meeting_id
stringlengths 27
37
| source
stringlengths 596
386k
| type
stringlengths 4
42
| reference
stringlengths 75
1.1k
| city
stringclasses 6
values |
|---|---|---|---|---|
DenverCityCouncil_11292021_21-1352
|
Speaker 1: I am so sorry. That's all I was getting there. We're headed there right now. So would you please put Councilwoman Ortega Council Bill 21, Dash 1352, back on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 2: Yes. Madam President, I move that council bill 1352 be placed on final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 1: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded comments by members of Council on Council Bill 21. Dash 1352. Seen no comments by members of Council. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 21. Dash 1352.
Speaker 2: CDEBACA No clerk. Eye for an.
Speaker 0: Eye.
Speaker 2: Herndon Hines.
Speaker 8: All right.
Speaker 3: Cashman. I cringe. Ortega, I. Sandoval.
Speaker 2: I saw you. I. Torres. I. But I.
Speaker 3: Madam President.
Speaker 1: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance approving a proposed Cooperation Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Denver Urban Renewal Authority for the Fox Park Urban Redevelopment Area to establish, among other matters, the parameters for tax increment financing with incremental sales and property taxes.
Approves a cooperation agreement with the Denver Urban Renewal Authority for the Fox Park Urban Redevelopment Area to establish, among other matters, the parameters for tax increment financing with incremental sales and property taxes in Council District 9. 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_11292021_21-1187
|
Speaker 1: Good evening. I'd like to welcome folks back from recess. Tonight, we have five public hearings for those members of the public who are 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 who are participating virtually when called upon. Please wait until our meeting hosts promote 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 you 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 the 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 you are available for questions of counsel. Speakers will have 3 minutes. There is no yielding of time. If translation is needed, you will be given an additional 3 minutes for your comments to be interpreted. We will alternate between in-person and virtual for efficiency by calling in-person participants and then alternating to virtual participants. Speakers must stay on the topic of the hearing and must direct their comments to the council members. Please refrain from profane or obscene speech. Direct your comments to council as a whole, and please refrain from individual or personal attacks. Councilmember Ortega, will you please put Council Bill 1187 on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 2: Madam President, Speaker Wasserman, I move that council bill 21 1187 be placed on final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 1: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. The required public hearing for Council Bill 1187 is open. May we please have the staff report? And I believe we have Fran Benefield and Tracy Huggins joining us virtually. And so we'll get them promoted here and we'll have Fran introduce yourself.
Speaker 2: Apologies for that. Can you hear me?
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 2: Thank you. I'm sorry I'm presenting remotely today, but hopefully it will work just fine. And you see my screen there? Yes.
Speaker 0: Perfect.
Speaker 2: Good evening, members of the city council. My name is former NFL associate city planner with CPD. And today we're looking at the rezoning request for 3600 North Cook Street. Subject property is in Council District nine, represented by Council member Candice Jedlicka. Sorry. I'm having trouble. In the Clayton neighborhood. The property is located at the northeast corner of 36 Avenue and Cook Street. The site is 6250 square feet and currently contains a single unit house. The applicant is requesting to rezone from U.S. to U.S. one to allow for an avenue at the rear of the property. All other forms and standards will remain the same. The property is currently in the urban single unit Eastern District, which allows for a minimum slot size of 4500 square feet. As you can see on the map, the property is surrounded by other properties. Also shown us you be to the west, north and east and by some public park on the south. The current land used for the site is single unit residential and in the immediate vicinity. The area's land use are mostly other residential uses, with the park open space used to sell. It's shown on these photos. The character of the neighborhood is mostly residential. Subject property can be seen in the bottom left image of the slide. Throughout the rezoning process, application modifications have been provided according to code requirements. Planning Board recommended approval anonymously on October six and a press and no letters of support or a position have been received from the public for Arnold's. Now moving on to the Denver zoning code criteria, it must be found that the requested MAP amendment is consistent with five criteria. The first criterion is consistency. Read a book. The plans they have to plans are applicable to this reason. The first one is comprehensive plan 2040. The second one is Blueprint Denver. A 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. Now looking at live in Denver, the subject property's map is part of the urban neighborhood context. If it replaces mud, designates the subject property as law residential place type displays that have predominantly single and two unit uses and accessory dwelling units are appropriate. Street and 36 are in a designated as local streets, which are mostly characterized by residential uses. The growth area in Denver is all other areas of the city. These areas are anticipated to see 10% employment growth and 20% housing growth by 2040. Finally, we also include specific policy recommendations. Housing policy number four focuses on the first find housing choice through the expansion of accessory dwelling units throughout all residential areas. Stuff also finds the request that Sony meets the next two criteria. The rezoning will result in uniformity of district relations and will further the public health, safety and welfare primarily through its implementation of adopted. Justified circumstance for the rezoning is a city adopted plan. Since the approval of the existing U.S. lease on district, the city has adopted the comprehensive plan blueprint. Denver, a stated throughout this presentation, the proposed rezoning meets the intent of both these plans. Overall, the proposed rezoning is consistent with the urban neighborhood context residential districts and the SUV ones on the. With that stuff. Requirements, approval based and finding all review criteria has been met.
Speaker 1: All right. Very good. Thank you, Fran. And I'm waiting for my system to catch up. I don't have the number of speakers for this first hearing, but it looks like we have at least one. Is that correct, Madam Secretary, for this first hearing?
Speaker 3: We have two.
Speaker 1: Okay. All right, great. Thank you. Just trying to get my system to catch up here. All right. We're going to go ahead and go virtually to our first speaker, Jessie Parris. Do we have Jessie in the queue? Okay. Do we have Jesse ready? All right. Well, we're trying to get Jesse into the queue. We're going to go ahead and we have Matthew Leek. If I mispronounced your name. I'm sorry about that, Matthew. If you want to come to the podium.
Speaker 8: It's going to be tough.
Speaker 1: Matthew, I'm speaking. Okay. Go ahead, Matthew.
Speaker 8: Did the proposed changes, as the staff report outlines, are completely in line with several of the city's goals. It'll be a pretty straightforward win. Glad to see the neighborhood is getting a little more density and it can support.
Speaker 3: All right.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Matthew. And we're going to go back to Jesse Perez and hopefully get him into the queue.
Speaker 8: He locked the doors, watching the whole bookstore. His powers of massive was in the file. I'm like, No, I'm in favor of this rezoning to make it meet the criteria. And I supported it when I ran for city councilor last in 2019 when I got almost 15,000 votes for no money, and I continue to support them in 2021. We need to do all units all over this city, just like we need to work spaces all over the city. So I'm in support of this result. That's my. Thank you.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Jesse. Questions for members of Council on Council Bill 1187. Not seen any. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 1187. Council members said about the.
Speaker 2: No comments.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Roll call on Council Bill 1187 CdeBaca.
Speaker 2: Clerk.
Speaker 0: All right.
Speaker 2: So when.
Speaker 0: I went in.
Speaker 3: Hines, I question.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 2: Can each i. Ortega I. Sandoval, I. Sawyer, I. Torres, I. Black Eye.
Speaker 3: Madam President.
Speaker 1: I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results. 13 of 13 Eyes Council Bill 21 Dash 1187 has passed. Thank you, Fran, and the two speakers for that hearing. Councilmember Ortega, would you please put Council Bill 1188 on the floor for final passage?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 3600 North Cook Street in Clayton.
Approves a map amendment to rezone property from U-SU-B to U-SU-B1 (allows for an accessory dwelling unit), located at 3600 North Cook Street in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 10-12-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11292021_21-1334
|
Speaker 1: I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 3: 13 Eyes.
Speaker 1: 13 Eyes Council Bill 21 Dash 1188 has passed. Thank you to Fran and the members of the public who joined us on that hearing. Next up, Councilmember Ortega, will you please put Council Bill 1334 on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 2: I move that council bill 21 1334 be placed on final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 1: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. The required public hearing for Council Bill 1334 is open. And just want to remind folks before we have the staff report that we do have a face covering mandate in the city and county of Denver and in our building. And so I just want to remind folks to keep your face coverings on. We're glad to welcome Michael Carrigan this evening for the staff report. Go ahead, Michael.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember. Good evening, council members. I'm Michael Carrigan with the Department of Finance counter bill 21 1334 is for an ordinance approving 2/1 amended and restated service plans for the metropolitan districts supporting redevelopment of a site known as Fox Park. The districts are called West Global Metropolitan District Number one in West Kill Bill West, Global Metropolitan District number two. The districts are already organized and existing metropolitan districts and their original service plans were approved by council in March of 2016. The first amended and restated service plans are being submitted for City Council approval on behalf of the Boards of Directors pursuant to the requirements of Special District Act Sections 32, Dash one, Dash 201 and more particularly 32. Dash one, Dash 204. Colorado Revised Statutes. The two metropolitan districts will aid in the development of Fox.
Speaker 1: News for your. It's not the the presentation is not the correct presentation for this hearing.
Speaker 0: I do not have a.
Speaker 1: Not notice that I'm sorry about that.
Speaker 0: I don't know how to like.
Speaker 1: Have a staff member come help us with that. I believe Jen can go ahead and do that. Thank you, Councilmember Black.
Speaker 2: When you say.
Speaker 1: And I guess they let us know we were aware there. We don't necessarily have a presentation so we can take the presentation off so we won't have that coming up.
Speaker 4: Gotcha.
Speaker 1: Okay. Very good.
Speaker 0: The two metropolitan districts will aid in the development of Fox parts of Fox Park, which is which is a planned as a residential hotel and commercial mixed use project adjacent to the 41st and Fox commuter rail station. At full buildout, Fox Park is anticipated to encompass 6.2 million square feet of mixed use development and accommodates a daytime population of 3300 people. The inclusion area for the two metropolitan districts remains the same as was first approved by council in 2016. The amended and Restated Service Plan contains the District's purpose, powers, requirements and Financial Plan and are based off the city's newly proposed model service plan to address a number of issues, including a more robust disclosure requirement. The district shall be responsible for compliance with the city's municipal code rules, regulations and policy and other applicable law. The District shall ensure that the District's public improvements are designed and constructed in accordance with the standards and specifications of the city and other governmental entities having jurisdiction. It is anticipated the West Global Metropolitan District number one, will ultimately include all commercial property located within the Fox Park Development and West Global Metropolitan District. Number two ultimately encompass include all of the residential property located within the project. The metropolitan districts will be responsible for coordinating the financing, acquisition, construction, completion, operation, ownership and maintenance of public infrastructure and services within and without of the service areas, including without limitation street improvements, traffic and safety signals, water improvements, sanitation improvements, storm drainage improvements, parks and rec facilities and landscaping improvements. The district will be required to recorded a disclosure notice upon all property within an inclusionary of the districts. The metropolitan districts will have the power to raise revenues pursuant to the authority's granted by the Special District Act, including the imposition of up to 50 mills for district debt, operations and maintenance. Once the district imposes a debt mill levy, its operations and maintenance mill levy cannot exceed ten mills. The districts will have a 40 year maximum imposition term for a debt in the levy. The metro districts will also be authorized to impose up to five mills for regional improvements at the direction of the city. The total estimated costs for the public improvements necessary to serve the contemplated development are approximately $350 million. The amended and restated service plans anticipate that the districts will issue approximately $150 million of debt over multiple issuances to align with the construction phasing of the development. The district's financial plans indicate that the districts are able to retire the proposed debt within the limitations established by the service plans. Staff recommends approval of the first amended and restated service plans. Thank you.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Michael. And didn't mean to make that more stressful than it needed to be for you. So great job on that. We have three individuals signed up to speak this evening. The first two are here in chambers. Josie Curran, Dan Clarendon. Now you can correct me on your last name. If we have Josie here. Jose down now.
Speaker 0: Yes. I'm just here to answer questions.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. All right. The next speaker we have in chambers is Mack Ryland.
Speaker 8: Good evening, counsel. Matt Ruland, general counsel for the Metropolitan Districts. And I'm here to.
Speaker 0: Answer questions if there are any.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you, Matt. We're going to go ahead and move on line. We have Jesse Perez signed up. And it looks like we might have had Jesse leave the meeting. Okay. It doesn't look like we have Jesse. So. All right. That concludes our speakers for this hearing. Questions from members of Council on Council Bill 1334. Councilmember Sawyer.
Speaker 4: Thanks. On a president. Did you say one five mils or five zero mils when you were saying it? I couldn't tell if you said 15 or 50. And I just needed a clarification. Thanks.
Speaker 0: Michael Carey from Department of Finance five zero 50.
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Sawyer. Next up, we've got Councilmember Flynn.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Madam President. Michael, a couple of questions. I'm looking at the presentation that was given at committee while you were going along. And just a couple of questions says the original service plans under a previous owner was based on a public infrastructure investment of just under $12 million. And then this one is the restated. One shows an estimated cost of public improvements of 340 million. That's like. Math on the fly. It's like 30 times or something like that. Yeah, about 30 times. And what accounts for this?
Speaker 0: So it's my it's my understanding that the original service plan was entirely dependent on a development plan. It's completely different than than what was contemplated.
Speaker 9: Obviously.
Speaker 0: I understand that the first developer was never really intending to build anything. They were just trying to get as much entitlements as possible and then turn around and sell the property to another property owner.
Speaker 9: Okay. I see that that first one that was the one that included Mike Shanahan.
Speaker 0: Not aware of that.
