we can go first. Thank you.
Speaker 3: My name is Kevin MATTHEWS.
Speaker 1: I'm a member of Denver.
Speaker 3: We sent a letter opposing this district earlier today. I live at 1020 Madison Street, just a few blocks from this proposed district. The first time I heard about this proposed district was last February.
Speaker 1: When a neighbor of mine.
Speaker 3: Sent me a video of my local R.A. meeting discussing this proposed district.
Speaker 1: And the comment was made that landmarking trumps zoning.
Speaker 3: Just in case there.
Speaker 1: Is any doubt.
Speaker 3: About the.
Speaker 1: Pretext for tonight's.
Speaker 3: Vote. Yes, we've all heard.
Speaker 1: It doesn't technically prevent rezoning.
Speaker 3: Additional units or the addition of it to use. But we should all know by now that if a building has a very high cost to.
Speaker 1: Redesign.
Speaker 3: Those costs are no different than zoning implementations that stop additional units. I only know the little I've read about Judge Jones. He sounds like a remarkable person, and I'm not here to judge his fitness for amendments or recognition. But let's not pretend that this is any.
Speaker 1: More than a pretext for.
Speaker 3: Tonight's vote. Maybe his former home deserves recognition and preservation due to his deeds, and I'm not qualified to judge that. But an entire district. I used to live a few blocks from the Molly Brown house, and I would take out-of-towners there.
Speaker 1: On rainy days.
Speaker 3: It's a museum. It's not a home. She didn't get a whole district. My sister actually owns one of the most historic homes in the country, and some of them Massachusetts. But the Adams Magoon house that she bought for $170,000 in 1995. At the time, it was an historic home. He was the cousin of John Adams, our second president, and his wife was Sarah Tufts, who whose family started Tufts University. They didn't get an entire district. A few months ago, this council unanimously voted down the landmarking of the Channel seven building that was also passed through the supposedly.
Speaker 1: Rigorous.
Speaker 3: Landmarking criteria that we have today. It was easy to see what was that that was about. And at that hearing I heard this council recognize the problem that current landmarking presents, which is why you're.
Speaker 1: Currently reviewing the process. It's not clear why you're moving.
Speaker 3: Ahead with this landmarking.
Speaker 1: Until that.
Speaker 3: Process is complete.
Speaker 1: Historic designations.
Speaker 3: Have been associated with a rise in housing costs and prohibiting affordable housing from being built and their heirs.
Speaker 1: In their areas.
Speaker 3: They are shown to be negatively correlated with racial integration and displacement, and they raise.
Speaker 1: Property values and rents in neighboring, adjacent.
Speaker 3: Neighboring neighborhoods adjacent to those districts.
Speaker 1: According to the East Central Area Plan.
Speaker 3: 65% of east central households, including 72% of renter households, live in.
Speaker 1: Areas that are.
Speaker 3: Considered to be vulnerable. Displacement. We ask that you review this process before you move ahead with this district. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. We will move to Stephen Kick, who's also online.
Speaker 3: Good evening, Madam President and Council. Thank you so much for allowing me to speak this evening. My name is Steve Kirk and I live at 640 Steel Street.
Speaker 5: My husband and I have lived here.
Speaker 3: For 22 years and we strongly support the designation of our side of steel as historic. All of you are familiar with these architectural elements that were described that promote community. These small, closely packed bungalows with front porches, detached garages and sidewalks. All of these things support community. It was specifically these qualities that attracted us to this neighborhood. The history of these homes is very compelling. Our home was first occupied by a Jewish family at the turn of the last century who were philanthropists in the Jewish community. Decades later, Jewish families were not allowed to live in certain neighborhoods of Denver. So this illustrates the power of history. These homes and neighborhoods belong to the city of Denver.
Speaker 0: We don't own them.
Speaker 3: We are simply stewards of these homes for a period of time. And so we feel an obligation to preserve these jewels. The thought of these homes ending up in a landfill is just unconscionable. As a physician in the middle of an unprecedented pandemic. We're seeing the effects that all of us can have on the health of a community.
Speaker 0: So to with.
Speaker 3: Preservation is the combined efforts of all of us to help honor these homes.
Speaker 0: And neighborhoods.
Speaker 3: So I'm asking that you.
Speaker 0: Please give Denver a holiday gift this year by.
Speaker 3: Respecting the history and beauty of these homes through historic designation. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Our next speaker is also online, Steven Benishek.
Speaker 3: Hello.
Speaker 1: Yes, go ahead.
Speaker 3: Okay. Good evening, counsel. My name is Steve Chicken. I live in District six and I'm speaking to an opposition to this. I would like to offer some considerations before a city council votes on this. I have serious concerns about this designation, specifically around its inequitable implications. Page 29 of Blueprint Denver explains the goal of creating a city where, and I quote, growth and development contribute to more equitable and inclusive places rather than increasing disparities and amplifying gaps in how Denver must leverage public and private sector investments to avoid becoming a city where some areas show increasing affluence and privilege while others are being displaced, not able to enjoy Denver's great quality of life. Unfortunately, this designation runs completely contrary to these goals. The average House price in Congress passed 800 to 840000, making it one of the wealthier neighborhoods in Denver. This designation, which in the staff reports alluded, states an explicit intention to preserve single and two unit zoning will create a significant barrier to smart, and so it will lead to an already wealthy neighborhood becoming more and more privileged while fostering displacement in other parts of the city. When the city extends special privileges, the already privilege exempts neighborhoods like Congress part from their fair share of meeting our housing needs. We will see displacement in neighborhoods like five points because those are the only places where people are allowed to build. Furthermore, such use of the circle preservation process can give negative effects on public opinion, make legitimate preservation efforts like lower out of heights, which is due to come up later tonight. Harder in the future. I urge you to consider these. At three the goals of Blueprint Denver and vote no until such questions to be answered. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you being to our next speaker online. Bruce Corgi.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam Chair, and members of the Council. My name is Bruce Koy and I'm a board member of Capitol Hill United Neighborhoods and also the co-chair of the History Matters Committee. I live in Denver at 1394 Vine Street, and interestingly, I live as part of the Wyman Historic District, but I live in a three year old infill project right in the middle of the historic district. My home is living proof that historic districts are not static. And I think some of the arguments about yes or no don't take into account the nuance of this application. I believe that city council members have read the letter of support. We voted as a board to support this new historic district adjacent to the Seventh Avenue historic district. I'm just going to point out a couple of points from that letter. One is that and you've heard this, but it really is important to note that the current Seventh Avenue historic district cuts right across are a cohesive street, feel street and one side of the street, the east side is not included in the same district that the West Side is. And this is kind of an unusual thing for a third district, not the end of the alley. And to have this one end in the middle of the street and if you walk the streets as I have, you'll note that the that the the both sides of the street exhibited the same historic characteristics, and they should be eligible for the same kinds of protection. John believes the Denver Landmarks Preservation Commission is on the right track by recommending approval of this just. Importantly, and you've heard a little bit about Judge Raymond Jones, but nominated his poem to be included in Denver. 50 Actions for 50 places campaign and thought Denver on a project and it was selected for that in part because of its representation of just an amazing pioneer story for Colorado. And this home is right on our blog and will encompass a part of this historic district. We understand there are complications to renaming this the judge, Raymond Jones historic district, but we believe he is worthy of this honor if that could possibly happen. We take a very thorough and thoughtful approach to endorsing this proposed historic, historic district as a neighborhood organization. And we believe that these homes represent historic and for the area, more modest homes there remain opportunities for further development for the alley and the garage buildings are not part of the protected aspect of this historic, historic district. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. We have one more speaker in this grouping online test already.