Speaker 9: Is Mr. Ruland or someone from the could you answer the question is what accounts for this massive difference in in public investment. From the original to the current.
Speaker 0: Your other question, Mike Shanahan was not part of the original. Okay.
Speaker 8: But the biggest difference well, one of the cost of infrastructure has changed a lot. And in the.
Speaker 9: Interim. Sorry, could you slow down and speak of.
Speaker 8: Cost of.
Speaker 0: Infrastructure has.
Speaker 8: Changed significantly, has gone up quite a bit, but most of it is because of the enhanced development costs of the actual infrastructure being put in, not the dollar for dollar. And the project is much more robust and much more dense than what before. It was originally anticipated to be a single family residential development and it was much it was done prior to even really understanding what was going to be there. So we've done more of of speculation this is being done off of the intended development that's before you.
Speaker 9: Okay. And the projected debt issuance is $150 million. That is total. The capital I that's the 30 bills, correct?
Speaker 8: That would be what if there's a combined cap of 50 mills.
Speaker 0: Ten of which would go towards operations and.
Speaker 9: You're issuing debt for operations?
Speaker 0: No, I'm saying of the 50.
Speaker 8: Mills that is allowed, ten of it would go towards operations of.
Speaker 9: 40 and five, a regional.
Speaker 8: Possibly five, but that's.
Speaker 0: Above the 50. We're anticipating 34 debt, though. You are.
Speaker 9: Correct. Okay. Thank you. That was my next question, actually. So you're capped at 50 mills. Of those ten are the owned M five mills. Is the regional region.
Speaker 8: Five is above and beyond. That's if the city decides to have us impose that. The city informs us to impose the regional level, and we do so.
Speaker 9: So it's really 55, correct. Okay. So where does the rest of the money come to build the $340 million in infrastructure with a debt issuance of only 150.
Speaker 8: It'll either come from two financing through direct or through developer costs.
Speaker 9: And that's our next hearing, correct? Okay. Thank you. That's all I have, Madam President.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Flynn. Councilmember Ortega.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. I wanted to ask Chris, never Chrissy in the audience to come forward and talk about this is sort of in in response to Councilman Flynn's question about the infrastructure and how the traffic demand management for this area and specifically for this site changed those numbers from the first application that came before council to this one for this metro district.
Speaker 0: So, Chris Nevett mayor's office. Nice to see y'all. So are you referring to the the first concept plan for for this project back in whenever it was 2017, 28?
Speaker 2: I am because it's my understanding that back then the whole next step study was not done. We didn't have the traffic demand management plan in place in terms of how developers in this area were expected to use traffic demand management as a tool in terms of trying to figure out how to essentially reduce parking on the on the development sites, but also how any new roadways built, create a different standard, if you will, for what can be allowed at additional sites in this area, including this one.
Speaker 0: Thank you for the orientation, ma'am. So the original.
Speaker 1: We're going to go ahead. And former councilman, if you could put your mask on. We're we're trying to obey the mask mandates that come forward. So I wanted to just remind you about that.
Speaker 0: Thank you. I figured I was six feet from y'all and.
Speaker 2: Justin closer to the microphone.
Speaker 1: Your model, the right. Behave yourself. Okay.
Speaker 0: So the original plan, when it came forward to us, clearly imposed a challenge with respect to managing the traffic. Exactly, exactly as you said. And we did not have a next step study about how we would address those challenges with traffic. We had no transportation demand management requirements. We definitely did not want to have traffic from this project in the surrounding neighborhoods and caused major issues, particularly with respect to emergency service vehicles, because there's only two point of access in and out of the Fox Island area. And so we set that project. In motion with a cap on the total amount of traffic to be generated not just from this project, but any project from the total amount of traffic to be generated from new development. And with that, we set in motion the next step study process, which concluded just a little bit earlier this year, which told us what is the new pieces of infrastructure that we need to serve this area. We also established a transportation demand management requirement. Again, not just for this project, but for all projects in this area. And that very much was the pilot program for the Transportation Demand Management Program that we have now citywide. So we we've we used the kind of experimented here in Fox Island and now have a citywide transportation demand management program. And then as this project has moved forward, what you're seeing tonight is the tax increment financing. The metropolitan district levies a whole financing structure to build the components that the next step study said that we need to build in order to serve the rest of the area. So we'll continue to have transportation demand management keeping a lid on the amount of new traffic generated from development here. But we'll also be building new not just roadway infrastructure, but multi-modal infrastructure to serve both this project and other projects in the area as well.
Speaker 2: So how much how much of that? New infrastructure that you're talking about is being imposed on this particular development project or this developer that has changed the the mill, the financing of the project, essentially. Right.
Speaker 0: This project is actually taking on an enormous amount. So the next step study identified four key projects. One was the 38th Avenue, Park Avenue, Fox Street. 25 off ramps. It's a complete mess there. And we refer to it as the, you know, boulder ized way as the cluster. That's a mess. We need another new point of access for the area. We also identified and this was a key innovation from the next step study. A new access on the south from Huron Street going over to 38th Avenue and then 44th Avenue.
Speaker 2: Is what is not a killer. Correct? I'm sorry. That one. It's not vehicular access. It's more pedestrian by.
Speaker 0: No, it's it's. It's vehicular access. It could be it could be bike ped, but it's, you know, to be maximally effective, it's it's a it's fully modal across all modes, you know, vehicle of emergency avenue. So jumping 38th Avenue and then the 44th Avenue bikeway, which is really the main multimodal connection between the sort of the the the other quadrant of Globeville on the east to connect through to Fox Station. That's a key project. So right now that 44th Avenue bridge over I-25 is kind of a miserable experience. And then traveling west to get the Fox Street and then down to the station, that's not very pleasant either. So the next up study identified those four projects. This project will completely design and reconstruct the 38th Avenue Fox. Park Avenue cluster. We need to go through a process to figure out feasibility, cost, etc. of a of a new access, an entirely new multimodal access for the island that may be up in the north by a bridge or a tunnel. It may be the the Huron Bridge. So they will construct both of those and they will render to us complete design of the other key components that they don't construct. So the 44th Avenue bikeway, we'll get a complete design of that, be able to pursue that on our on our own. And depending on what the the new complete new connection to Fox Island is, we'll be able to take the other one and have that as complete design as well and seek funding elsewhere to do that.
Speaker 2: So as we're seeing other sites developed in this area, are other developers being asked to contribute towards offsetting the cost of that infrastructure that you just talked about?
Speaker 0: That that is a great question. And the. Is the short answer? No, the simple answer is no, because there's a scale issue. So there's a project only of a certain.
Speaker 2: All of those sites were significantly observed. The ones that have been resolved by this body, that have been brought forward by the planning process.
Speaker 0: Yeah, you're you're absolutely right about that. I mean, they have we have rendered considerable with your permission, we have rendered considerable value to those sites. Some sites are quite small, so we've got a couple of townhome projects and we can hardly sort of ask a townhome project to make a major infrastructure investment. But without getting into too much detail, there are two large sites that occupy the southern part of the island, and those were big rezonings, as you say. And those occupy what used to be large format industrial parcels. So big sort of multi block parcels. Those projects are all delivering an entirely new street grade back to the city. So we don't have 40th Avenue west of Foch Street. We're getting a 40th Avenue west of Foch Street. We only have half of a 39th Avenue west of Fox Street. We're getting all of 39th Avenue, west of Fox Street.
Speaker 2: But wouldn't we be doing that anyway?
Speaker 0: No, ma'am. We have no way to do that. We would I mean, that would require acquiring the land, designing, building those roads.
Speaker 2: So what I'm asking is, wouldn't we be asking a developer to do that anyway? I know I've seen projects around the city where.
Speaker 5: There is no.
Speaker 2: Right of way infrastructure, curb, gutter sidewalks, etc., where the city demands that the developer do that. So you're saying that that's part of what we're asking them to do here. But we're also not asking them to contribute to the the other infrastructure that provides greater access in and out of this location.
Speaker 0: That is correct. So so we're requiring them to give us gallop, go back to create a new here on street, to create a new 40th Avenue, create a new 39th Avenue. And they will also be creating a right in right out on 30 Ave with Gallop go. But we are we are not there. They are currently not part of the the deal, if you will, to reconstruct those two big projects that this project will be constructed.
Speaker 2: So all of that is to say that the increase in the infrastructure costs is part of why we're looking at 350 mills instead of 150 million, essentially. And over the course of time in doing this project. Keep the debt. 150 million. Sorry, not mills, but million. Yeah, that's what I meant to say.
Speaker 0: So the 150 million of the debt is anticipated to be used for parking garage, public infrastructure for the project. The other infrastructure components this Christmas talking about. That's part of the development agreement. That's a separate ordinance before us tonight. And that is being financed through TIFF proceeds and then through the developer developer dollars. But just for the metro district, under $50 million of.
Speaker 9: Debt is for.
Speaker 0: Parking garage. Public parking garage.
Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you. I think the explanation of the additional costs that this particular site in the developer is incurring is an important part of the bigger conversation, because we've got other bills on the same site coming up tonight. But I think that helps clarify what some of the additional costs are to this particular development site.
Speaker 0: Yes, ma'am. They're they're shouldering a very substantial burden. Okay.
Speaker 2: I have no further questions. Thank you.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Ortega. Next up, we've got Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 0: Yeah, thank you, Madam President. If I could get the representative back up. I just want to clarify. If I heard you correct. What I thought I heard you say was that the previous plan was single family homes.
Speaker 8: Assisted single families going to be commercial if they were going to be residential. But it was substantially less dense and less robust.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I'm looking at an article from Denver right from 2000th June 2018 that we had resounded for 8 to 12 stories, 660,000 square feet of office retail, 85,000 pure retail, and about 3000 residential units. Can you give me a comparable estimate of square foot of development we might expect for for now from that would justify the figures we're talking. Well, I think once again, I think.
Speaker 8: What justifies the figures is the increased infrastructure.
Speaker 0: More so than.
Speaker 8: Anything, the as Christmas and the access points in the road infrastructure is significantly different than what was anticipated in.
Speaker 0: 2016 when these were approved. But you have no numbers at this point of development on site.
Speaker 2: The developer reports here.
Speaker 0: It had 6000.
Speaker 8: 62 million square feet.
Speaker 0: Of office space.
Speaker 1: What if you wouldn't mind reintroducing yourself for the record, please?
Speaker 0: Jose Caetano developer sold the previous site plan even though it was his own and entitled to that maximum. The owner was only contemplating 2 million square feet and total of that development. When we acquired the property. We understood the full potential of the of the entitlement and zoning and took it up to 6.2 million square feet, 6.2 million square feet. So that and that exponentially increased the and this is the the necessary infrastructure and street grid, water, drainage and parking, parks and connectivity around the property, just like Chris said. Great. Thank you for that explanation. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you. And thank you, Councilman Cashman. The public hearing has closed comments by members of Council on Council Bill 1334. Councilmember CdeBaca.
Speaker 3: Thank you. This is a really complicated one for me, because these developers have gone above and beyond what typical developers across the city have done with community members, and they've worked diligently to craft agreements with the neighborhood that no other developers have tried to do. However, on principle, I cannot support this mechanism for paying for private development, metro districts, special districts, and the two financing which will come next, are problematic for so many reasons. What we create when we create these special districts is a city within a city, and then we give or allow this city within a city to control itself and use city debt while pulling that through the financing away from the rest of the neighborhoods needs. And I think that that is not the best way to go about private development. That's what we should do when we're, you know, being responsible cities. We should do the infrastructure. We should pay for the things that we need to keep the areas safe, to make it accessible, to make the recapture those roads. And so I understand that we don't have the desire nor the funding to be able to do this. And so we lean on developers to do it. But in the long run, we don't address our goals as a city. For example, 1% of this project's budget is going toward affordable housing, and 27% is going to private parking or parking in general, which doesn't help us meet our climate goals. This is a TOD ish area where we have rail very close, and so those $2 or those dollars that end up getting taken away from the rest of the surrounding neighborhood, those tax dollars that the people within the project end up having to pay later on down the road. That is not going toward our broader goals as a city. Additionally, I think that we use this complicated structure and pass down the burden to the to unknowing people. I know we're trying to disclose when we sell property, disclose better that this is a special district and the taxing is out of our control after they purchase their properties. But we know that across the state buyers and harmed in the long run when the taxes go up and they have no control over it and they have no ability or recourse to go to the city and control that, the developer gets to control all of that. And so for those reasons on this one and the tariff, I will be a no tonight. But I do want to thank the developers for doing what they've done to engage with the community around the community benefit agreements. I do challenge my colleagues to think about how we fund our city's needs differently and how it's not sustainable to continue to rely on private development to do these things that we need for our city. And perhaps we should be doing the things as far as infrastructure is concerned that we need and then allowing developers to do what they have to do. So we don't have to create these types of metro districts to authorize the debt to be able to get it done. Thank you. That's it for my comments.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Council members say to Barker Councilmember Ortega.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. So metropolitan districts are a creation of state legislation that gives local governments an additional financing tool to determine how development within their jurisdictions can be created. And it's the dollars from the development that are actually retained within the development that allow those mills to be captured, that pay that debt. So it's not like the rest of Denver taxpayers are paying any costs towards this project. It's all dollars that come from the development site itself. I think we would all like to see reduction in parking, but. There is private financing that is part of this development. And banks will not loan money to a project that is without parking. They don't want to be stuck with a project that can't park itself. And it's part of the reason why the city has gone through this extra work in creating the next step study and looking at how developments not only in this area, but we will be seeing huge developments along the I-25 corridor where this particular process of doing the next step study is going to be vital to ensuring that we're not continuing to see gentrification and displacement, but really impact on existing infrastructure, roads, water, sewer, etc., etc.. So in this case, the developer is bearing those costs. Yes, it does get passed on to the end user, but this is how projects are getting financed across the state of Colorado. So I just want to express my support for this project for the extra miles that this developer has gone in working with the global community and creating the opportunity for offsite affordable housing that will be part of this, as well as many of the amenities that will be on this site that will be accessible to residents of the global community as well. So with that, I just want to express my support. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Council member State Abarca or Councilmember Ortega and Councilmember CdeBaca, we have you back in the queue.