Speaker 2: Hi. City Council. My name's Tess Sturdy. I live in District nine, and I just wanted to. Talk about how it's kind of weird because, you know, every single Monday I've been at every Monday night city council meeting for over a year. Every single one. And while you all read the landing, I was right in the beginning. Every week we continue to act like this land even belongs to what is now called Denver in the first place. We're here preserving historic districts for white residents. While a little over a year ago when dozens of residents from a black and brown neighborhood. Came here and testified until after midnight, gave public comment begging you. In one way to develop it. You just you just ignored them. So, you know, I just I don't really ever hear about like, I think, you know, I'm just curious how the historic designation kind of works if we're not even willing to it to acknowledge that we're on stolen land and that this land doesn't belong to Denver in the first place. And I also just wanted to point out, because it's kind of interesting to hear the side of history that's being told from the city planning or historic designation department. Because if you look on the Denver history, the Denver Library, they talk about how in in the 19 early 1920, leading up to the 1920s, that, you know, 90% of black residents lived in five points. So I'm just kind of curious about that 1914 date. It doesn't really seem, you know, like that we're preserving something. You know, I just I'm just kind of confused about that history there. And and, you know, I love I love bungalows. I grew up in a bungalow. I think they're great houses. I would just question why why they're allowed this, you know, parcel or this like district is allowed to kind of cherry pick and and you know, preserve their historic district when five points what I thought that that was a historic district what how is that what's happened there? Why don't they? Why is everything been torn down and built into high rises? I'm just kind of confused because it sounds like all the residents that are proposing this believe that it's their bungalows and the architecture is going to be preserved. So even though that y'all are saying it's not going to affect zoning like it seems like the residents are certainly under that impression. So I'm just kind of confused there. And, you know, I just I just really don't think there's much equity in this process. It's pretty gross and it just continues to happen over and over again. I mean, I just don't understand. Like, you're not hear us, you know, what are what do you why do you think this is? Okay. It's just so blatant. So blatant. It's ridiculous. I mean, I just I don't even know why we're even doing any of these until this review is done. So to review your racism and and just blatant redlining. Okay, thank you.
Speaker 1: Next. Speakers and chambers. Andy Levinsky. Good evening, Council. I'm Annie Levinsky, the executive director of Historic Denver. We're located at 1420 Ogden Street, and I'm here to offer our support to the Steele Street extension. Our organization conducted survey work in the Congress Park neighborhood in 2019 as part of the Discover Denver Partnership with the City of Denver . And the survey identified several blocks in Congress Park as potential areas of significance, including the six and 700 block of Steel Street, which shares a close association with the City Beautiful Movement and the National Register listed Seventh Avenue Parkway, which also has its own distinctive attributes, including the highly intact bungalow forms and the Association of People of Interest in our city. Most notably, Judge Raymond Jones. The Jones home, as has been mentioned, was also identified as part of Discover, Denver and Capitol Hill. United Neighborhoods nominated it to our 50 Actions for 50 Places campaign last spring, which is a campaign designed to help catalyze preservation action that reflects the full depth, breadth and diversity of our city story. I want to thank Judge Jones for being here this evening with his son, Ray, who I believe you'll hear from in a little bit. The home was selected to be a finalist in our final 50 sites, and as such, historic Denver provided additional guidance and support to the Steel Street effort, which is an opportunity to recognize this story. And express and honor a judge's Jones life. And I've had the distinct honor of getting to do an oral history with him and spend some time with him. And it's truly a compelling story about making change in our state. We took on additional research to put that into the context of what was happening in the neighborhood and the block during those years, as well as his particular accomplishments. And I know he has great affection for his longtime home at 780 Steel Street, and he selected Congress Park in the 1970s very intentionally. I do want to correct a couple of things that have come up. Notably, the Molly Brown House Museum does have its own historic districts called the Pennsylvania Street Historic District, and it was created to help protect the museum in an era in which individual landmarks were not protected as they are today. I also want to note that the designation is consistent with city plans, including the Blueprint Denver and the recently adopted East Area Plan. I think it's important to again state clearly that the recommendations of that plan, if they're implemented, such as encouraging accessory dwelling units, would be consistent with the historic district and compatible so that could move forward. Furthermore, the preservation of these homes supports sustainability goals by ensuring that lasting materials are not sent to landfills but actively used by future generations. Because owners in the district will be eligible for tax credits for rehabilitation work, including any efforts to increase energy efficiency. And because the question I know came up when this hit committee, I want to emphasize the policy recommendations regarding Windows in historic districts is consistent with the city's goal on climate action. There's extensive studies that have been done, including by the National Trust, that demonstrate that saving and retrofitting older windows is a more cost effective way to achieve energy savings and to lower the home's footprint than full replacement. So on behalf of historic Denver, I encourage you to support this designation and help us tell a story that our city should know. Thank you. And our next in chambers, speaker, is Reed Jones the second.
Speaker 5: Good evening. My name is Raymond Dean Jones, the second affectionately named after my father. I currently live at 2400 Sable Boulevard. I was raised in 780 Still Street.
Speaker 3: I am a son of Denver. I went to Denver East.
Speaker 5: I played soccer at Congress Park. I grew up at the East YMCA, which is no longer. I grew up playing sports and living my life at Saint Charles Recreation, Saint Charles Rec.
Speaker 3: Which is no longer really what it used to be.
Speaker 5: And that's why I think it's so important that we do what we're talking about doing here today. Because living in Denver my entire life.
Speaker 3: It is not the same city.
Speaker 5: That it once was.
Speaker 3: And we all know that who have been here.
Speaker 5: The area we're speaking about 780 still.
Speaker 3: Area changing.
Speaker 5: The district. It's very important that people understand.
Speaker 3: My father was a trailblazer.
Speaker 0: Not only and his law career.
Speaker 5: But also and being one of the first people of color excuse me, the first person.
Speaker 3: Of color in.
Speaker 0: That neighborhood. So to say.
Speaker 5: That my father or.
Speaker 3: Myself would allow his name to be used for discrimination.
Speaker 5: Or racism is absurd. Well, it makes a very strong.
Speaker 3: Talking point in. And aggressively can speak to the times. It is simply absurd. We would never allow such a thing. That dedicated 30 plus years of service to this city, to Denver. Sacrificing. Some of the relationships he.
Speaker 5: Should have had.
Speaker 0: With his children, with his family for Denver. So when we talk about.
Speaker 3: Designating something.
Speaker 5: A district to my father, I want us to understand that we're talking about someone.
Speaker 3: Who is given back who could have taken his Harvard Law degree and doing other things that.
Speaker 5: Would have done better for his family. But because of the type of man that he.
Speaker 3: Is, he did not. I also want to say thank you to the Council for listening to me today and to my.
Speaker 5: Neighbors who have seen me grow up. It's very weird to see people who have seen you since you were little and now you're old. So I want to say thank you for being a part of this process. And I really do want to.
Speaker 3: Say thank you to those who have.
Speaker 5: Spoken out against. And that's our democratic process.
Speaker 0: But also understand that this.
Speaker 5: Is not a situation of the rich getting richer. This is a situation of giving pride of that community, which is very special, which is very different than any other neighborhood.
Speaker 3: And retaining what makes Denver so special. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 1: Q And last set of speakers or online. We'll go to David Hahn. Hey, on next.
Speaker 3: I'm guessing that's me. David Hagan. I think I think I need to type it in the wrong. I was in a hurry.
Speaker 1: But I think.
Speaker 3: It was need to me tonight. Historic preservation is I completely understand where it's necessary and where it is egregious, egregiously used to keep people out of the neighborhood. I think that the judge's home should definitely be historic or made that way. But in general. Historic preservation is absolutely a cause of gentrification. Whether or not people think about it in their own neighborhood, it causes there's an effect outside the neighborhood that is not helpful to keeping people in their homes or bringing people back and bringing people to a neighborhood that it's historically been in that neighborhood. It is. I mean, just when, when, when. The judge's trip to Selma was used in the same sentence as the historic preservation was discussing. What that man did was beautiful and powerful, and it is somewhat saying that he's done a lot of good things in this community and throughout the country. But to put the entire neighborhood under the same sentence that that minimized what that man did, what he dedicated his life to, that was so disheartening. All right. In the 1960s, Denver decided to replace this community with Aurora campus. And here's what it lost. A community, including a restaurant that became a multicultural hub and a magnet for guests. Magnet for gas. Let's see here. Descendant or. Sorry, I'm just trying to read something off the computer really quickly. Descendants look back at what was lost and what what they were compensated. Decades later, the memory of fences and bulldozers still haunts Giorgio. He was 11 years old when the Urban Renewal Project forced his grandmother and hundreds of other of her neighbors out of central Denver. He remembers as well as well the tears, illness, illnesses and other signs of stress among the adults whom he counted on. His mother spent the best of her years, the best years of her life trying to save this place, he said. Most of the neighbors, brick and wood homes and businesses were raised beginning in 1969 to be replaced with modern concrete. So that right there is kind of the opposite of what's going on. So you don't want that to happen. But it's different neighborhood right when it when it's in five points. We're all for getting rid of it when it's in a white neighborhood. We're all for keeping it and keeping it that way. It's just it doesn't make sense, you know, she said dozens and dozens I think it was probably close to 100 people spoke out about an hour ago and what the effect was going to have on that community of black and brown people. And you all voted for it anyways. So and then and then tonight you're going to vote for this if you don't listen to the people when when they're in front of you.