Speaker 3: Yeah, thank you. I just wanted to also point out that we have multiple special districts and tive financing across our city to look to to determine if those mechanisms for creating development and needed infrastructure have achieved development without displacement. And what I have found in my research is that we have not used this in a way that has prevented displacement in any of the places where it's been done. And so and we need to also be cognizant of the fact that it will, in most cases, catalyze further development and increase displacement because it changes the whole ecosystem. It is on an island, but not on an island. It will affect everything outside of its space. It will affect the values of everything around it. And that will catalyze more displacement in our communities. And we have to be also cognizant of the fact that we're locking in the current linkage fee with this project, 125% of it. We are increasing the linkage fee on large developments because we know we haven't captured what we should be capturing to pay for affordable housing. And this feels like it's premature. We should have waited until we locked in a new linkage fee so that they would be accountable to that linkage fee, because we don't know if the new linkage fee is going to be 125% of the current linkage fee. And so I wish we would have waited on this part of the deal, because I do think that this development, the size of it, they should they should be accountable to the the the linkage fee that we're working on to truly mitigate and create affordable housing. That's it. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember CdeBaca. And I'll go ahead and weigh in on this. Green Valley Ranch in the far northeast would have never been built if it wasn't for metro districts. The city would not have had the capital to invest in that infrastructure. And we've got another example in the far northeast, the Gateway Improvement District that is right in the middle of the Belo community where I've lived for 25 years. And we did not see displacement with that Gateway Improvement district either. And so I think we've got to go in to these sort of projects with our eyes wide open as to what the city can accomplish as far as infrastructure and work. We're going to have to partner with developers or metro districts to quite honestly do that work. Madam Secretary, Roll Call on Council Bill 1334, please.
Speaker 3: CDEBACA No.
Speaker 2: Clark.
Speaker 0: I. FLYNN Hi.
Speaker 8: Hamden Hi.
Speaker 3: Catherine. I can eat I. Ortega Sandoval I saw you, I.
Speaker 2: Torres Hi. Black Eye. Madam President.
Speaker 1: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance approving the First Amended Service Plans for each of the West Globeville Metropolitan District Nos. 1 and 2.
Approves two separate First Amended and Restated Service Plans for the Title 32 districts, West Globeville Metropolitan District No. 1 and West Globeville Metropolitan District No. 2 in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 11-9-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11292021_21-1353
|
Speaker 1: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 3: One May 12 Eyes.
Speaker 1: 12 Eyes Council Bill 21 Dash 1334 has passed. Thank you to the folks that spoke on that last public hearing. Councilmember Ortega, will you please put Council Bill 1353 on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 2: Madam President, I move that council bill 21 1353 excuse me. 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 15 1353 is open. May we have the staff report and I believe we have Tracey Huggins joining us virtually.
Speaker 5: Of the Fox Park Urban Redevelopment Plan. Located in the Globeville neighborhood. The 41st and Fox station area outlined in this slide on purple is approximately 200 acres, generally bounded by I-70 to the north west, 38th Avenue to the south, I-25 to the east, and the freight and passenger rail tracks to the west. In 2009, RTD and the city and county of Denver finalized plans to locate a commuter rail station at 41st Avenue and Fox Street. In 2009. The city completed the 41st in Fox station area plan that describes the long term redevelopment plans the city has for the area east of the rail tracks to create a complete, transit friendly neighborhood. In 2019, the 41st and Fox commuter rail station opened serving RTDs B and G lines. The largest single property in the area is the 41 acre former Denver Post printing facility located on the northern edge of the site near the interchange of I-25 and I-70. The plant printed issues of the Denver Post from 1986 until 2007. In 2008, the land and building were sold to a developer. A metropolitan district was approved in 2016 and in 2018 the property was rezone to allow for buildings up to 12 stories. This owner, as was discussed previously, was never able to begin development on the site and in 2019 sold this site to Vita Fox Park. I'm sorry. Peter Fox North Limited Partnership. The proposed boundaries of the Urban Redevelopment Area and sales and property tax increment areas are the same as the property purchased by Beta Fox North and are outlined in this slide in gold. Peter Fox Park will, in coordination with the existing metropolitan districts, design and construct certain infrastructure improvements and parks and open spaces, which I will continue to refer to as the horizontal infrastructure, as well as perform environmental remediation to support the revitalization of the proposed urban redevelopment area. Upon completion of the horizontal infrastructure. Vida Fox Park will sell improved pad sites to third party vertical developers to complete the vertical development program. The entire project is expected to be delivered in four phases over the next 8 to 10 years and will result in approximately 3400 forth rent residential units. Approximately 2 million square feet of office space. 300,000 square feet of retail space, 500 hotel rooms, 100,000 square feet of cultural and education space. Approximately 218,000 square feet of open space. And 5600 underground parking stalls. To help support this development project. The Denver Urban Renewal Authority is requesting City Council approval of an urban redevelopment plan to support the horizontal infrastructure needs of the urban redevelopment area and also benefit the remaining portions of the 41st and Fox station area. The objectives of the plan are to eliminate the blighting conditions in the area, improve access to transportation options, parks and open space. Promote a diverse, sustainable neighborhood economy more effectively. Use underdeveloped land in the area. Assist the city in cultivating complete and inclusive neighborhoods, which all will help achieve the goals outlined in the 41st in Fox Station Area Plan. The Globeville Neighborhood Plan Plan 2040 and Blueprint. Denver. In order for council to approve an urban redevelopment plan, there must be a finding that the proposed area is blighted. During has commissioned a condition study which found that six of the 11 statutorily defined factors of blight are both present in the area and collectively are limiting its develop ability. These conditions are indicative of an area that has been vacant for a long period of time and lacks the necessary infrastructure to support the proposed development. In addition, the site has environmental contamination, which must be addressed in order for a development to occur. In addition to the onsite infrastructure deficiencies, there are additional infrastructure needs of the broader 41st and FOX station area. Redevelopment is currently being contemplated in the areas around the station, but the city's vision for the full redevelopment of the area is limited because of the lack of access into the area. Currently there are only two vehicular access points in and out of the area the bridge over I-25 along 44th Avenue to the east and the Park Avenue, 38th Avenue and I-25, the interchange to the south. Both access points are challenging for vehicles and especially for pedestrians and bicyclists attempting to enter Globeville to the east or downtown Denver to the South without the ability to generate more trip capacity to the station area. This project cannot be approved and the costs associated with these improvements are a material component of the need for public financial assistance. As noted earlier, the various city plans support the redevelopment of the 41st and Fox station area and the Fox Park Urban Redevelopment Area. The proposed Fox Park Urban Redevelopment Area is identified as having a community center high, medium residential and high residential future place designations in the Urban Center Neighborhood Context Per Blueprint. Denver development in the community center area should have an active street level presence and should contain a good mix of commercial, retail and office uses. While the residential mixed use areas should be predominantly residential. They should be supported by a variety of embedded uses needed for a complete neighborhood. Urban center neighborhoods are dense, vibrant areas that are well-served by high capacity transit, where the plan recommends focusing growth over the next 20 years. The proposed Urban Redevelopment Plan will promote development that supports the complete Neighborhood and Transportation Network vision in Blueprint Denver, including neighborhood context, place, street type and growth guidance. In preparing the Urban Redevelopment Plan. Specific areas of compliance with Plan 2040 noted in the slides in Blue Blueprint Denver as outlined in the green boxes and the Globeville Neighborhood Plan, which are in yellow, were referenced. I certainly am not going to walk through each of these. I will note that this page in this slide identifies the goals related to infrastructure improvements and connectivity. This slide outlines the goals related to transit aurion development. Please note the specific reference to promote the mixed use redevelopment of the former Denver Post site. Blueprint. Denver also calls for an inclusive, equitable city through complete neighborhoods and transportation networks. Analysis from Blueprint Denver indicates the proposed urban redevelopment area lies within an area that has low access to opportunity, high vulnerability to displacement and low housing and jobs. Diversity. The utilization of tax increment to support the horizontal development addresses one key equitable development outcome, which is to provide infrastructure that will enable the transformation of the vacant industrial site into a transit oriented development that can create opportunities for new housing, amenities and employment. As was also noted previously, the Urban Renewal Project is only a portion of this. There is also a companion development agreement that the developer has agreed to address a number of different investment options to help in addressing the equity challenges for this area. The Urban Redevelopment Plan has been presented to the Denver Planning Board, who voted unanimously to find the Fox Park Urban Redevelopment Plan to be in conformance with Plan 2040 Blueprint Denver and the Globeville Neighborhood Plan. In approving the Fox Park Urban Redevelopment Plan Council will also be authorizing the use of tax increment financing and establishing the Fox Park sales and property tax increment areas which will be coterminous with the urban redevelopment area. Consistent with the onsite and offsite infrastructure needs. Approximately 50% of the estimated reimbursable project costs of just under $190 million are for regional infrastructure improvements and internal roadways and streetscape. The remaining reimbursable costs include parks and open space, demolition and environmental remediation and other utilities. To the extent that developer equity and metropolitan district bond proceeds are not sufficient to fully pay for the parking necessary to support the level of density in the development program. Tax increment can also be a source of repayment of these costs, provided they really relate to publicly accessible parking. It's important to note that in incremental sales and property taxes are only generated from the vertical development, not from the horizontal development veto, as the horizontal developer must therefore advance the costs of the taxing permit eligible expenses and then be reimbursed once the vertical development has been completed. This reimbursement structure puts the risk of repayment on the developer. The need for public investment through tax increment should always have a direct relationship to the elimination of the blighting conditions and support of the development plan consistent with the city vision for the area. As you can see, this relationship is clear. In addition to the developer reimbursement, the tip will also be used to make a $1.84 million payment to Denver Public Schools to address the service impacts expected to be realized as a result of the completed project. So therefore, the total projected tax commitment, tax increment commitment is approximately $191 million. In advance of Council's consideration of the Urban Redevelopment Plan, DAERA is required to enter into agreements with each of the other taxing entities in the urban redevelopment area. Georgia has negotiated agreements with each of these entities, per the terms of the agreement with urban drainage and flood control district. Georgia is allowed to capture and utilize all amounts attributable to their mill levy. As noted previously, Dora will pay $1.84 million to DPS over four years, beginning in 2024. And because of the direct use of the amounts derived from the West global metropolitan districts to support the same redevelopment project, 100% of the amounts attributable to the net district levies will be reimbursed to the districts. And finally, Dora and the city have also negotiated a cooperation agreement governing the collection and repayment of increment from the urban redevelopment area. In considering the approval of the Fox Park Group and Redevelopment Plan, City Council must make the following additional legislative findings that the boundaries of the urban redevelopment area have been drawn as narrowly as possible to accomplish the planning and development objectives of the plan that, if any and if any individuals or families are displaced, or if any business concerns are displaced as a result of adoption or implementation of the plan, a feasible method exists for the relocation of those individuals, families or business concerns in accordance with the Act. Due to the vacancy of the project area, it contains no residences or business concerns. Therefore, no individuals, families or businesses will be displaced. Written notice of this public hearing has been provided to all property owners, residents and owners of business concerns within the urban redevelopment area. And no more than 120 days have passed since the first public hearing before City Council on the plan. This is the first consideration of an urban redevelopment plan for this site, and thus the City Council has not previously failed to approve an urban redevelopment plan for this site. The urban redevelopment plan will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of Denver as a whole for the rehabilitation or redevelopment of the urban redevelopment area by private enterprise. The plan does not consist of any area of open land which is to be developed for residential or nonresidential uses or any agricultural land. And the city and county of Denver can adequately finance and agreements are in place to finance any additional city and county of Denver infrastructure and services required to serve development within the Fox Park Urban Redevelopment Area for the period during which the incremental property taxes are paid to the authority. The plan allows for cooperative agreements between the city and borough to address additional infrastructure requirements should they arise. And finally, no acquisition by eminent domain is authorized by the plan. I very much appreciate the opportunity to bring forward this urban redevelopment plan for council consideration. This has been a very collaborative effort between and among Dora, the various city departments, the community and the developer to lot to allow us to find a way to revitalize a long, vacant industrial site and provide a significant community asset. And I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Tracy, for the presentation.
Speaker 2: We're going to go.
Speaker 1: To our speakers. We have 14 individuals signed up to speak this evening hour. And we're going to go to the folks who are in chambers first and then we've got members of the community joining us online and then we'll go back to Chambers. And so our first speaker this evening is Mark Tompkins.
Speaker 0: Good evening, Councilman Tompkins. I am a public finance advisor to the developer, and I'm here to answer any questions.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you. Our next speaker in chambers is Kathleen Fogler. And just so folks are ready. Blair Licht and Fields is next after or I'm sorry, Kathleen. Manuel Jimenez and then Blair LICHTMAN Field. So. Go ahead, Kathleen.