Speaker 1: David, thank you. Your time is up. We'll move on to Susan Hester, also online. Good evening. Thank you for this opportunity. My name is Sue Hester. I live at 765 Steel Street and my husband and I have lived in our home for more than 43 years. So you can say we're pretty much the seniors on the block. We live on the west side of the 700 block of steel building. And I strongly support the neighbors application to extend the historic district to the other side of the street. When this historic district was established in 1993, our side of the street was designated in the historic district, while our neighbors across the street were not. It didn't make sense to have that line down the middle of our our block then. And it doesn't make sense now. Now, in response to some of the comments about being in the historic district and the potential problems, we have found workarounds. Let me give you a couple of examples. A few years ago, we had custom wood storm windows, which are, by the way, double paint constructed for all windows in our home . And this was a fraction of the cost of replacing all windows. Second, instead of building a retaining wall for our high Congress, Park Hill, we had it landscaped. The advantages of which are no more mowing the grass and less water usage. These solutions were much more economical and conform totally with historic district requirements. In summary, the proposal to extend the seventh seventh Avenue Historic District this tiny in the spectrum of the decision. You City Council members will make today and then the future as it only affects one side of two blocks of steel street and covers only 19 homes, most of which are about 100 years old. I think I can speak for my friends and neighbors that we understand and support the need for more affordable housing. But what we don't want is what has happened in other older neighborhoods, such as Park Hill and just across Sixth Avenue and the Cherry Creek area where McMansions have been built. We want to save our beautiful bungalows. So we urge your support for the extension of the Seventh Avenue Historic District, which will maintain the integrity and beauty of our small island bungalow history. Thank you so much for allowing me to speak to my. Thank you. Next speaker online is Carol Coffman. Good evening. Thank you, Madam Chair. And members of the City Council. My name is Carol Coffman. My family and I have lived at 770 Steel Street for some 20 years. I am here to voice my strong support for the ordinance designating East Seventh Avenue.
Speaker 2: Historic.
Speaker 6: District Steel Street.
Speaker 1: Extension as a district for preservation. First, we want to thank the many neighbors we have had the pleasure of meeting and getting to know. We're getting to know even better as we.
Speaker 2: Work.
Speaker 1: Through the steps towards designation. Over the past two years, we, I think, have become a closer and more involved neighborhood.
Speaker 2: Like so many on our street.
Speaker 1: Our family loves this neighborhood because of its history, its sense of community, and the architectural appeal of arts and crafts bungalows and Denver squares of this area. We've heard a lot about that tonight for about 15 years. We also have the honor of living next door to Judge Raymond Jones. And we've heard a lot about his life and his many contributions as well. He spoke often of the pride of this home and being part of this beautiful community, a part of our community, his life in his home.
Speaker 2: Here is just.
Speaker 1: One example, though, of how the history of homes on our blog is more than a built history spanning over hundreds of years, 100 years. It's a lived history of everyday community. We feel it is.
Speaker 2: Urgently critical to.
Speaker 1: Safeguard this gift of the city architectural and social history. With the.
Speaker 2: Historic district.
Speaker 1: Designation, we have the opportunity to do that, and I urge you to vote yes on this.
Speaker 2: In sum, I strongly support this designation.
Speaker 1: Thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you. Next speaker, Steve Turner.
Speaker 3: Hello. This is Steve Turner. I am sorry. Let me just check out another video. Sorry about that. Hi there. I'm Steve Turner. I'm a resident on Steel Street at 640 Steel Street. I've been here for about 20 years, and I appreciate the council giving me this opportunity to speak with you. I'm here to speak in support of this proposal. I will say that shouldn't come as a surprise in that I clearly are going to have a particular perspective on this, because I've spent the last eight years serving as the state historic preservation officer, appointed by Governor Hickenlooper, and then Governor Polis. And I just retired from that position and currently the professor of Historic Preservation at the University of Colorado. I spend a lot of time talking to students about preservation, opposition to preservation, the buzzwords that are used to diffuse preservation, everything from it's not environmentally sustainable, which architects and I am an architect by training will tell you that there's a there's a phrase that says the greenest building is the building that's already built. Things can be made environmentally sustainable. And also the sort of go to point seems to be around vital windows. And we know why no windows over the last 20 to 20 to 30 years. The old designer window industry will tell you that. And so we don't. Historic preservation has its inherent sustainability embedded in its very DNA. People will talk about affordability, but again, you can look at what's actually happening around the city and see that we're not historic. Home is great. It's not replaced with a more affordable unit. It is always a unit that is 3 to 4 times the cost of the original unit. People will talk about having a 100% consensus. Well, when LoDo was designated, over 70% of the owners were opposed to that designation. In fact, it only passed council by one vote, so 7 to 6. So I know that I am about to run out of time. So I want to leave you with the thought that I'm reading a book that Jane Goodall. It's entitled The Book of Hope. And it's about really living in the times that we live in now and the need for hope. And Jane Goodall says the hallmark the hallmark of wisdom is asking what affects will the decision that I make today have on future generations? And as one of our speakers has already previously said, this land does not really belong to us. But I would argue not only does it, it belongs to future generations. And this is one way to ensure that the future will get to enjoy and benefit from these beautiful historic structures. Thank you for allowing me to speak tonight.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Our next speaker is Kevin Kelly.
Speaker 3: Oh, thank you.
Speaker 0: And greetings, Denver City Council, and thank you for your leadership and commitment to keeping Denver one of the most desirable and dynamic cities in the country. My name is Kevin Kelly and I live an East Jesmond Park at 12th and Vine. I have served on the board of Capitol Hill United Neighborhoods for five years and co-chair our History Matters Committee. Tonight, we are here to speak about designating the East Seventh Avenue historic district, the Steel Strait extension as a district for preservation. John moved to support the Steel Strait Extension as a district for preservation on December 17th of 2020, as stated and forwarded in a letter of support to Community Planning and Development and Denver City Council. One additional topic for support of the establishment of a historic district involves affordability. Historic districts can and do support affordable housing. A street side of modestly sized 1910 and 1920. Bungalows are more affordable than newly built two storey homes that often extend through the back of the lot to the alleys. One only needs to consider the plight of smaller, historic homes north of Sixth Avenue to witness the size of homes and scope of our new neighborhoods. No room for affordability. We encouraged city council to approve this new historic district.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Our next speaker is Jane Fritzl. Do we have, Janeane? Oh. Jesse Paris. Okay. Sorry. Your next speaker is Jesse Paris.
Speaker 3: Yes. Good evening. My name is just Allison Pearson. I'm representing four black stars and more for self defense. Positive, actually. Come in for social change. These Denver Residents Council, the Unity Party of Colorado and frontline black males. And I'll be the next mayor timber in 2023. I'm in favor of this preservation to my. Despite all the opposition against it. We need to preserve our historical districts, our historic neighborhoods in the city. Now, I am a native of 5.4. I was a native of five points. And I've seen the damage that occurred from having a preservation in five points. Five points became unaffordable and. Unlivable for people of black African descent. And I would hate to see that happen. With the Seventh Avenue Historic District. Um, I don't need we don't need any more unintended consequences of voting and preservation. Um. We are on stolen land. This is stolen land we are on and does not own this land. And we have to acknowledge that and. I would hate to see this neighborhood become unaffordable as a result of this preservation. So I'm kind of torn on. Really torn on how I want to proceed with this because. On one end, it seems like it's a good idea. It meets all the criteria. But then, on the other hand, what are the unintended consequences that are going to occur from this? I hear from the neighbors and the judge, his son. I'm going to have to be a reluctant. Yes. On this puzzle based on tonight's. We need to maintain the character of this neighborhood of Congress part. And the judge's house. He was the first black judge to reside in this neighborhood, and that needs to be preserved. I'm just concerned that there's going to be unintended consequences from having such a preservation. So I'm really on the fence about this because for the simple fact I've seen what happened with five police. In other historical districts, the hand store could designation give it to them in the aftermath of what that looked like. So I'm going off on a whim on a leap of faith that this will not happen with the Seventh Street historic district. Even though. There's plenty of examples of it happening with other historical districts. So I want to know if there's a guarantee that there's going to be affordability in this neighborhood. And now no more people will be displaced as a result of such a preservation. So if somebody could please answer that question. Those questions, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak.
Speaker 1: Thank you. And our last speaker is Jane Fritzl. Hello. Hi, Jane. Go ahead. Oh, sorry. I'm having a little problem with the computer here. Really, I. I'm grateful to be supporting this opportunity of joining the West Side. With with historical designation and. I know that our bungalows are.