Speaker 3: Good evening, counsel. My name is Kathleen Fogler Architects. I'm just here to answer questions. Thank you.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you. Manuel Jimenez.
Speaker 0: Good evening. I'm Manuel Humanism. I'm just here to answer questions.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you. And then Blair. Okay.
Speaker 3: Good evening, council members. Blair Lifton I'm outside counsel for the applicant and I'm just here to answer questions this evening. Thank you.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you. We're going to go ahead and move online. Our first speaker online is Jeff Bader. Oh. Do we have you here?
Speaker 8: Sorry. In chambers. Good evening. Jeff Vader with the Denver Urban Renewal Authority. I'm here to answer any questions in the event three CS.
Speaker 0: I'm able to virtually.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Jeff. All right. Our next speaker is Maria. So Paul with that. And I believe Maria's is online. Okay. Maria, go ahead, please. Go ahead, Maria. You might have to.
Speaker 4: And I'm sorry about that. I'm Maria Silvano with Habitat for Humanity of Metro Denver, and I'm here to answer questions.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you. Next up, we have Jesse Paris.
Speaker 8: Yeah. A lot of it is just the muscle parts are preserved for Blackstone and similar for self-defense. Positive action move the chains as well as the unity party of our little black like those and I'll be the next Lib Dem play 23. I'm against this redevelopment tonight for several reasons. The first reason is this is a traffic catastrophe just waiting to happen. As I stated during the presentation, there's only two arterials in and out of this area, so I use that to draw people in, said this area with only two arterials. Second thing is there is a halfway house that is located to the south of this redevelopment. Is that going to be moved or that they're going to be present? What's happening with that? Um, so the house is going to be what am I level is it going to be affordable at. What is the with the stopping any kind of displacement from occurring from this new development from the surrounding areas this summer? Please answer that. Those questions I would greatly appreciate. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Our next speaker online is Kelly P.
Speaker 4: Am I unmuted?
Speaker 1: Yes, go ahead.
Speaker 2: Wonderful. Wonderful.
Speaker 4: I live on the Fox Island, on Fox Street and very close proximity for nearly a decade to this potential development. I'm over the moon to see good, conscientious development in such a long neglected space.
Speaker 2: I believe at.
Speaker 4: Least since 2007, it's been.
Speaker 2: Empty.
Speaker 4: Collecting tumbleweeds and inviting crime for the last 14 years with empty and abandoned structures riddled with crime, unsafe to walk, dogs, exercise or gather, but especially alone. This development will bring lights.
Speaker 2: Traffic, pedestrians, a lot of.
Speaker 4: Gathering, and most most importantly, safety. It'll bring music, tree canopy and safety where there is currently an unsafe dumping ground for stolen cars, mattresses and anything people don't want to pay to dump.
Speaker 5: We see this every day.
Speaker 4: When we drive by, and me and a lot of my neighbors are really excited for this. Jose and Manuel have engaged our most proximate neighborhood, plus surrounding areas and honestly listened to input and feedback. We welcome them with open arms. That's it. Ha ha.
Speaker 1: Wonderful. Thank you. Kelly didn't want to cut you off in case you had more to say. All right. We're going to go ahead and move to our next speaker. Anthony Syston. All right. We're not seeing Anthony's system, so we're going to go ahead and move on. L.J. Suzuki.
Speaker 0: Yes. Good evening, everyone, and thank you for having me here. My name is LJ Suzuki, president of the Global First R.A.. We would like to vote in support of the Fox Island, the Fox Park development, I have to say, echoing what Councilwoman CdeBaca said earlier, these developers have really engaged the community above and beyond anything that we've seen historically in the past. I really think they really raised the bar in terms of what it means to work with your neighbors and put together a good development. I appreciate that. Any time you put in some kind of tax based financing, there's going to be scrutiny and concerns, and I think that's totally appropriate. However, in this case, this is kind of a perfect opportunity for TIFF financing. It's a site that's generating zero sales tax and very little.
Speaker 8: Property tax right now.
Speaker 0: Unless you can find a way to tax the people that are stealing copper.
Speaker 8: Pipes out.
Speaker 0: Of the property, and they're planning to turn it into a significant amount of residential and commercial space that will add a lot of value to the neighborhood, bring a lot of people in the neighborhood, offer great opportunities for small businesses, for local artists. In addition to that, they really are going above and beyond the standard requirements for affordable housing. And I'm sure you'll hear from.
Speaker 8: My colleagues at the.
Speaker 0: Gas Coalition who are going to be helping address that.
Speaker 8: As well as my colleagues at the Birdseed Collective.
Speaker 0: That are going to be helping address that. Thanks to funding provided by this project in the Global First R.A., they have agreed to provide us funding and support to increase the tree canopy in the Globeville neighborhood outside of their sites, but just in the neighborhood in general, as well as funding to other programs to help children in the neighborhood. So I really want to encourage all of the council people today to vote in favor of this bill to support.
Speaker 8: The Fox Park development. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Our next speaker joining us in chambers is Gail LaRue. And then next, we have Karla Padilla and Karen Gerhardt ready.
Speaker 2: Hi. Good evening. So as part of Global first we welcome the Fox Park Urban redevelopment as our neighbors. Since meeting Manuel and Jose in 2018 at a next step study. They have exhibited all the qualities of good neighbors. Good neighbors help feed neighbors, and they participate in distributing food boxes by delivering those to homes of our neighbors. And they listen to everyone. What are our ideas? What do we want to see there? And you don't have to be part of an R.A. to be heard. They make themselves available to listen. And having attended many of these meetings, I hear the voices of our neighbors in the Fox Park Community Plan. And they continue to listen. And they're committed to preserving perpetual affordability in Globeville through the land trust, through funding. And they're going to encourage other developers to add to that funding during community events. They don't offer to write a check. They show up with gloves, with shovels that are planting trees. They help out if we're giving away backpacks that are. At our school supply distribution. They they work. They pull up their sleeves. And they also talk more with neighbors. So Globeville is one of the oldest neighborhoods in Denver. Many of our homes are falling apart. They recognize this and have committed to a home rehabilitation program in Globeville. They understand the importance of our community center. And they have worked closely with our Community Center for Long Term Sustainability and to ensure future programs and offered long term support. Glover first has met with many developers where it felt like a formality to us. They didn't listen. They just had to work. Community engagement off their list to be able to present to you all. The Fox Park folks have helped educate us with metro tax districts tiffs and we know about their future sales plans, Dara's role. So they've really taken the time to educate us and plaques park will link isolated Globeville to its Sunnyside and Chaffee Park neighbors. You know, it's it's always tough getting over there. And I think this will be a great way to make that work. So we look forward to the Fox Park Urban Media redevelopment.
Speaker 1: We have allotted for each speaker. We appreciate it. Thank you. Would you reintroduce yourself for the public record, please?
Speaker 2: I'm Gail LaRue, president of Global.
Speaker 1: Wonderful. Thank you. All right. Next up, we have Karla Padilla.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Karla Padilla, 4748 Sherman Street in Globeville. Good afternoon. Committee, council people. I come from many generations of Kosovo residency. I'm also the associate director of Birdseed Collective. We run the Globeville Center on 45th and Grant, as well as Alto Gallery, which has moved to the Reno Art Park. Many of you know and have worked with Anthony J. Garcia, senior, our executive director. And as you know, community rights are important to.
Speaker 0: Us.
Speaker 2: And are at the forefront of many of our projects. Growing up in Globeville, too, our family has had many occasions to work with organizations and have input on development in the community. Some have been good and some not so good. In my early life, we lived directly in front of the northbound 25 exit ramp and my mother was part of the Asarco lawsuit. But no matter what, Globeville has always been our community and I have raised my children here as well as my grandchildren. No community is like Globeville, and as a resident and organization, we have always tried to work for the betterment of the neighborhood.
Speaker 3: Many times I have had the pleasure.
Speaker 2: Of working with the Fox Park developers beat up Oxnard along with the Globeville, first R.A., together with Vera Fox. Our focus is and always will be community. No matter what the situation is, community is in their forefront of their project. We believe they are one of a kind. They listen to our concerns and needs and greatly take this to heart and adjust their development if needed. As you know, Fox.
Speaker 1: Street is.
Speaker 2: Undergoing a huge transformation from 46th Avenue all the way to 38th Avenue. Several times our groups have reached out to other developers along Fox Street and never received a call back. Their projects seem to be kept quiet so that they can continue their development without a worry about community or effects it has on our infrastructure. By approving this project through the bill, Veeder Fox Park will once again become a vibrant and inviting, safe place for all. Through their development, the soil will be cleaned up, affordable housing will be had, and opportunities for all other projects will become a reality, as well as a huge emphasis on housing stability.
Speaker 0: And along with our grassroots efforts.
Speaker 2: So thank you very much. I appreciate your time.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Our next speaker in chambers is Karen Gurwitch. And then we have Nola Miguel, and then we'll go back to Zoom and hopefully we can get Anthony Stone in the queue. Go ahead, please.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Madam President, members of the council, my name is Karen.
Speaker 3: Burwitz, and I am the.
Speaker 4: President and CEO of the World Trade.
Speaker 3: Center. Here in Denver, we.
Speaker 4: Are a nonprofit trade association with a world renowned brand that will be the namesake tenant of the complex formerly known as the Denver Post Printing Press. There can only be one World Trade Center per city.
Speaker 3: I'm not sure if you're aware of that. And there are 300 World Trade Centers across the world in about 100 countries.
Speaker 4: So a prominent World Trade Center branded complex sends a very clear message to the rest of the world that the city is, in fact, a global city and open for business. It is incredibly important that the size and scope of this development moves forward as planned, because a.
Speaker 3: Prominent development.
Speaker 4: Project matches the intent of that.
Speaker 3: Open for.
Speaker 4: Business message even more clearly to investors. Now as a trade association, our mission is to support local companies in helping them do international business. We do this through.
Speaker 3: Training, accelerators, tech support.
Speaker 4: We host 100 events per year, and we also advocate and convene a vibrant global.
Speaker 3: Business network in Colorado.
Speaker 4: The work we do is incredibly important to Colorado's economy, since one in five jobs in our state is created due to trade. We work with everyone from local designers and artists to helping. Now 100 immigrant entrepreneurs plan their first ever trading business. We also work with small and mid-sized manufacturers, innovative companies like tech firms and large multinationals. In total, we have trained over 40,000 people.
Speaker 3: In our state how to conduct international business. After moving our.
Speaker 4: Offices.
Speaker 3: Out of the buildings downtown at.
Speaker 4: 16th and Broadway, named after us for 27 years, we've been searching for the appropriate.
Speaker 2: Development site.
Speaker 4: That centrally located, highly visible to the public, surrounded by multiple modes of transport, and in a neighborhood that will benefit from boosted economic development and job creation, not to mention having a globally minded development partner who sees a need for the World Trade Center to be stable and prominent for 50 years. We have found all of these criteria in Fox Park and are so excited to activate the full campus in partnership with an incredible development team. By activating the campus, we intend to create an active.
Speaker 3: Business service center, unlike no other in Denver.
Speaker 4: To support mostly small to midsize businesses to grow and to connect to international opportunities. We also create a physical magnet for foreign direct investment.
Speaker 3: To open new.
Speaker 4: Offices in Denver and to partner with local opportunities by creating a unique placemaking opportunity in global.
Speaker 1: View. That's the time think you have allotted for each speaker. Thank you. Next up, we've got Nolan, Miguel and then Anthony Syston. If you are joining us via Zoom, if you can, please raise your hand and we can get you moved over to the Q.
Speaker 0: Shopping.
Speaker 4: Hi, my name is Nolan Miguel and with the Global Response Coalition Organizing for Health and Housing Justice. And I'm also with Theater Collective, which is the Community Land Trust that's incubated by the Colorado Community Land Trust, which is now merged with Habitat for Humanity, Metro Denver. Tonight, we are here in support. We don't. We haven't and still don't and won't take this lightly. We see urban redevelopment as as very serious and a potential threat to increased displacement. And as many of you know, our our mission is to prevent displacement of neighbors and Globeville and Elyria and Swansea. Our members debated this. We really had to wait it and really consider the different trade offs. And I want to talk just a little bit about what made that difference, because I think that might be something that you all are interested in. So one thing was really how the process with the developers was done. They showed up. Granted, a lot was virtual because it's been in the last several years and they were really there to build a partnership with the coalition, with other groups in the neighborhood. They unified groups in the neighborhood instead of trying to divide groups in the neighborhood. They listened like like Gayle said, like a lot of people have said they've and they developed an agreement and benefits that are specific to the community's needs. So it wasn't just a blink percentage that may or may not actually go to prevent displacement, but rather a very crafted and intentional community benefits agreement that we all got to chip, chip and chip our ideas into. So that flexibility has been super critical to us. And to be able to address the community needs having a community benefits agreement. We signed a community benefits agreement. We have something written. We have a commitment. We know that that is going to happen. That's super critical. And that those commitments were around increasing stability in the neighborhood. The the actual contribution, the $4.25 million that will go towards Tierra Collective, that is so significant to us. And it's not just because it's permanent affordability. It's because the collective is a movement driven by residents and Globeville and Elyria and Ciancia to build out the vision of the neighborhood and preserve affordability forever. So some of you may know how much homeownership has gone down in Globeville. There was a shift research lab study that said between 2015 and 2019, homeownership went from 61% to 36%. So that's a huge drop in homeownership. So it was important to the developers and important to us and other neighbors that they talked to to increase homeownership in the neighborhood. And that's something that we can do in theory, collectively.
Speaker 1: Thank you. That's the type.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Okay. We've got Anthony Syston, I think will be joining us online.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I can hear me. Yes. Yeah. I just want to chime in as a resident.
Speaker 8: Of Globeville and.
Speaker 0: Someone who's worked here for four.
Speaker 8: Years. I want to reiterate what Kelley, my neighbor, said.
Speaker 0: Earlier about the area. We really welcome this development and are really excited to see everything.
Speaker 8: That it can do to help take our community to the next step.
Speaker 0: Especially here on Farnsworth Island. And I would urge this bill's passage from Florida.
Speaker 1: All right. Would you if you wouldn't mind? Well, did we lose him? Is he still in there? Okay. I wanted him to go ahead and introduce himself for the public record. I know I called.
Speaker 0: Him, but. Yeah, my name is Anthony Stone.
Speaker 1: All right, great. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 1: All right. We're rounding out our fourth hearing tonight. That concludes our speakers questions from members of Council on Council Bill 1353. All right. We've got Councilman Flynn. You're up first.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Madam President. Is Tracy still on the meeting through Zoom? Thank you. I just have a brief question about the urban drainage and dura district, urban drainage district and Dura agreement. It looks like it says for all of the increment in property tax, so over and above what might be levied currently. I'm curious, does the agreement with urban drainage require the the developer to use any of that increment for flood control or for drainage? Or can it be used for any general purpose?
Speaker 5: Thank you for that question, Councilman. And I want to make sure that I also clarify that for all of the taxing entities, any amount that the site is currently generating in property tax, those amounts will continue to flow to all of the taxing entities. It is just the incremental taxes that Europe will be capturing when it comes to the amount of the increment that is attributable to the urban drainage mill. There is no limitation or requirement on what those funds must be used for. I will only add, though, that the part of the infrastructure will be drainage across the site, but there are no more requirements per the urban drainage agreement on how their portion of the increment is to be used.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Tracy. So it just goes into the that into the pool that the that is available?
Speaker 5: That is correct.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you. Councilmember Flynn, Councilmember Cashman.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Thank you, Madam President. Tracy, if you're still there.
Speaker 5: Yes, I am.
Speaker 0: Hi there. What's the difference? Remind me in what the TIFF funds will pay for. That is different than what the district funds pays for.
Speaker 5: Sure. That is another excellent question, Councilman. And I know it has been the source of some confusion. So the tax increment is expected to be used to reimburse the costs attributable to the offsite infrastructure that we have talked about, that larger regional infrastructure improvements, the onsite infrastructure needs, parks and open space, environmental remediation and publicly available parking . So those are the tax increment eligible costs. But part of the confusion that I think is coming about with the with the metropolitan district is it is the metropolitan district that will likely be the entity that contracts to have all of the infrastructure work be done. So to the extent the metropolitan district doesn't have immediately available funds, the developer will advance the money to the metropolitan district that then collectively the metropolitan district and the developer will look to the future tax increment as the source of repayment. So the metropolitan district will be undertaking much of this infrastructure. But the ultimate repayment source of those improvements that I outlined will come from the tax increment.
Speaker 0: The in my opinion, the developer is taking advantage of our obscenely low linkage fee. If if the linkage fee were to rise and that were applied to this development, would the difference then be made up in the TIFF program?
Speaker 5: Councilman. I think that is a question that is likely better answered by someone else in the audience, because the linkage fee, as I understand, has a has a very distinct need that is likely different than the infrastructure that we're talking about. So with all due respect, I'd ask that that question be put forward to someone else there in chambers.
Speaker 0: Good wine. And coming up, good evening Council Brad Whiting with the Department of Housing Stability. So answer your question. Councilman Cashman. The linkage fee is very much needs to be spent on the creation of new affordable housing. That's a that's a very specific use requirement of those funds. The way that this agreement is structured, should this be passed tonight, is that the developer for all nonresidential components would be paying 125% of today's current linkage fee for a period of 12 years, after which, whatever the linkage fee is in place at that time would then apply, as well as all of the on site affordability requirements that would be in place at that time would also come into effect after 12 years, but they have 12 years to work under this current negotiated agreement. So the amount of the linkage fee has no connection to either the Met District or the the tower. No, I assume that number comes into play in negotiations about what percentage of the property becomes affordable. Is that the only connection to linkage? Yes, it is. That's correct. But there's no direct linkage is a bad word. But that's just between the linkage fee or the initiative negotiated agreement at all. Okay, great. Thank you for that. And then that's all for you. We appreciate that. And last question is for someone on the development team. They're trying to get an idea of how much you'll be spending on the elements in the community benefits agreement, the land, land trust, etc.. Yeah. Good evening, Councilman Cashman. Yes. So our whole housing program and proposal encompasses a lot of it has had a lot of tools, so. Sorry, it has a lot of legs. One of which is the housing assistance program on the Housing Assistance Program will be directing $2 million to help the community with rental assistance, property tax assistance , security deposit assistance and other rehabilitation projects. And we will also direct $4.25 million into the Perpetual Affordability Housing Program with Terra Collective and. And. And the Coalition and Habitat for Humanity. As well as that we are creating 7% affordable housing on site of which 25% is going to be at 60% EMI and the remaining 75% is going to be at 80% EMI. We are also going to pay 125% out of linkage fee on all of the commercial spaces. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Could we go ahead and have you introduce yourself for the public record?
Speaker 0: Yes, I'm another few minutes.
Speaker 1: All right. Great. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Cashman Council.
Speaker 4: Sawyer thinks that I'm president. Just wanted to clarify, and I'm not sure who I'm asking. I think maybe Brad, you are who I'm asking in terms of the affordable housing agreement. Does that then run with the land? Sorry. I didn't really give you time to get.
Speaker 0: Brad riding with the Department of Housing Stability again. Yes, it does.
Speaker 4: Okay, great. Thanks. Thanks, Madam President.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you. Council Councilmember Swire seeing no other questions from members of council. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 1353 council members say to Baca.
Speaker 3: Again, this is not to denounce the developers or the plan. This is to denounce the tool and our inability to protect or create protective policy for the surrounding areas. That will change in value because of this project when it's complete. So I will not be supporting this tonight. This doesn't happen very often where my vote does not match the community's vote. But I recall these same conversations just down the street in my district when we did the tiff for Welton Street. And, you know, it looks good. It sounds good, but we don't have the protective policies in place to protect a neighborhood when we're making these very big changes. And the size of this project is so much bigger than the other projects that we have financed through TIFF. And so I just want the community to know that, you know, this is complicated and it's not the plan or the developers that's the issue. It's the tool, the financing mechanism that has it. We haven't caught up with protective policies to go with it. So I will be in on this tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember CdeBaca, Councilmember Hines.
Speaker 8: Thank you. Council president. I want to be as open and transparent as I can. I would agree with my colleagues that our linkage fee is dreadfully low. So developers will be supporting increasing our link with linkage fee as the conversation continues. Also, to be transparent, I don't want to hold off all development until we come up with these agreements. Our city, we should shape our growth and our city is growing. I'm glad that it's growing. I hope that that we get a better linkage. We sometimes just wanted to put that all in the record so that I'm being as open and transparent as possible. Thank you. Council President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Haines. Councilmember Sandoval.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. I would just like to thank the development team for coming. Even though this development is in northwest Denver, we share the railroad tracks and they spent several hours in meetings and came back to my community when there was confusion numerous times to meet with the Sunnyside neighborhood and how it would impact them. And I would also like to acknowledge the commitment for the infrastructure need that is desperately needed to connect Northwest Denver to this part of Globeville. And if it rains, you can't get to this neighborhood. You have the 38 bathtub that literally I have seen cars float in and I have been told by the city that it's in . We can't we don't have the funding to fix it because it's BNSF, the rail yard responsibility. And so with this tax increment financing, the ability to actually have a bridge go either north or go west and connect this area with my council district. Northwest Denver, I think is something that is desperately needed and is called out in the 41st and Fox station area plan, which I wish could be updated because that plan is so antiquated that all calls for tons of density in this neighborhood. Yet we don't have the car trips, meaning you can't have anything redevelop in this neighborhood because you can't have the cars. Meaning if there's a flood, you can't get there from 38th. And the 44th Street Bridge over I-70 is antiquated and needs updating. And this will also bring that project up to speed. So I do offer my support, but I do also understand the need to make sure that we have developers working with our community. And I will say. I started as an aide in Council District nine in 2012, and I have sat through four different developers on this site , and none of them have worked with the global community. None of them. None of them talk to them. None of them work with them. None of them asked what we needed. When we got the general development plan, which we don't do anymore, passed. None of them talk to the community who is desperately in need of this. And so I just want to say thank you for the community and the developer coming together and showing your offering, your support for something that has been languishing for a long time. I grew up and it was the Denver Post site, and I really do believe that redevelopment needs to occur here. And it's a smart place. I don't know how many of you know this, the first stop to Union Station, and I don't know how many of you in this room take that stop. I will admit I do not. It is scary crossing that bridge from Inka at night by myself. I don't like it. It doesn't feel safe. And as a woman, I often think about my safety in the built environment. And I really believe that this this urban renewal will actually create more safe environments for women to walk in, for us to be able to use transit oriented development. I know we talk about transit oriented development often, but as a woman living here at night when the sun sets at 426, it's not always easy for me to hop on a bike and drive through a neighborhood and have to get home in the dark. So I don't just end on thank you for this and I understand the need for all of the money going into this project. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember Sandoval. Councilmember Cashman.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam President. I'm struggling with the numbers. If I've done my math, we've approved between the Met District and the the turf about a half a billion dollars and about 6,000,006 and a quarter million is going back into the community, 125% of an obscenely low linkage fee and 7% affordable housing. I'm also hearing a lot of positive thanks from the community for improvements that will be made on the site. For the benefit of people on the site and off the site. So I'm just struggling a little bit here. It sounds to me like the city is going to get a lot of benefit out of what gets built. But I really believe this developer is walking away with a sweetheart deal. So I don't know that we'd get what we're getting without this type of trade off. But but I am struggling here for a minute. So we'll see how the rest of the chatter goes.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. I will be brief with my comments. You all know that I always raise the issue of proximity to rail. This particular site is actually buffered by our commuter rail. That is our RTD. You know, transportation district properties on the West Side are closer actually than than this site for folks who are developing that don't have that kind of buffering. So that's why you didn't hear me raising a bunch of questions about proximity to railroad on this particular development. I also wanted to share with you all that when the Stapleton development came before this body, there was $300 million of tax increment financing that went into that project and that also offset the cost of infrastructure. They committed eight acres of the totality of the land on that site that went towards affordable housing. But it's not unusual in these big sites. And again, without the financing tools that the city has available, we otherwise would not see the development. It's why there have been different developers who have worked at this site that were not able to make the financing work. At that time, those developers also were not asked to build another road. Actually, two roads as well as redo the entire intersection at 38, Fox 25 and Park Avenue, which is part of what's going to be happening with the combination of funding that will be part of this project. It's also not typical that we see all these different funding sources come at the same time. Many of these projects, the rezoning is is on a different schedule from the district, which is different from the financing. And in this case, we're seeing it all at once, which is the way it used to be done before this body, when we saw, you know, not only Stapleton, but some of our other larger developments like Lowry, those all came forward at the same time. And we also got to see much more detail of what was going to be developed on those sites. So I just want to thank this developer for going that extra mile with the Coalville residents. I know he they also talked to the Sunnyside community. And the fact that everybody knows Jose Manuel on a first name basis tells you that level of commitment that they made in working with these communities. So I know that they're not here just to get this passed and to be out of these neighborhoods. They're in it for the long haul. So I'll be supporting this tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember Ortega. Councilmember Kinney.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Council President. I will not restate the entire history that I went over in committee, but I just think it is critical to identify why the revisions that we will vote on after this particular vote to the redevelopment agreement or the development agreement between the city and the site were so important in terms of moving from zero zero units on the property to a significant percentage of affordability on the property, in addition to linkage fee dollars that come to the city, in addition to dollars for housing that go to the community. I've spent a lot of time talking with my colleague, Councilman Cashman, and understand his discomfort on one level. But I really think it's critical if we are going to say. That we want community benefits and we then don't accept or have consternation over the types of benefits that are most important to a community. Then I'm concerned about the message we're sending. In this case, the community is more concerned with and pushed hard for dollars that promote stability for existing residents over affordable units for new residents. And the developer responded and we have more units on the site, more homes on the site than we would have had under the prior agreements, but fewer than we might have seen in a different agreement, because millions of dollars are being spent on stability and homeownership just off the site. This is a large development area, and I don't think we need to be using formulas in large development areas. Some sites we do want to dedicate land for deeply affordable. Some sites that are in the area that's had a loss of homeownership, these types of stability investments might be necessary. I am looking forward to having a formulaic approach with our inclusionary housing debate that we'll have early next year, but that approach will be for single buildings. It's probably not going to be the best way to determine the housing outcome on a particular large redevelopment area. Those areas are too large, they have too much opportunity, and they need to be able to think about those subtleties with the community. And so I support this agreement because it is responsive to the housing investments that are most important to this community collectively. I just cannot accept the focus only on onsite units because that's not been what's prioritized. So so I think it is an important improvement over the prior city agreement. It is important responsiveness and it is a robust it's a robust investment that I would argue is on par with other investments made at other large redevelopment sites, even though those sites only were focused really on the on site units, they were focused less on these other components. But if you add them up together, it's robust. And so for me, it's the it's both the substance of the agreement and the principle that I support community responsive, large area development plans and that I need to stand with the community when those come forward. So I will be supporting this tonight and I do urge my colleagues to do so as well, because this is a precedent we want to continue. If we're going to see these types of efforts succeed, we as a council need to support them. So so if you know, both on the substance and as well, the precedent that it's important to have responsive dialogs that are true. Three party dialogs, right? Community and developer and city. Right. The first deal was so bad because it was city and developer alone and it didn't include that third prong. This one's better because it did. And that that is an important precedent for us to stand behind. So with that, I'll be happy to support this tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Koinange. And I'll go ahead and go ahead with my comments. I would really like to thank the community who spoke tonight. It's not usual that we have this much consensus between community members, the developers and these agreements. And I really want to thank everybody for the ongoing work that they did to get us here to this position tonight. And I am happy to support this as well. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 1353, please see tobacco.