Speaker 2: Significant of a change.
Speaker 1: In attitude in the 1920s and before the late 1800s.
Speaker 2: Leading up.
Speaker 1: Just about what housing should be, especially for the middle class. So. The first.
Speaker 2: Bungalows were really appearing in Philadelphia.
Speaker 3: But then.
Speaker 1: On out in.
Speaker 2: California.
Speaker 1: And coming our way. They're in all the major cities. And it was a great.
Speaker 3: They're.
Speaker 1: Great housing for the middle class. So they are actually.
Speaker 3: The most significant.
Speaker 1: Form of architecture in.
Speaker 3: The. This is said in the arts and crafts movement.
Speaker 1: So it was.
Speaker 2: A it was really fun.
Speaker 1: It was. It was a response to move away from the Victorian era and and really have a different type of architecture. And I strongly support that our side of the street is. Is is able to join.
Speaker 3: The historic district.
Speaker 1: On the west side. So thank you so much and I hope you support our application. Thank you very much. That concludes our speakers questions from members of Council on Council Bill 1365. I see no one in the queue. Oh, here we go, Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam President. Pro Chairman. Taking a while for the item to respond. Jennifer, could you. I'm curious about. And Judge Jones, it's nice to see you here. It's been a long time since I've seen at least the upper half of your face. Regarding 7080 still that the judge no longer lives there was sold and it's all owned by a real estate investment firm is there are. I just want to know if you have heard of any plans to do anything with that property and would it be consistent with the designation? In other words, there's nothing pending that exempts it from any of the, uh, the safeguards and the rules and regulations.
Speaker 6: No, we, I'm not aware of any permits.
Speaker 1: Or.
Speaker 6: Proposals put forward to CPD for any changes to that property. So we have seen nothing and have heard nothing at this point either.
Speaker 5: Okay. Thank you. That's all I have.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you. Councilwoman Sawyer. Thanks, Senate President. Thank you. I just had a quick clarification. So of the 19 homes that are included in this, do all 19. It does not seem like all 19 owner support. So how many owners support and are there owners that who actively are not supportive of this plan?
Speaker 6: So yes, I don't have it on the slide actually. So there were 15 owners who provided comments of the 19 so far did not. Of those 15, 12 are and support. Two are neutral and one opposes.
Speaker 1: Got it. Okay. Thank you and thanks for the clarification. Thank you, Councilman Hines.
Speaker 3: Uh, thank you, President Pro Tem. May I have Mr. Weiss come to the microphone, please? I want to thank you for meeting with me. I think it was last week we in our conversation, we talked about. Windows. And we talked about how to make, you know, ways to make a home more energy efficient, more. You talk about some of the we touch on not asking you to relay everything that you said, but will you touch upon some of the efficiency methods for increasing climate efficiency? Certainly I won't read my two page single spaced memo that I was referring to in our meeting. The. The outline that we started prepared as a group that of course I did. A lot of the research really begins with. Taking advantage of Xcel Energies program to do an energy audit of your home. Which gives any of us, professional or otherwise, an overview of where our energy and our money is going. And I think that comprehensive look. Uh, at a house and how you use the house and how you live in it is really a great starting point. But then to fast forward. But one of the essential points is that windows are just one piece of that overall consideration for any homeowner and and how they spend their money on energy. And to focus in on that a bit more. Obviously, the most sustainable thing you can do with an historic building and what the Department of Interior has worked very hard to outline technically for decades, and they're very clear bulletins on how to do these things. The most efficient thing you can do is restore and repair your existing windows. Even looking at commercial projects, the new center is building a 16th of the ad, Brooke Lofts, 15th and one to the Airedale building on 20th Street. All of those use wood windows and some of those have been redeveloped now for decades and have have served quite well and maybe are ready for for another round of repairs. But the wood windows, when handled carefully by a craftsman and and done appropriately, last decades. Even in our climate, there are at least two very good local companies that restore windows and historic houses. I've had them give.
Speaker 5: Proposals for work.
Speaker 3: In historic districts in Denver, and those costs are roughly equivalent to medium quality, I guess you'd say replacement window, and they're very good at it. They've been doing it for many, many years and the windows are beautiful and they hold up very well. There are such things as the possibility of replacing the glass and a traditional wood window that can add higher performance. With tempered glass, it can reduce the noise factor from the exterior into the house with modern sealants and weather stripping. You can essentially match the infiltration performance of a new window, and with certain window blinds you can match the code required performance of a brand new window. I mean, there are plenty of ways. To adapt existing windows to an historic house. And then if you do the other really long menu of things that Xcel Energy will help you with, just save even more energy. So I think what I, what I heard from you is that Xcel, the audit the Department of Interior says replacing windows is maybe the, um, the most energy efficient single replacement, but that the Xcel audit could identify a laundry list of replacements and it would be specific for that property. Not, um. That's correct. And really, what I said was keeping the windows is the most sustainable strategy. When you take the embodied energy, the waste of throwing them away and all of that, the carbon footprint into account is the most sustainable. I didn't say it's the most energy efficient. What I am saying is you can easily match the energy performance of a new code compliant window with an historic window with the right strategies. Okay. Thank you. May I ask Mrs. Caselli to come up as well? I think it's only fair if I ask Mr. Wise to, uh, to talk about Windows that I ask you as well. And it's, it's my understanding that you and he had a meeting as well. Is that right? Yeah. Okay. Have you. Have you considered an Excel audit or have you had one?
Speaker 1: So, no, I haven't. All I know is that I have broken single pane glass windows that have very drafty. And, you know, there's lots of options that David and I talked about. And the reality is, is I don't want storm windows. I'm a single person in my house. I have 35 windows. I have zero interest in bringing those up and down. I don't.
Speaker 3: I just want.
Speaker 1: Normal double pane windows like any, you know, modern person. So I'm not I'm going I already have gotten the clothes. I'm ordering windows by Friday. Like there's sort of like I'm not doing any of the the like other options.
Speaker 3: Okay. Fair. And of course, it's your home. So, um, do you have, uh, do you have other concerns about historic designation? I mean, certainly when we spoke Windows was where the, the the crux, the dominant part of our conversation.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I do. I have. So my brother won't come over to my house because he has small children and my stairs are so steep that he's afraid that his kids will fall down them. In order for the stairs to be brought up to code, the landing has to move, which means the exterior door has to move. I've been working with an architect for six months, trying to figure out the right layout for my house, trying to figure out what we needed to do there for me to, you know, live in a house that I was excited about and. You know. So I think that, you know, there's that issue. There's also the issue of I have bunch of windows in my bedroom. And so you can't have like a, you know, a headboard. Right. Without it covering up the windows, I want to change the windows there. So I've already put in my permits. I've already done all the things. So, you know, I, I think it'll be fine. But, you know, the reality is, is like, I'm personally opposed to this because it messes up with my messes up my remodel. But more broadly, you know, this is just a you know, for me, I'm an affordable housing advocate. I've spent I've changed several state policies. I literally run a platform that connects low income applicants and affordable housing property managers. And any time you add regulatory oversight on top of, you know, housing, it's going to get more expensive. And I think that yeah, it's well, I totally agree with designating the, you know, Judge Raymond Jones home as.
Speaker 3: A as.
Speaker 1: Historic thing. I mean, you know, I think he was on the board for AARP. My company was just the you know, we we almost won the innovation challenge around affordable housing. So I love the work that you have done in your life. And also I'm opposed to the designation.
Speaker 3: Um, thank you. And yeah, thank you. No further questions.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much, Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam President. Pro Tem. I thank you, Councilman Hines, for raising the issue of Windows because that brings to mind an item in the application, although done in the staff report. Jennifer, could you address this? It says in the application that was filed by the the residents on the block that minor alterations, including replaced windows have occurred. Do we have an inventory? Do we know how many of these 19 houses have had windows replaced and were they replaced with. With original type windows, or were they replaced with a double pane windows?
Speaker 6: There is an inventory of buildings that went along with the.
Speaker 5: Application I saw and I saw the inventory. There's no mention of the replaced windows.
Speaker 6: They're there. Some of them do note if there were altered windows or not as appropriate. However, it does not go into such detail as what material?
Speaker 5: I'm sorry to say that again. It does not work.
Speaker 6: It does not go into such detail as the materials used are the replacement of those windows. So we don't have that information inventoried. But historic buildings clearly can still be contributing to historic district with replacement windows. Landmark preservation does not prohibit replacement of Windows, but we do ask that people consider repairing them first for the variety of reasons that were shared this evening, including energy efficiency, sustainability and also maintaining the original character.
Speaker 5: The best way to preserve a an older building, a landmark building, is to make it able to withstand and to handle the current demands of living, including energy efficiency. So are we in voting on this today? Would we be accepting any of these 19 houses that have windows that if they had already been designated, would not be allowed?
Speaker 6: I'm not sure I understand the question. Can you say that again?
Speaker 5: The woman here at on Steele Street. I'm sorry, Caselli. Okay. She wants to replace her windows with windows that she is concerned would not meet the landmark commission's review. Do any of the existing houses have windows that if they had already, if those houses have been designated prior to the window replacement would not be allowed to have the windows that they now have?
Speaker 6: It's hard for me to say because I don't know what the windows were that were replaced, but I am not sure that I can answer that question at this time.
Speaker 5: Ultimately, I'm curious if we're going to landmark structures that have windows that we wouldn't allow had they already been landmarked. It seems very inconsistent. I'm wondering, Mr. Casale, you have your Henrys. You want to come up and because you can't speak from there, do you understand?
Speaker 1: I think I.
Speaker 6: Do. And I mean, Caroline, replacing her windows is not going to preclude her home from being part of this designation. Certainly an act just like it isn't for the other buildings that are contributing, that have had replacement windows already.
Speaker 5: Certainly. Okay.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I've also gone around my neighborhood. There's lots of houses that have already had their windows replaced with vinyl windows, which would be prohibited under the current landmark rules.
Speaker 5: Jennifer our vinyl window replacement windows prohibited in a landmark structure.
Speaker 6: They are for most historic districts, with the exception of the all new Lincoln Park that you guys just.
Speaker 5: I'm sorry. I'm having trouble with the muffled.
Speaker 6: Yeah, sorry.
Speaker 1: I'll get hold of Mike down a little bit. So it's directed at. Yeah.
Speaker 6: For most historic district C us. The exception is with a Lincoln Park that does allow vinyl windows because that has become material that is used been used quite a bit over time that has become a character of that neighborhood. Landmark Preservation does not approve vinyl windows generally, although in some cases we do for those that are not as visible, perhaps for an egress window, for example. Do I have that correct? I guess I don't have that correct. We do not approve. I don't think it was at all, in part because they are not a durable material and they end up being needing to be replaced more often. And also, it's difficult to match the character of a historic window with a vinyl window as well.
Speaker 5: Okay. It seems to me that. Because Windows and replacement of Windows is a recurring objection that we have. And I think that's an area that CPD ought to look at and see whether we could be a little more open to preserving our landmark structures in ways that. That homeowners can actually afford and keep them at least looking consistent with their character, even if it's vinyl. And I would encourage CPD to do that.
Speaker 6: Sure. And we are actually updating the design guidelines right now. So Windows are a piece of that. And again, just to empathize.
Speaker 5: I saw that, right?
Speaker 6: Yeah. And just emphasize vinyl window replacement is not always the cheapest option for a historic property. So, you know, you could do retrofitting of historic windows that might actually be more economically efficient than vinyl replacement.
Speaker 5: Certainly. And I'm not arguing that we should take the cheapest route. I'm arguing that we should be flexible. Mm hmm. Thank you. Thank you, Madam President. Pro tem.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Madam President. Pro tem. I wanted to ask Jennifer and Annie Levinsky if you can address whether or not historic Denver Landmark Commission actually has a list of suppliers and contractors that work on historic properties that are affordable so that as people are trying to do upgrades on their homes, they're they're not they know they're working with somebody that has a history of working with historic properties. But. Just because their historic properties aren't necessarily gouging folks, you know, as some people perceive that, you know, they charge more because it's a historic property.
Speaker 6: Sure. And I'll just say we do if people ask the question of, you know, do you what sort of window suppliers, you know, have been used and other historic districts, we can provide a list that we know of, but we cannot recommend. You know, and there's.
Speaker 1: You know, also just I think having a list for people to look at is really important.
Speaker 6: I was going to say Annie is able to do a little bit more in that way so she can respond to that.
Speaker 1: Great. Thanks. So, yeah, we do remain sorry. Annie Lipinski, historic number. We do maintain a contractor resource list, a variety of different kinds of contractors. You know, I don't always get feedback from the owners on on prices. We don't see every bid that comes through. But we do take into account if we get, you know, complaints about someone, we'll take that into account, certainly, and not continue to to share their name. We also provide how to videos on our website, including a how to Rehab Your Historic Windows. So if somebody wants to do that on their own and working with partners around the country to think about how we can train more craftspeople to do that kind of work. Because I think the hardest part in Denver is just finding contractors of any kind for any type of property. So we're always trying to match people up and we try to answer those questions as well. We just had the carpenters union in here tonight. The construction trades should be one of those considerations that folks should be looking at as well. I just wanted to ask one last question to Jennifer and. I think some people perceive that because you're in a historic district, you now have to do certain upgrades to be sort of in compliance. Will you just clarify that there isn't a requirement you have to do upgrades. It's when you do upgrades that the guidelines kick in.
Speaker 6: That's correct. As I mentioned in the earlier in the presentation, I think one of the first or second slides when properties are designated, they are designated as is, and the city requires no improvements through the designation process.
Speaker 1: Great. Thanks so much. I have no further questions. Great. Thank you. Okay. Seeing no one else in the queue. The public hearing is closed. Comments by many members of Council on Council Bill 1365. Councilman Hines.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. Pro tem. I want to thank. I'm still getting used to these glasses. I want to thank CPD for the presentation. I want to thank the applicants for their hard work. I want to thank the neighbors both in and out of this designation area. I want to thank historic Denver for your guidance through the process and the Planning Board for hearing and unanimously supporting the designation. As we know, with the one, two, three year conversation, that doesn't always mean that council will vote the same way. I also want to thank Ms.. Caselli and GMB Denver for their advocacy. Our Democracy stronger when we all participate. I'm going to share a little bit about where I grew up in town, where I graduated from high school, which is called the oldest town in Texas. It also has human evidence of human activity data dating back 10,000 years. I moved around quite a bit when I was growing up, but when I graduated from high school, Mom and I lived in a home that was built in the 1920s. Yet Mom could still replace the roof for paint, the house refinished the floors and more. Mom still lives there today. Sure. Her home doesn't sit inside this proposed historic district, but I mention it. I mention it anyway to point out that it is possible to accommodate our future generations while still honoring our past. Congress Park is an older neighborhood. 54% of homes in Congress Park fall into the oldest designation. Homes built before 1940. There's no older designation. That is just before 1940. The southern side of Congress Park is predominantly single family homes. And so in this area, zoning was meant for gentle density. And I'll just put this out here now. While I recognize as as was presented in the report that this district doesn't currently allow for, it used to pop the microphone. Sorry, I see this as a place that would be a great location for general gentle density such as areas the missing middle can and should an owner want it be placed here. During my campaign, there was a mailer designed to place me in a negative light. It took something I said out of context and suggested that I wanted to place 80 plus story buildings in every area of District ten, including this area of Congress Park. The reality is that we don't need 80 plus story buildings everywhere. What we do need is extra density everywhere. But that density should be in context with the neighborhood. Mr. MATTHEWS, who I respect quite a lot, talked about Channel seven. There is a difference between the Channel seven building and this location. Channel seven with a structure that frankly does not pass the same level of scrutiny that all other historic buildings and districts have in Denver and have passed. Channel seven was built in 1969, and every one of these homes in this proposed historic designation were built before 1924. Even the architectural style of 1 to 3 Speer was called into question as Brutalism. Brutalism has examples here in Denver that far better represent the architectural style like Clyfford still is building the Denver Denver Federal Reserve, Denver Water and others. I recognize the applicant, one of the applicants for one, 2 to 3 Speer is one of the people who live in in this proposed designation. Still, I oppose the Channel seven seven designation because it didn't meet the the standard, the bar that we set for historic designation here in Denver, we must ensure our historic designation buildings pass all levels of scrutiny to preserve the sanctity of the program so that it is beyond reproach. We are in a housing crisis. Yes, I believe in in this mission. We need density everywhere. Denver is not for you must also be intentional about where we place density. And I disagree that we must have 80 plus story buildings everywhere. Not that that's what you should be saying. I'm just saying that density means different things in different areas of Denver. That's why Blueprint calls out density and in different ways. In different areas. Stronger density should be in other areas of District ten, like Colfax to the North Cherry Creek to the South and Capitol, Golden Triangle and uptown to the west and south and northwest. All of those are in District ten. We heard testimony tonight that not designating something as historic leads to scripts that cost 3 to 4 times as much as this great tome. We also heard testimony tonight that historic designation locks those homes in place and makes those homes unaffordable. Sounds like we're doomed either way, assuming our only criteria for judging is whether historic designation increase home increases home prices. We've also heard that historic designation makes repairs and renovation more expensive. Yet we also know that any repairs in a historically designated location currently qualify for 25% tax credits. Andy, I hear you. And we move to create additional density in the entire neighborhood of Golden Triangle. We blocked historic designation in 1 to 3 sphere. I personally attended multiple meetings regarding Tom's Diner and other historic designation conversations. I'm sorry, another historic designation conversation in District ten. The historic designation of 1272 Columbine. Also in Congress Park on our watch. This class of council passed through council without any controversy. Put another way, historic designation should be used where context makes sense. In this case, it makes sense. So, colleagues, I will be voting in favor of this proposed historic designation, and I hope you do as well. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Seeing no other members in queue. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 1365. Cashman. Cruz. Ortega. Sandoval. Soya. I black. I see tobacco. I like. Flynn.