Speaker 2: No. Clarke.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 2: Flynn.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 8: I'm fine. All right.
Speaker 0: Catherine they very hesitant, i.
Speaker 3: Kenny Ortega, I. Sandoval. I saw you. I saw Torres. I. Black eye. Madam President.
Speaker 1: I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 3: One May 12 US.
Speaker 1: 12 I's Council Bill 21 Dash 1353 has passed. Thank you to the community members and others who joined us. And now we are on to our final hearing of the night. Councilmember Ortega, would you please put Council Bill 21, Dash 13, the.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance approving the Fox Park Urban Redevelopment Plan, the creation of the Fox Park Urban Redevelopment Area and the Fox Park Property Tax Increment Area and Sales Tax Increment Area.
Approves the Fox Park Urban Redevelopment Plan authorizing the creation of an Urban Redevelopment Area and sales and property tax increment areas in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 11-9-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11292021_21-1182
|
Speaker 1: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 3: When they told us.
Speaker 1: 12 eyes count the bill 21 dash 1352 has passed, and now we can release the folks that were seen here for that hearing and the others. We are now on to our final hearing of the evening. Councilmember Ortega, will you please put Council Bill 1182 on the floor for publication?
Speaker 2: Absolutely. This is the one many of you have all been waiting for. Madam President, I move that council bill 21, dash 1180 to be ordered published.
Speaker 1: Thank you. And we've got a motion. And the second. Councilmember Flynn. Your motion to amend.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Madam President. So, just so folks know, there will be a public hearing before there's a vote on this amendment, but we're making the amendment first. So you know what you can comment on. I move that council bill 21, dash 1182, be amended in the following particulars. One on page two, line 28, ad or menthol.
Speaker 0: After other.
Speaker 9: Than the taste or smell of tobacco. Two on page two, line 30, strike menthol.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Flynn. It has been moved and seconded comments by members of Council on the amendment. Councilmember Flynn.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Madam President. This amendment leaves menthol flavored tobacco products out of the. Out of the tobacco. The flavored tobacco ban.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Flynn. Councilmember Black.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam President. It's my intent to bring forward a Second Amendment tonight that would exempt specialty basic shops and tobacco stores from the flavor ban.
Speaker 1: All right, thank you, Councilmember Black. Councilmember Cashman.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam President. It's my intention to bring forth an amendment tonight that if the flavored ban bill passes, that the date of implementation be changed from July 1st of 20 to to July 1st of 2023.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you. Council member Cashman. The 30 minute courtesy public hearing for Council Bill 1182 is open. Speakers may address the bill as well as any or all of the offered or intended amendments tonight. And we'd like to have the staff report and we will have Councilmember Sawyer. Go ahead and give the presentation.
Speaker 4: Thanks, Madam President. Due to the fact that we have done three community outreach meetings, three committees, 20 meetings with councils, with council members, and at least 40 meetings with the members of the public, small business owners, lobbyists, etc.. We're just going to go ahead and skip that tonight and move on. Thanks.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Sawyer. And this evening, we have scheduled a half an hour, 30 minutes for speakers. We have 41 individuals signed up to speak tonight. And so I would ask that if you don't need to use your 3 minutes for your comments, that you be brief and allow others to use that time as well so that we can hear from as many speakers as possible. Let's see, we are going to go ahead and start now and we have in chambers Brian Fertik. If I mispronounce your name, you can correct me, Brian.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam President. My name is Brian Voytek. I'm a Denver resident speaking on behalf of the National Association of Tobacco Outlets and hundreds of Denver member stores. Youth smoking and smokeless tobacco use have been declining for decades. Both are at historic lows. Recently released, FDA data demonstrates that youth vaping has declined 60% over the last two years to levels lower than 2014 seven years ago. Paid advocacy groups are attempting to use legitimate concern about youth vaping to ban thousands of products that youth are not using that have nothing to do with vaping. Additionally, majority of independent convenience store and gas station owners are women, immigrants, people of color, and people for whom English is not a first language. These businesses have experienced significant losses in fuel and in store sales. These women and minority owned businesses that were essential in Denver in 2020 should not be forgotten in 2021, according to the National Youth Tobacco Survey Survey. 86 to 90% of the time, youth do not acquire products from retailers, but from older family members and friends. There's no rational basis to believe this ordinance will reduce youth access. It may actually increase it, and the effort has failed everywhere it's been tried. Even more concerning are three recently published peer reviewed studies demonstrating that when enacted, these flavor bans have resulted in increased smoking among youth and young adults. That would be a horrible outcome from a public health perspective that will fix anything, only make things worse. This ordinance will result in local women and minority owned businesses closing. That will result in businesses leaving Denver. It will result in Denver ites losing jobs and it will be a windfall for retailers located outside Denver. It is our hope that the city council rejects this massive expansion of the failed deadly war on drugs. We hope that instead of pursuing bans that don't work, the council instead focuses on age verification, compliance penalties and on multilingual education for retailers and stops crushing minority owned neighborhood businesses. This ordinance is patronizing and elitist. Adult African-Americans and Hispanics in Denver do not need a nanny and city hall. We believe that people of color are capable of thinking and making decisions for themselves, and they should be allowed the right to do so legally. It is our hope that reasonable members can come together and at least mitigate the damage this ordinance will cause, particularly to people of color in Denver. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Our next speaker in chambers is Mary Zamora. And then our next speaker in chambers is Scott Alderman and then Alberta Simmons. So that you can get ready. Go ahead, please.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. And thank you, counsel. My name is Mary Zama. I'm with one of the owners of Smoker Friendly. We're a fifth generation Colorado family owned business. We have six locations here in Denver with over 30 employees. This proposed ordinance has had many has many flaws. And it's very disturbing the way the process has gone through, being jammed down our throat as business people. I was here three times to speak at the committee hearings and.
Speaker 1: Finally got to speak tonight. So thank you for that. I didn't get to speak at any of those.
Speaker 2: I just have a couple of things because I've written to you all a few times, but today.
Speaker 1: I wrote you kind of.
Speaker 2: A detailed note. But I, I want you to know that this type of ordinance does have a financial impact on both your city and your retailers and the employees of those retailers. Denver has not provided a full financial impact study, which I think is irresponsible, to say the least. As a retailer, I can tell you each of our stores sales will plummet. We will have to pull over 1000 products off of the shelves if an ordinance like this was passed. We have a case study because we have a store in Glenwood Springs. And after a similar ordinance was passed in Glenwood Springs, our location sales are down by 72%. We've laid off four of our six employees, and quite frankly, the only reason the store remains open is that our landlord made us a great deal on rent and begged us to stay so that he didn't have an empty spot. So we will stay through the end of the lease. But I just want. You do know that this is a truthful, real world case study that happened within an ordinance just.
Speaker 1: Like you're looking at.
Speaker 2: Tonight. With that, I'd be happy to answer any questions, but I don't want to take more time. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Our next speaker is Scott Alderman.
Speaker 0: Good evening, city council members. My name is Scott Alderman and I am the District One Director for the Denver Public Schools Board of Education. I'm delivering the proclamation from the Board of Education that received the unanimous support of the full restrictions on flavored tobacco at our November 18th board meeting, the proclamation reads. Whereas the Denver City Council's voting to amend ordinance Article nine, Chapter 24, the RNC to restrict the sale of flavored tobacco products. And. Whereas, flavored tobacco products are on the rise and have created a youth nicotine addiction epidemic. And. Whereas, tobacco companies in recent years have significantly stepped up the introduction and marketing of other flavored tobacco products, particularly e-cigarettes and cigars, as well as smokeless tobacco and hookah. And. Whereas, flavored e-cigarettes are undermining the nation's overall efforts to reduce or reduce youth tobacco use and putting a new generation of kids at risk of nicotine addiction and the serious health harms that result from the tobacco from tobacco use. And. Whereas, tobacco companies, market products and many kid friendly flavors such as gummy bear, berry blend, chocolate, peach, cotton candy, strawberry and grape. And. Whereas, flavors play a major role in youth use of e-cigarettes because they match the taste of tobacco and make it easier for new users to initiate use. And. WHEREAS, the campaign to the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids States, a 25.9% of Colorado high school students accuse e-cigarettes. In 1400, students become new daily smokers each year. And. WHEREAS, Published research studies have found that kids are twice as sensitive to tobacco advertising as adults and are more likely to be influenced to smoke a cigaret marketing than by peer pressure. One third of underage experimentation with smoking is attributable to tobacco company advertising. Now therefore be proclaimed. The Board of Education for Denver Public Schools supports ending the sale of all flavored tobacco products in all locations in the city and county of Denver. I also want to mention the DPS Healthy Kids Colorado survey provided by our Superintendents office. So first, there has been a large increase in vaping among DPS students the past eight years. In 2013, 11.5% of our students had tried vaping in 2019. That is that number is now 39.9% regarding smoking. 6% of DPS high school students have smoked cigarets in the past 30 days. Of the of the students who have smoked in the past 30 days. 35.6% have used menthol cigarets. And I have been instructed to emphasize that the City Council should not make an exemption for menthol in their flavor ban. Thank you for doing the right thing for our youth by ending the sale flavored.
Speaker 1: Ticketed free speaker. Next up, we have Alberta Simmons, followed by Philip Goren and Arthur Way.
Speaker 9: Good afternoon. Members of the City Council. You know, politics is one thing, but life is something else. And. Last week. This time I buried my brother. And today I found out that my sister passed. So. And I want you to know that both of them signed the petition that says do not put a ban on menthol cigarets . At some point.
Speaker 0: City council.
Speaker 9: You all are going to have to come to the realization that black folks got all my we can think we're not going to give people of young people cigarets or cigars or anything. You have them like zipped premium cigars, which all white men with money smoke. You have this hoopla by calling it a courtroom thing. But you are fighting the exemption for menthol, which is also a cultural thing because 90% of black people, men and women, smoke menthol cigarets. What are you going to do? You go. Next thing you go do chores. As black people, we can't eat collard greens because that's a cultural thing. I mean, at the end of the day, you talk about fairness. You've got to be fair. You talk about equity. You've got to be equitable. You've got to treat us as if we are equal, both as we as black folks, as we are. Our constituents get treated like you do when you come to our community and ask for our votes.
Speaker 0: You got to treat it the same way.
Speaker 9: And at the end of the day, all we ask is that you do not ban menthol cigarets let us choose as black people. Let us choose what we want to do as adults. But we certainly don't want kids smoking cigars, cigarets anything like that. I agree with you on that. But I also agree that you've got to give us leave us with our choice. And our choice is to give out menthol cigarets menthol products a chance. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Our next speaker in chambers is Phillip Goren, followed by Arthur Wei. And then we're going to move online to Dr. Dimmer is the first person online. Go ahead, please.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam President. And thank you, esteemed members of City Council. I appreciate this opportunity to speak until green. I own mixed up on Ivy and Colfax. I have been in business in Mayfair for 29.
Speaker 2: Years and.
Speaker 0: That is a lot of paying taxes. I want you to know that I'm proud to be from Denver, born and raised, same neighborhood. My I'm proud to be a father to my 11 year old daughter. Goes to the same school that I went to. I'm also proud that I've helped thousands of people stop smoking cigarets. I'm also mostly proud that kids don't get.
Speaker 2: Vapes from mixed up. From me.
Speaker 0: We all agree that children should not vape. I think that more should be done at home and in the schools. Things should be enforced. Things should be a lot stricter. There's a lot of things in the world that in the adult world that kids should not take part in. And bad words is one of those things. That's why movies and videogames are age restricted. I've heard a lot of horrible responses about what we're trying to do to stop kids from vaping in the bathrooms, in schools, and from the council itself. And honestly, I went to Emmanuel High School and hearing that they took all the stalls out of the bathrooms and it hurts my feelings like in a in a serious way and like we can do better for our kids.
Speaker 2: And this ban doesn't fix that.
Speaker 0: I've heard from the council that we want to lead as a city.
Speaker 2: Then let's not follow San Francisco.
Speaker 0: Colorado has always been somewhere geographically between Texas and California. And Coloradans, we know.
Speaker 2: We're like a mixture of Texas.
Speaker 0: And Colorado.