Speaker 5: I.
Speaker 3: Herndon, I.
Speaker 1: Madam President, I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced the results. Tonight. Are we showing any? I apologize. It's actually an absence. Okay. Okay. Ten Eyes Counsel Bill 21, Dash 1365 has passed. Councilmember Hines, will you please put Council Bill 1479 on the floor for final passage?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance designating the East Seventh Avenue Historic District-Steele Street Extension as a district for preservation.
Approves the designation of the East Seventh Avenue Historic District-Steele Street Extension as a district for preservation, which includes 19 primary structures on the east side of the 600 and 700 blocks of North Steele Street in Council District 10. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 11-30-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_12062021_21-1388
|
Speaker 1: Thank you. I'll do a quick recap here. Under resolutions, no items have been called out under bills for introduction, no items have been called out under bills for final consideration. Council member Seydou Barker has called out Council Bill 21 Dash 1388 for a vote and Council Member Black has called out Council Bill 21 Dash 1182 for a vote under Pendine. No items have been called out. Madam Secretary, would you please put the first item on our screens? Councilmember Commish, will you please put Council Bill 1388 on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 4: Yes, I move that council bill 21, Dash 1388 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 1: Thank you. It's been moved and seconded. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 1388. Council members say to Barker.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Just want to go on record voting.
Speaker 1: No for this item. All right. Thank you. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 1388, please.
Speaker 5: CdeBaca.
Speaker 3: No.
Speaker 5: Clark.
Speaker 6: All right.
Speaker 5: FLYNN Apologies. Herndon.
Speaker 6: Hines All right.
Speaker 5: Cashman. I can't.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 5: Ortega. I. Sandoval. I swear.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 5: Torres.
Speaker 3: I. Black eye.
Speaker 5: Madam President. Hi.
Speaker 1: Madam Secretary. Please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 5: One eight and Eyes.
Speaker 1: Ten Eyes Council Bill 21 Dash 1388 has passed. Madam Secretary, please put the next item on our screens. Councilmember Kinney, will you please put Council Bill 1182 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 incurrence of the Interim Note Subordinate Obligation under the General Subordinate Bond Ordinance in a maximum aggregate principal amount not to exceed $700,000,000 in connection with a note purchase agreement to be entered into for the purposes of defraying the costs of certain approved projects, and providing other details in connection therewith; providing the maximum rate and other terms and other details of the Interim Note Subordinate Obligation, which shall be evidenced by a note purchase agreement and a note; authorizing the execution of certain related agreements; 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 of Denver, for and on behalf of its Department of Aviation, Airport Subordinate Interim Note Obligations, in a principal amount not to exceed $700 million for the purpose of providing interim funding f
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_12062021_21-1182
|
Speaker 1: Ten Eyes Council Bill 21 Dash 1388 has passed. Madam Secretary, please put the next item on our screens. Councilmember Kinney, will you please put Council Bill 1182 on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 4: Yes, I move that council bill 21, dash 1180 to be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 1: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded comments by members of Council on Council Bill 1182. Councilmember Black.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. I just wanted to call this out for a separate vote tonight so it wouldn't be on consent. Last week I said my piece about the bill, but I hope that my fellow council members will consider defeating this bill because it will not prevent kids from getting their hands on vaping products, but it will shut these businesses down. They have leases, they have employees, they have bills, and they are willing to come to the table to work with us to address the real problem. So I encourage.
Speaker 5: People to.
Speaker 4: Vote no.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember Black, we've got Councilmember Clark. You're up next.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Madam President. I voiced last week my disappointment that we were not able to find a way to use more of a scalpel when dealing with this issue, especially as it came to finding a way to allow for stores to operate with real controls around 21 and over. We found a way to navigate that with marijuana, and I do believe that we could find a way to do that when it comes to tobacco as well. I want to express my thanks to the sponsors for all the work that went into getting us here and doing this and taking it on and the approach that they took, I think I wish we would have tackled. We have a lot of holes. I think this has made clear in our tobacco licensing, our tobacco, the penalties around what happens when this does get from retailers into the hands of kids, which I think we all are very committed to resolving. And so it is my sincere hope that we will continue to tackle those issues, that we won't just leave that on the table and say we have seen these holes in these gaps and we need to close them. We need stiffer fines, stiffer regulations around licensing when it comes to selling to minors and continue to work on those things because those things are are not getting fixed by this. Right. Those things will still exist. And all of the retailers who will can sell tobacco products with almost no consequence compared to marijuana, virtually no consequence. It just can't be flavored tobacco. So we still have huge gaps. If what we're really committed to is keeping tobacco out of the hands of kids and keeping kids from getting addicted to nicotine. And so I sincerely hope that we will continue to tackle those and in so doing, start to create the framework that didn't exist enough for enough council members to be able to see a pathway, I believe, for how we could regulate and have stores responsibly serving 21 plus. And so I think I believe we can get there. But I also believe that not enough people saw that pathway with we were close, but not enough people saw that pathway with the other things unresolved and that maybe if we can resolve those things, then we can get just one or two more people to the point where they can see that, okay, with these penalties, with this threat of loss of license, then there is a pathway to create. What does that look like when it comes to entry into stores? ID check and keeping and keeping kids safe while also allowing adults more choices. And so it is my sincere hope. Again, I think we missed an opportunity to do all of that. But that's it's a lot. There's a lot to bite off what you bought off already, but it is my sincere hope that we will get there. What I think we have to get there on the rest of closing those gaps. If we're really committed to, you know, serving our kids and protecting our kids best because those gaps are still there. This does not fix that. And it is my hope that through that, that we can really see a way to create that framework where we can get to the amendment that didn't pass when it comes to 21 plus stores. So I know that this is a big vote and there is this moment. This is also now, thanks to the amendment that Councilman Cashman brought forward and this body approved, not going to be implemented until June, July. Sorry you even told me beforehand and I messed it up again. July of 2023, which also provides some time. Right, that even if this passes and I believe that the votes are there to do that tonight, it was pretty clear from the voting last week in terms of the amendments that the votes are there to pass this . And so there are two different ways you could say, well, we really need that in there, so let's vote no on this and then let's solve that, and then we can vote yes on it once we've solved that. It would appear that the will of this body is to approve this and then put time in and is my hope that in that time that we can solve that because I think it can be solved is going to take some hard work and lots of people at the table, not just at city council meetings, but, you know, really working through what does that look like. And and I do think that the the intent and the heart of what this bill is getting at is really important. And I think that all of us agree about that. And Brian, almost everybody out here to agrees to that. And so I would have preferred to do it the other way. But I do believe that the heart, the intent is there. And thanks to the amendment, time is built in with the ticking clock that I think is is going to keep a lot of people in this room hot on our heels to try to solve those other problems and see if we can get if we can get to a place where we could pass an amendment that does carve out a place for responsible owners, true protections, real consequences that allow the door to be opened for adults and close to kids. So that's what I hope we will do that hard work between now and July of 2023. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Clark. Councilmember Keech.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Council President. I know most of my colleagues made their extensive comments last week, but it was getting late. And so I did not. I want to just, I think, respond to some of the final communications that I've received from folks and just explain why I'll be supporting this bill tonight and some of my fears or concerns. I guess the first thing I want to point out is that, you know, the conversation that was led by the sponsors, I think, used a very particular frame in emphasizing stores and purchases to use. But that was never intended, I don't believe, to be the sole purpose of the entire bill. It was a point that was being made and I think very early in one of this, you know, first or second committee meetings, I raised the fact that there is this point here about access because a market has. Is flooded with attractive products. It's not just about where youth are purchasing their tobacco. And I think the sponsors themselves shared additional data on the fact that these products are being accessed in many places, not just at the retail place, and that this is about restricting access to these products in the markets. And I know that those that are opposed have stayed very stuck on the fact that this is about buying it at stores. So limiting purchases at stores to those who are 21 and over may limit some access to those at stores, but it will not limit the accessibility of these products in the overall market, which is what the legislation really and truly I think is designed to do. And then the second piece is it's designed to make this very addictive, very expensive product less appealing. And I will get back to that point later. But I do think that that is why, for me, this bill is not just about kids, and it's not just about the purchases they make in stores. It's about how appealing we want to make highly addictive profits, products, you know, to profit major corporations. And whether we want to give people an easier path towards moving away from those products by making them less appealing. And I think there is a public health benefit to our youth, to our adults, as well as to our overall health care system. I've made those points previously in terms of the costs that we all bear. So if you're more likely to keep smoking because a menthol cigaret is more appealing to you, then we are all more likely to keep paying the health care costs for your smoking related illnesses through higher insurance or if you're uninsured, through uncompensated care. That's just a bit of a review of the things I've shared previously that this bill, I don't believe, was ever only about purchases by youth in stores. And therefore, to me it is about a much bigger set of public health impacts that a yes vote is going to provide tonight. I want to respond to those who've written to me about Prohibition. This is not prohibition. If you take your tobacco through cigarets, cigarets will remain available. If you take your tobacco through a vape product, that products will still be available. This is about restricting a particular type of product. And, you know, the marijuana comparison is an interesting one because, yes, marijuana is legalized, but our legislature has passed bill after bill about potency , about, you know, product type, about limiting certain things. And I think that that is an example of regulating a product. I agree that prohibition is not an effective strategy. And if this were prohibiting either of these products, then I would agree. But they are not prohibiting them. They are saying that we are making a public health decision to reduce the attractiveness of these products. And I will say that another difference is, you know, marijuana users are not pretty much, you know, using a product designed to create cancer, the number of chemicals. And I will just say that, you know, I know we've talked about vaping as a harm reduction claim, but there are still multiple chemical products in in vaping products. And we did have vaping related illnesses prior to this pandemic. And so there's there's I think the research is not quite clear yet that there are no health impacts from vaping in particular. You know, I've seen counter evidence. So, so I just want to be clear that I am not voting for prohibition tonight. I'm voting for product limitations, just as we have voted for product limitations for other types of products in the state of Colorado. I want to just comment really quickly. I'm disappointed that the extension passed, perhaps if it had been shorter. But what it was interesting is the sponsor of the amendment for the extension presented it as a proposal to allow businesses more time to adjust. I'm concerned that I now hear about the timeline being provided as one to go back to the drawing board and have the same conversation over again. And that would be, I think, a poor use of our public policy resources. And so I am concerned about that mixed message. Right. Is this about more times for businesses to adjust or is this about we're going to spend millions more dollars lobbying from large tobacco companies who, by the way, are funding a massive amount of lobbying here? And and are we going to just, you know, debate this again? I hope that that's not the case. And, you know, I think that, you know, encourage those who, you know, they counted the votes. The votes were not there to take a different path. Let's not make this a campaign issue. Let's not let's not extend the. Certainty of this, right. This is a definitive vote today and it means that these products will become legal on a date certain. And that is what we should be planning for. Our agency should be planning for it. Businesses should be planning for it. So I'm just I'm deeply concerned to hear that this timeline is about taking additional bites at the apple. That's not how it was presented last week. So with that, I want to just say that the bill may not be perfect. It does have a timeline that I don't agree with. It's a little longer than I think it needs to be. I don't appreciate the differentiation between different types of cigars, but in net this will reduce the attractiveness of these products and access to these products will, you know, will measure over time and we'll see. I also think that we will see additional communities continue to debate these issues and perhaps the state of Colorado. And so I welcome this step forward in reducing access to cancer, causing addictive products in various forms, be they smoked or vaped. And I am thankful to the sponsors for helping bring a complex conversation to the Council, and I hope that my colleagues will join me in voting. Yes. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Council Member Each Council. Part time tourist. Thank you, Madam President. Just a really quick.
Speaker 4: Comment about.
Speaker 1: Why I'll be voting in.
Speaker 4: Favor of.
Speaker 5: This proposal tonight. It really is about public health. And we make those kinds of decisions not based on positions of.
Speaker 1: Power or who contributes to the tax base. It really is about.
Speaker 5: Harm and.
Speaker 1: And what we can do at a local level.
Speaker 5: To chip away at that harm. Communities across the country are doing this. Will it happen at the state? Likely.
Speaker 4: This conversation isn't bound.
Speaker 5: To end here.
Speaker 4: But our kids aren't.
Speaker 1: Property.
Speaker 4: Owners. They're not business owners.
Speaker 5: But they are the ones who are also telling us we need to make this less accessible to them. They were the ones who came to us about changing it from 18 to 21.
Speaker 4: And it's part of my.
Speaker 1: Responsibility as well for West Denver.
Speaker 4: To make sure.
Speaker 5: That I'm hearing that and responding to that. So I appreciate everybody's commitment and passion to this. This is incredibly complicated, but public health decisions tend to be.
Speaker 1: As we've.
Speaker 4: Experienced over the last two.
Speaker 5: Years.
Speaker 1: So thank you all.
Speaker 4: So much for your input, for attending meetings.
Speaker 5: For emailing us and I look forward to voting in support of the bill tonight.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you, Counsel Pro Tem Torres. And I'll go ahead and round out with my comments before we before I call the vote. This has been quite a process, and I really want to thank both of the bill's sponsors. I share some of the comments of Councilman Clark around. I would have preferred us to look at a regulatory path first instead of going right to the end market. We have successfully in Denver regulated marijuana and alcohol and we want to keep kids safe, but we also want to allow adults to be adults. If we're talking about the public health risk. Then I think every food article that we possibly could consume could become part of a ban at some point in time if we really want to talk about the broad public health concerns. And so with that, you had to really think also about addiction and recovery. And if anybody knows, if you're a good addict, you're going to find your drug of choice. You're going to figure out where to get it. It might not matter how much it costs or if it's too expensive. You might take other means to acquire that. And I'm concerned about that. I'm concerned that we have an exemption for one product, but we didn't do an exemption for another product. And we don't have to rehash that entire conversation from last week. But it is concerning and especially when folks can go to Aurora or Commerce City and buy products and what's to stop them from bringing them back in to Denver and selling them at a park? And then what are the other unintended consequences from what we're doing tonight? What is that going to look like from a broader vantage point? And so I have a lot of unanswered questions. And so with that, I will be a no on this tonight, because I think that we do need to look at the regulatory path and fix that and then really delve into the unintended consequences as well. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 1182, please.
Speaker 3: Black No.
Speaker 5: CdeBaca I.
Speaker 7: Clark Now. Hines Hi. Cashman Now.
Speaker 5: Kenny Ortega.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 5: Central. I swear.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 5: Taurus. I Clark.
Speaker 6: I'm sorry, Madam Secretary. Usually we can see the vote tally. What is the vote tally? That if.
Speaker 5: You're not. I have three knees.
Speaker 6: I.
Speaker 5: Madam President.
Speaker 1: May, Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce results.
Speaker 5: Three nays, eight US.
Speaker 1: Ayes Council Bill 21 Dash 1182 has passed. 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 I. Otherwise, this is your last chance to call out an item for a separate vote. Council Member Canete Will you please put the resolutions for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor?
Speaker 4: Yes, I knew that resolutions be adopted and bills and final consideration be placed upon final consideration and do pass in a blog for the following items. 21 Dash 1418 21 Dash 1419. I'm going to just say the numbers 1391, 13, 92, 13, 93, 13, 94, 13, 96, 1404, 1409, 14, ten, 14, 13 1373, 1374, 1378, 1385, 13 , 86, 14, 21, 13, 70, 13, 87, 13, 55, 13, 89, 1390 0999.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Kinney. It has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 3: Black eye.
Speaker 5: CdeBaca. I can't.
Speaker 6: All right.
Speaker 5: Hi.
Speaker 7: All right.
Speaker 5: Catherine. All right. Kenneth, i. Ortega. I. Sandoval.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 5: Sawyer.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 5: Torres. I. Madam President.