Speaker 2: And that's what makes us the coolest state in the union. A dodgy flavored vape products.
Speaker 0: To quit smoking.
Speaker 2: Cigarets.
Speaker 0: I've smoked.
Speaker 2: Cigarets.
Speaker 0: I have vague. Sometimes you get an urge for a cigaret. Maybe it was something you drank. Maybe something that you ate. Maybe it's something you remember. And instead of smoking a cigaret, I have the choice as an adult to use a flavored vape product.
Speaker 2: And I like flavored vapes. I don't like tobacco flavor.
Speaker 0: A ban would have a huge negative impact on our community. Everybody's heard of loosies. The police have choked people to death for selling loosies loose cigarets. If you think loose these were a problem, imagine the problem on the streets.
Speaker 2: With vapes and then your kids will be getting these things.
Speaker 0: From.
Speaker 2: Dealers and peddling things that are not safe.
Speaker 0: We're proprietors. We we are the centurions that look out for our communities. We're the ones that make sure that kids don't have these products. History has taught us that bands don't work. And this is just one more example, and I don't want to hear that vapes are the gateway drug to Cigarets. That's ridiculous. That's what they told.
Speaker 2: Us about marijuana. And every single study has proven that wrong.
Speaker 0: And they we legalize marijuana. And actually the voters did that, not city council. And it was the right decision. Please.
Speaker 2: No ban. Thank you. And I'd ask.
Speaker 1: You end up taking time from other speakers if we have folks clapping. So I'd ask that you not do that so that we can hear as many members as we can in our half an hour. Arthur Way.
Speaker 8: Thank you. Council President Art Wei, Drug Policy Consultant I've spoken to many of you on behalf of clients within the marijuana equity space. I want to thank you for your positive votes there. I've also spoken to you all for clients regarding this issue of flavored tobacco bans. Based on my experience, 15 years as a drug policy reformer, police accountability advocate. These type of bans bother me for three specific reasons. First, and specific to menthol, Cigarets is patronizing. There's no other way around it. What we're basically saying is if you came to this habit from the Marlboro Man or from Camel Joe, the cartoon or from the beautiful skinny white ladies of Virginia Slims, we're not worried about you. We think you can handle your health. But if you came to this habit, do a Billy Dee Williams or Miles Davis in a Newport ad. We need to intervene because you're just a consumer and you have no idea how to take care of yourself. And it's disrespectful to a certain extent and to a large degree, and it's bothersome. I know proponents will say that, well, menthol is the starter and it's harder to quit. But that data is weak that that that is seriously weak and just not as strong as the data that shows that these bans create more problems than they're worth. I'll remind you all that the broader health care inequities that the black community faces is problems that I wish the African-American public health people who are behind these bans would instead deal with, instead of dealing with the results of the broader determinants of public health that my community faces. The second problem I have with these things is they are a typical drug war soccer mom, knee jerk reaction. The focus is only on the supply and does not for the demand at all the places where these things have passed. There are no provisions to do anything for the users. It's all about how can we punish the sellers? And in this case, the sellers that you're punishing are the mom and pop tobacco harm reduction, just that, a settlement based in the local Denver economy. You're not punishing big tobacco with these bans. They're going to make their money whether their product is sold legal or illegal. Lastly, if you want to really lead on this issue, you will dove into the issue of marketing and promotion. That's why we're here in the first place, right? We're mad at the way big tobacco marketed and promoted their products. If you want to lead on this issue, see what you can do about further restrict the marketing and promotion. See if you see if you could get $1,000,000 earmark from Michael Bloomberg, who's funding these campaigns to put into our communities and specifically educate our communities about how the tobacco industry has been. There are other ways to lead on this issue. Many of you all are better than this. This is not a way to lead. Thank you so much.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Our next speaker, we're going to go online. We've got Dr. Demeure online and then Angela Garcia, followed by Sarah Barnes.
Speaker 2: Good evening, everyone.
Speaker 3: My name is Dr. Timothy Dimer. Tonight, I. I'm here as a pediatric specialist with Kaiser Permanente.
Speaker 2: As a black woman. And as a mother. I'm here to provide and highlight some information that I think we all know. And then as grown adults, we can make a decision for our community. So as a pediatrician, I can attest to the youth e-cigarette epidemic that the U.S. surgeon general identified just a few years ago. The tobacco industry has done a fantastic job making kids believe that there is nothing harmful in e-cigarettes with enticing flavors like watermelon, raw, cotton, candy and bubblegum. For many children, this appealing flavors and the abundance of variety of flavors might be the only reason they actually vape.
Speaker 3: With this innocuous flavors.
Speaker 2: It's no wonder that when I learned from my patients, children, about the deadly carcinogens in the flavored vapes, they're smoking, they're completely unaware and astounded. And this is even more true of mental flavored cigarets. For decades, the tobacco industry intentionally targeted communities of color, which has resulted in disproportionate tobacco use and adverse health outcomes. Menthol is a key tool that big tobacco is used to make this happen. African-Americans only make up 12% of the US population, but account for 41% of smoking related premature deaths. Tobacco companies know that almost all tobacco users begin their addiction as children, and menthol flavors help menthol masks the harshness and irritation caused by tobacco smoke, making it easier for kids to experiment with tobacco use and become addicted.
Speaker 4: About half of all.
Speaker 2: High school smokers use menthol cigarets. Preference for Newports, which is the menthol Cigarets, stands for and is even higher among black users because of predatory marketing. As the gentleman earlier mentioned, the prevalence of mental use is highest among black smokers. In the 1950s, less than 10% of black smokers use menthol cigarets. Today, after decades of tobacco industry targeting, that number is 85%. We cannot afford to wait for what will likely be years before the FDA finalizing implements the necessary regulations around menthol and flavored tobacco products. The inevitable tobacco industry lawsuits could even cause more delays. All the while, black lives continue to be exploited for profit.
Speaker 4: So as.
Speaker 2: A mom.
Speaker 4: And a physician, I ask you to.
Speaker 2: All do the right thing. I think eventually we're going to have to stand up to the tobacco industry because they purposefully tried to hook children. All the children in our communities to an addictive substance. So thank you for your time. Then consider voting yes in favor of the ordinance to restrict the sale of flavors tobacco, including menthol. Number.
Speaker 4: We'll go to Angela Garcia online. Sarah Barnes online.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President, and council members.
Speaker 4: My name is Sarah Barnes, and I'm the manager of.
Speaker 2: Special policy initiatives at the Colorado.
Speaker 4: Children's Campaign. The children's campaign supports the ban of flavored nicotine products because Colorado's youth vaping rate continues to be.
Speaker 2: Very high in relation to the rest of the country. And we.
Speaker 4: Know that flavored.
Speaker 2: Products, including e-cigarettes and cigars, are appealing to and highly utilized by youth. 81% of kids who've ever used.
Speaker 4: Tobacco started with a flavored.
Speaker 2: Product, and youth overwhelmingly.
Speaker 4: Cite flavors as a major reason for their tobacco.
Speaker 0: Use.
Speaker 2: This includes menthol flavored products as nearly.
Speaker 4: 50% of.
Speaker 2: Youth, ages 12.
Speaker 4: To 17.
Speaker 2: Who smoke traditional cigarets use menthol. In addition, because youth often get access to nicotine products through an adult who purchases for them, it's important that flavored nicotine products also be banned and age restricted stores banning the sale of nicotine products as a critical way to reduce the youth use of nicotine, which negatively impacts their health and.
Speaker 4: Also harms their developing brains. We urge your support of this policy, and I thank you for your time. We'll go to Hyman out in my online.
Speaker 3: We'll go to Kailash Karki online.
Speaker 2: Now we'll go.
Speaker 3: To Terry Richardson.
Speaker 4: In chambers. Thank you. Members of the council. I'm Dr. Terry Richardson, an internal medicine physician.
Speaker 2: And the vice chair of the Colorado Black Health Collaborative. And I'm passionate about health.
Speaker 4: And achieving health equity. Some of what I'm going to.
Speaker 5: Say you've heard already.
Speaker 4: But I'm going to say it again.
Speaker 2: I'm here today to support the ordinance ending the sale of.
Speaker 4: All flavored tobacco products, including menthol. Menthol, as you know, makes it easier to start smoking and harder to quit. But menthol and other flavors are especially.
Speaker 2: Appealing to youth.
Speaker 4: These products, while they may.
Speaker 2: Mask the harsh.
Speaker 4: Taste of nicotine, are not sweet.
Speaker 2: They are highly addictive, especially for youth and people of color who are heavily marketed by big tobacco, menthol, tobacco and other flavored products should be banned, so they are no longer used by tobacco companies to lure.
Speaker 4: African-American and other children to become lifelong smokers. This ordinance gives our youth a chance to.
Speaker 2: Be tobacco free and healthy. Bar flavor.
Speaker 0: Should be.
Speaker 4: Banned to prevent.
Speaker 2: Disproportionate disease and death attributable to long term use of these cancer states. And I did that because people were being rude. So anyway, let me go on. There are some that would like to exempt menthol from the flavors ban. This whole debate on exempting menthol products is not about doing the right thing. It has nothing to do with choice. Everyone knows that banning menthol is the right thing to do.
Speaker 4: But the issue is that profit.
Speaker 2: Is being put before people in public health. Big Tobacco has spent decades pushing these products on young, black, LGBTQ and other marginalized communities. Menthol, tobacco and other flavored tobacco products should be banned so they no longer can be used to lure African-American and other children become lifelong smokers. Also, I think it's important to note that menthol tobacco is not a part of black culture. This misperception was created by tobacco companies that use black smokers as guinea pigs to protect their products and marketing strategies. And I want to dispel another myth Black people will not be arrested for smoking menthol products once they are banned. The players ban ordinance is not focused on individual consumer possession. Black people are profiled and stopped by police due to the color of their skin, not because the brand of the tobacco product they may be smoking. CPAC has heard from our community and will continue to advocate and fight on behalf of the community to ensure that flavored tobacco products, including menthol, are banned.
Speaker 4: Saving lives. Truly saving lives is the end game.
Speaker 2: Please put people and public health before politics and profit. Let us do the right thing and save lives. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Our next speaker in chambers is Joe Miller. Maloney. And then we have Raymond Smith and Cornelius Wright.
Speaker 8: Madam President, esteemed members of the Denver City Council, John McCloskey, former Colorado Democratic state representative and current consultant.
Speaker 0: To 21 mom and pop.
Speaker 8: Small, responsible vaping stores that truly have helped thousands of adults wean off smoking more harmful cigarets. I pass out a presentation. I'd like to.
Speaker 0: Briefly review some interesting pieces of background information first.
Speaker 8: Did you know there's about 7000 chemicals in a single cigaret? About 93 of which are known carcinogens like.
Speaker 0: Charcoal and tar in the vaping.
Speaker 8: Products that my 21 small business stores in the city and county Denver sell. There's about 12 major ingredients, no charcoal and no tar. We've helped thousands of adults not be part of the deadly statistic. We're 480,000 Americans die in the United States of America through cigaret smoking. 96% of our sales are to adults with flavored vaping products because it helps them forget the disgusting cigaret smell. If you remove 96% of the company's profits, they would definitely go bankrupt and out of business. On Slide four, the presentation I sent you. On the left.
Speaker 0: Side, we sell the large, bulkier, more.
Speaker 8: Expensive open tank devices, not the small, discreet dual devices that you'll see in schools.
Speaker 0: The next few slides go through how 14 highly respected international and domestic health care organizations have all.
Speaker 8: Acknowledged the research, the websites and white papers that flavored vaping products have helped adults wean off smoking more harmful cigarets. There's numerous differences between the products that my 21 client small business stores sell and what George sells.
Speaker 0: When you walk into one of our stores, we start you at 25 milligrams of nicotine, half the amount.
Speaker 8: Of what George sells. We wind you down to eight, nine, six three, even zero.
Speaker 0: Milligrams of nicotine. One third of our clients have zero milligrams of nicotine and the average age is 42. The next few slides talk.
Speaker 8: About economic impact as well as about the ISO safety standards that we employ.
Speaker 0: As well as all of the.
Speaker 8: Regulatory standards to make sure you still access our products. But I'm telling you, go to any resource officer at any Denver high school or junior high where they hold up the oversize Ziploc bag of confiscated vaping products. Those aren't my clients products. It's interesting. On November 17th, we had a lot of debate about people passing on from smoking cigarets and I thought a lot about my uncle Norm, who smoked 31 years in Michigan and died of heart failure and many of the tragic situations that the council president and Councilman Sandoval talked about, their loved ones. And I really believe that if vaping products would have existed for adults years.
Speaker 0: Ago, he'd be alive today. We have to meet people.
Speaker 8: Where they're at. It's why Great Britain and other countries have utilized flavored vaping. Help adults wean off smoking more harmful cigarets. I encourage you to vote for the age restricted amendment and thank you for your time, Counsel.
Speaker 1: And thank you. And our next speaker in chambers is Raymond Smith. Raymond Smith. Okay. Cornelius Right.
Speaker 8: Good evening, City Council. I'm Cornelius. Right. And I own a cigar.