Speaker 1: I. Madam Secretary, close voting and announce results.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance amending article XI of chapter 24, D.R.M.C., to ban the sale of flavored tobacco products and accessories.
Amends Article IX of chapter 24, D.R.M.C., to ban the sale of flavored tobacco products and accessories. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 11-17-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_12062021_21-1227
|
Speaker 1: Tonight we have one public hearing 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. Host promotes you to speaker. When you are promoted, 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'll see your time counting down at the bottom of your screen. Once you 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've 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 yield enough 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 Keeney Will you please put Council Bill 1227 on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 4: Yes, I move that council bill 21, dash 12 at 1227, be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 1: All right. It has been moved and we've got a second there. Thank you. Councilmember Hines. The required public hearing for Council Bill 1227 is open and we have Val Herrera here for the staff report. Go ahead, Val.
Speaker 4: Good evening, Madam Council and city council members. My name is Valerie PEREIRA. I'm an associate city planner with community planning and Development. And I'll be presenting a rezoning case for the subject property located at 4124 East 18th Avenue. My applicant, Mr. Patino, actually decided to join us in person this evening. So with that, I'll get started. The subject property is located within Council District eight. Councilman Herndon's district. Located in the South Park Hill neighborhood. The subject property is currently 8744 square feet with a zone width of 35 feet. The request is for urban a single unit C1 to allow for a detached accessory dwelling unit in the rear of the lot. For zoning, the site and the surrounding properties to the north, east and west are currently, you see, allowing urban houses with a minimum zone lot of 5500 square feet to the south. The zoning is USCG, which has a minimum zone area of 7000 square feet, one and a half block to the west of City Park. And to the south is 17th Avenue Parkway. The site is a single unit residential land use with some two unit and multi-unit existing uses in the neighborhood as well as open space and public housing. Public. The subject. Property is mid-block without access. There is an existing primary single unit structure and a detached garage accessory structure currently on the lot. Nearby properties are shown on the top and bottom of the screen. Top is going to be classified as multi-unit residential and the bottom photo is single unit residential. In terms of process. This MAP amendment went to planning board on Wednesday, October 20th, where the item was recommended approval on the consent agenda. The rezoning was then move forward to final hearing of city council by the Land Use Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on Consent on October 26 and is being heard today. To date, staff has not received written input from any of the registered neighborhood organizations that were sent notice. So now we'll move into the five review criteria of the Denver zoning code. The first is going to be consistency with adopted plans, starting with Plan 2040. Staff found that the rezoning is consistent with several strategies shown from the plan 2040. Starting with equity and environmental resiliency specific to ensuring equity affordability and inclusivity. The for that vision elements staff found this rezoning to be consistent with the goals listed here that encourage increased development of housing use units close to transit, a greater mix of housing options in every neighborhood for all individuals and families, and ensuring that every neighborhood provide a complete range of housing options. In speaking to the climate and the environmentally resilient vision element, staff found this rezoning to be consistent with the goal listed here that encourages promotion of infill development where infrastructure and services are already available. Getting into Blueprint Denver's Land Use and Transportation Plan Blueprint Denver maps this area as urban context and residential low, which consists of predominantly single and two two unit uses on smaller lots and allows for ideas to be thoughtfully and appropriately integrated where compatible. Getting into the East Area plan that was adopted in 2020. We've got affordable housing policy issue one, and that is to stabilize residents at risk of involuntary displacement. South Park Hill has the least diverse housing mix in the entire plan area at 80% single unit residential, and that's excluding right of way from the total land area. Looking at the economic policy e for to expand diversity of housing types and affordability to support households of different sizes, ages and incomes in all neighborhoods. South Park Hill, which is predominantly single unit residential, is considered unaffordable, according to the Housing and Transportation Index. In this area, the housing and transportation costs for a typical household in Denver would exceed 45% of its income. Looking at criteria two and three staff found that this rezoning is consistent with adopted plans. The proposed rezoning will result in uniform application of zoned district building form, use and design regulations, and it will further public health, safety and welfare through implementing adopted plans and facilitating increased housing density. Looking at criteria number four, staff found that the proposed rezoning is justified through a city adopted plan. And finally, criteria number five, the context zone, district purpose and intent of USC. One are all appropriate for this particular location given the surrounding area and the adopted plan guidance. The existing use you see in this area covers parcels with high variation in widths and sizes. The application proposes to retain the same underlying as zone district because there is not planned direction for change in lot sizes from the from what's existing in the area. And with that, given the finding that all review criteria have been met, staff recommends approval of the rezoning. Just a reminder approval of a rezoning is not approval of a proposed specific development project. And with that, I'm happy to take any questions you'll have. Thank you.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Val. We have two individuals signed up to speak this evening, one in chambers and one online. Our first one in chambers is Tory Patel for now. Go ahead.
Speaker 7: Hello. I'm Tory Patino. I'm the homeowner. Homeowner at 4124 East 18th Avenue. I think Ms.. HERERA did a good job describing the criteria. We have a.
Speaker 0: Large.
Speaker 7: Loft and a detached or detached garage on the back. We plan on taking that down and moving the garage towards the alley and putting an 82 behind that fit it fitting within the specifications that are required.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you. Our second speaker is Jesse Perez joining us online.
Speaker 7: Yes, my name is Tom Perez and I'm representing for black sites a more positive outlook on life and social change as well as the Unity Party of Colorado. Well, I'm black. No. And I'll be the next November 2023. I'm in favor of this rezoning for my as in previous rezonings of this type. I support edibles, especially growing units all across the city. I would love to see them in every single district in the city. This meets all five of the criteria for to see what adopted planned uniformity of this regulations as far as public health , safety and wellness, justifying circumstances and consistency with neighborhood concepts, purpose and intent. So with that being said, I'm in full support of this rezoning tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. That concludes our speakers questions from members of Council on Council Bill 1227. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 1227. I don't see anybody. So I'll go ahead and chime in. I do believe that this meets all of the rezoning criteria and will be happy to support that this evening. Madam Secretary, Roll Call on Council Bill 1227, please.
Speaker 3: BLACK Hi.
Speaker 5: CdeBaca. Clerk.
Speaker 6: All right.
Speaker 5: Hi, Cashmere. I can eat. I'm Ortega. I Sandoval. I swear.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 5: Torres.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 5: Madam President.
Speaker 1: I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 5: 11 Eyes.
Speaker 1: 11 Eyes Council Build 21 Dash 1227 has passed. Thank you very much for being here. Our pre adjournment announcement on Monday, December 13th Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 21, Dash 1365, designating the East Seventh Avenue Historic District Steel Street Extension as a district for preservation and a required public hearing on Council Bill
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 4124 East 18th Avenue in South Park Hill.
Approves a map amendment to rezone property from U-SU-C to U-SU-C1, located at 4124 E 18th Avenue in Council District 8. The committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 10-26-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11292021_21-1377
|
Speaker 1: Councilmember Black has called out Bill 21, Dash 1352 for a vote under no items have been called out. Madam Secretary, would you please put the first item on our screens? Councilmember Ortega, will you please put Council Resolution 1377 on the floor for adoption?
Speaker 2: Madam President, I move that council resolution 21, 1377 be adopted.
Speaker 1: Thank you. It's been moved and seconded. Comments by members of Council on Council Resolution 1377. Councilmember Sawyer.
Speaker 4: Thanks, Madam President. I've consistently voted against the use of city funds for safe outdoor spaces, and I'm continuing to do so tonight. Thanks.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you. I think we've got Councilman Cashman up in the queue, but I think that might be a is that okay? That that is not we're not going to do that. Thank you, Madam Secretary. All right, Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Resolution 1377, please.
Speaker 4: SAWYER No.
Speaker 2: Torres All right. Black I see. Tobacco, I.
Speaker 0: Clark All right. Flynn I.
Speaker 3: Question.
Speaker 2: Kenny.
Speaker 3: Ortega. I seen the evil eye. Madam President.
Speaker 1: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 3: One Nation Eyes.
Speaker 1: Ten Eyes Council Resolution 1377 has been adopted. Madam Secretary, please put the next item on our screens. Councilmember Clark, go ahead with your comments on Bill 1390, please.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Revocable License between the City and County of Denver and Colorado Village Collaborative for lease of a portion of the parking lot located at 3815 North Steele Street.
Approves a revocable license with Colorado Village Collaborative for $10 and for one year, with two six-month options to extend, to lease a portion of the parking lot at the Eastside Human Services building at 3815 North Steele Street in Council District 9 for a Safe Outdoor Space site (FINAN-202161043-00). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 12-20-21. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 11-16-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.