Speaker 0: Lounge in the great district in Chris Hines. And I'm here today because I understood that there was an amendment for cigars. And with that, I could just go my way and say thank you. But I keep hearing menthol, menthol, menthol. And it just it just kept me up at night because I remember as a child growing up in an inner city, and I remember asking my father, Why don't you just buy a house over there? Today, those houses are worth a lot more. He looked down at me and he said I couldn't buy a house over in that area during that time. Engage me, if you will. A person that's been in Park Hill his entire life paying taxes. Walks into a convenience store. Followed by any person of any other race who probably is visiting Denver, Colorado. That person goes in. 80 to 90% of the time, the cigarets that they want are on the shelf. 80 to 90% of the time.
Speaker 9: The African-American will be told.
Speaker 4: That.
Speaker 0: You have to go.
Speaker 8: Over to another.
Speaker 9: County to get your cigarets. There's something about that that just isn't right.
Speaker 0: An adult has the means to make a choice. And I understand when it comes to health. Well, if that's the case.
Speaker 9: What about the rest of the cigarets? I know we're not having that conversation today.
Speaker 0: What about the rest of the cigarets that are on the shelves? Do we move on to the health food? No, we don't. So if this is not a targeting, if this is not something that focuses on the African-American community. Then let's make it about youth in my business. We are responsible. We have a new Denver and county license now. We have to abide by the penalties are raised. There's also.
Speaker 8: Training. All of my employees go through it. I think we should put the safety.
Speaker 0: Of the youth in the forefront and not expound upon a race.
Speaker 8: Conscious element. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. We're going to go ahead. We've hit our 30 minute mark, but I'm going to go ahead and go through the short list of speakers in this in this tranche of folks that we have here in chambers. And then we'll go ahead and have council members ask questions and we'll continue with the hearing. Next up, we've got Raymond Smith. Raymond Smith. All right. Sharif Saleem. Sharif Saleem. Monica Van Drew Scott. Correct me if I mispronounce your last name.
Speaker 2: Hello. My name is Monica Vandross. I'm a small vape shop.
Speaker 4: Owner here in Denver. I'm 38th between.
Speaker 2: Navajo and Mariposa. It has become clear to me that some may see the lives of vapers as expendable. But I don't. But I want to assure you that is not true. Each one deserves the right to less harmful alternative to Cigarets. It's people like my husband, my mother, who has been a closet smoker for over 30 years, and the customers that I have had a rough year asking us for help when they went back to smoke. All our valuable people who quit smoking using flavored vapor products. And these are the only people who are going to be affected. Without the age restricted amendment. It does nothing to stop the Snapchat bathtub manufacturers. It does nothing to stop adult only products from showing up in the mail over a year and a half after statewide sales. It does nothing but leave responsible business owners like me with no history of selling to miners out of business. You said that you put all these new measures into place to help miners stay off of Combusts or stay off of vaping products. You took my money for licensing. You refused to enforce these new laws. And your only solution? The solution is to ban me out of business. It's completely unacceptable. It's unacceptable to stand in the way of adult smokers who want to quit using flavors. It's unacceptable to say that the gum with a 6% success rate or patch and a 9% success rate is a viable option for smokers and then ban flavored vapor that is at least twice as effective. It is unacceptable to say this leaves room for a sensation when this legislation is written in a way that requires vapor products to go through just double jeopardy process. It is unacceptable to imply that my business plan includes a 90 day closure, a $5,000 fine just to sell my Myers, which is the furthest thing from the truth. I've heard the phrase selling to minors to the next generation.
Speaker 3: Too many times to count.
Speaker 2: If you walk into any vape shop and ask the owner that something doesn't even make sense. Not for a second. There is no next generation. There is only smokers. The 4080 480,000 people who die of a year of smoking to start big tobacco, but without a strict amendment for shops. Big tobacco is going to be the only one left. No more independent vape shops.
Speaker 1: More often we have a lot of reach speaker. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 1: All right. I really appreciate everybody. Appreciate everybody's patience with the hearing and the amount of time that this has taken. We want to I'm just checking on something here. All right. We're going to go ahead and go. I'm going to take a point of privilege here, because we want to make sure that there is fairness in the pro and the for and against. And so I'm going to go ahead and skip back here in chambers and we're going to have Joi Walker be the next speaker here in chambers. Do we have Joy Walker with us? Yes. Okay. We're going to go ahead and you'll be our final speaker tonight and then we'll go ahead and have questions from members of council. Go ahead, please. Ray, if you remind everyone introducing yourself. Pardon me. Introduce yourself.
Speaker 2: Please. Yes, ma'am. Joy Walker, Denver resident. First, I oppose the proposed menthol ban. Menthol ban? Why? It's offensive to me as a black woman. Not only am I a black woman, I'm a black woman that has multiple sclerosis. So banning things that I use to help me definitely throws me off. It's offensive to some of us in the black community that this bill banning vapor flavors has been rewritten to allow exemptions for hookah bars and high end premium cigar bars. But menthol cigarets and lower cost flavored cigars mostly consumed by people that look like me. Black people, respectfully. They aren't exempt as well. They are not exempt as well. Some people might say the hookah exemption is appropriate because it's a cultural experience. Some might say high in price. Cigars should be exempt because kids won't get their hands on them. Black adults are capable of making choices and living by those choices respectfully. For my part, we don't need the city council. To help keep these products off the black out of the black community. We are adults. We are capable of making our own choices. If you are.
Speaker 3: Truly acting with equity in mind.
Speaker 2: It should be across the board, wouldn't you say? Wouldn't that be fair? Kind of across the board there. Not pick and choose where we want to go with. All right. Okay. So, again, you know, I appreciate you all hearing me speak. I have been waiting a long time for this. And again, banning these products used mostly by black people is an equity issue. And I am a black woman standing before you today. I use these products. I'm not a criminal. I'm a taxpayer. I own property. You know, just those type of things. We want you to know that. We keep hearing everyone say the children, the kids, the kids. This isn't about the kids. You police your children at home. That's your job. Not my job. No disrespect. No disrespect, however. Two more seconds. Thank you for you all time. Thank you for letting me be a black woman in 2021 and actually making some decisions that affect me in my household. I'll keep an eye out of my kids. I promise. Thank you.
Speaker 1: All right. We are going to go ahead here and. That concludes our speakers this evening. We're going to have questions from members of Council on Council Bill 1182 and or the First Amendment. And I again, thank everybody for their patience. I thank you for your passion. We want to make sure that we're able to hear what everybody else is saying and the conversation here. And another quick reminder, we do have a face covering mandate in Denver. And so really appreciate folks complying with that as well. And so questions from members of council. I know that we've already got folks queued up here. We've got council member Sawyer, your first.
Speaker 4: Thanks, Madam President. I appreciate that. I wanted to ask Joe McCloskey, do you have a cease and desist order against you that has been served by you, by organizations to you to stop using, to stop representing that vaping saves lives?
Speaker 0: Now.
Speaker 4: Can you commit to that?
Speaker 1: You're going to have to come up to the podium and we ask that you again, introduce yourself before you answer the question.
Speaker 8: Madam Council President and Councilwoman. So, you know, the only letter was the CDC use of the logo, which we stopped using. The rest of the 14 health care organizations that were quoted all have citations from peer reviewed research websites and white papers.
Speaker 4: Okay, great. And before you go, has the FDA approved any flavored products for smoking cessation?
Speaker 8: 4.6 Madam President.
Speaker 4: I yes or no. Question Has the FDA approved any flavored products for smoking cessation?
Speaker 8: Madame Council President and Councilwoman Sawyer 4.6 million adults.
Speaker 4: I'm sorry. That was a yes or no question.
Speaker 8: 4.6 million adults have used flavored product.
Speaker 4: I asked you to quit smoking.
Speaker 0: More harmful cigarets.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Councilman Sawyer.
Speaker 1: I'd ask. That means I'd ask that folks who are called up answer the question. But I also want to have patience from our membership as well. If there's further information, we want to hear that information, too. So, Councilmember Sawyer, do you have anybody else you'd like to call up?
Speaker 4: I do. I want to ask Jody if you Jody Radtke, if you could come up. Yes. Thanks. Can you introduce yourself for the record?
Speaker 3: Yes. My name is Jodi Raad Kim, the regional director with the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.
Speaker 4: Okay. Thank you, Jody. Have you are you aware of any flavored products that have been approved by the FDA for smoking cessation purposes?
Speaker 3: No, there has not been any approved submitted application from the vaping industry as approved cessation product to date.
Speaker 4: Okay, great. Thank you. And can you just please remind me while you're up there how many what the percentages of youth smokers and vapers who are using menthol flavors?
Speaker 3: About a third, I think, director alderman testified earlier as well. Over a third, about 36% of Denver students currently use menthol and other vaping products and other tobacco products. Menthol is a second flavor of choice.
Speaker 4: Okay, great. Thank you. And can you just one last question. Refresh my memory on the, uh, on what we learned in, I guess, Minneapolis and Saint Paul regarding 21 plus stores and the efficacy of the, the ban with that exemption.
Speaker 3: So there have been a couple communities that have since gone back to either strengthen their policy or close their loopholes based on the way that the vaping and tobacco industry have navigated or attempted to navigate around it. They have done things like create stores inside of stores and they have created greater problems for their councils where they've gone ahead to strengthen it over time. But the problem is a lot of these stores started investing in some of these modifications that their counsel had requested. And so they are trying to really inform major municipalities across the country to learn from their mistake and to learn from their error. And so I believe Council member Prince Jean Prince had sent a letter to all of you talking to you about the direct problems that they experienced. Oakland experienced similar problems and many more. They had about 5 to 6 stores across the city, which quickly proliferated to over 60. And they have since gone back this last year to close that loophole. And they no longer allow.
Speaker 2: Age restricted facilities to sell.
Speaker 4: Great. Thank you very much for that information. Really appreciate it. And I am not sure if Director Balder Min is still here. Oh, hi. I just have a quick question for you. I'll ask it while you're walking up, if you can just re-introduce yourself for the record, but wanted to just ask for a little bit of information and feedback on the kinds of issues that DPS is seeing with youth smoking and vaping in the schools.
Speaker 0: So skateboarder and on the DPS board and I mean, we were definitely seeing a lot of behavior issues in school right now. And we've we've seen an uptick in in vaping, vaping, related issues, smoking. We've had smoke alarms going off in George Washington High School. I'll speak for my own son who is talking about how they have.
Speaker 1: It asks the members of the audience, Please refrain from speaking so that we can hear the speakers. Go ahead, please.
Speaker 0: It's just really disruptive. I mean, we're coming out of COVID right now trying to focus on learning and teaching. And there are many distractions. And this is one of of many, but definitely disruptions and others. I'm going to talk about my son how a Graham middle school they are they were doing a festival on a Friday afternoon and some of the kids were not were not able to participate because they had rules around vaping and smoking that prevented the kids from participating. It was just it was a new thing for me as a as a father of a middle school kid, to have to have these conversations with my son. And, I mean, it's very real in our schools. And the statistics I mentioned earlier, eight years ago, we had 11% of kids that have tried vaping and we're now almost at 40%. It's a huge jump. So it it is it's very disruptive in our schools.
Speaker 4: Great. Thank you so much. Thanks, Madam President.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember Sawyer. Councilmember Hines.
Speaker 8: Thank you. Council President Moretti. Mia, have you come back up for a second.
Speaker 0: Please?
Speaker 8: So I have two questions, both FDA related. Can you tell me a little bit about what the FDA, uh, they, they made a, um, announcement or something in 2009 about the products. Can you tell me a little bit more about what the FDA has said regarding these products?
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think I may understand your question. If I don't, please clarify and I'll try to answer it as directly as I can. So in 2009, federal legislation was passed that removed all flavored cigarets from the market. The only remaining flavor at the time that was left was menthol. They did not have jurisdiction over cigars or vaping products at that time. That authority was added in 2016, and it also added cigars during the 2009 legislation. It was made clear to the industry those who work within the industry as well as a few other public health, that the removal of flavors, including menthol, was essentially imminent. So when cigars and vaping products and other the others were added within the deeming rule, really the industry was put on notice in 2009. So if they essentially decided to open a store or a business that sold only those products, they were really taking rolling, taking a really big chance in doing so.
Speaker 8: Yeah. And thank you for the correction. You're you're right. I was incorrect in saying flavored vape products, so thank you. I can understand why you were. Anyway, the so they in 2009.
Speaker 0: Four.
Speaker 8: Flavors said that this was something that the FDA was no longer going to support is that that I'm just going back to what what specifically they said as opposed to the implications of of the ruling in 2009.
Speaker 3: So in 2009, again the flavored all flavored cigarets. So there used to be some of you may remember a number of cigaret flavors that were very similar to what we see, not in the same quantity, but very similar to what we see in the world of vaping. So there were vanilla, there were cherry, they came in fruity flavors and colors very much like we see today. At the time, a task force was they were charged to put together a task force to further study menthol and to come back with their recommendations. And the task force was very directive and what those recommendations were. And that's where you seen some of the activity recently, especially in this last year, about the FDA starting to take action now around removing menthol from the market. And there's very solid, substantial evidence for why they're doing so.
Speaker 8: Okay. So. So that actually was my second question about FDA was I think in 2009, they made an exception for menthol. And and as you're saying, there's a conversation more recently. Is there is there also is is there some legal action against the FDA for their menthol carve out?
Speaker 3: Now, there's been several lawsuits for the inaction that has there's been a significant delay in the FDA taking action. So there's been a number of lawsuits filed against the FDA to prompt that action. The most recent being from some partner organizations, American Medical Association names we know and respect that are credible. And the African American Tobacco Control Leadership Council and Ashe Action on Smoking and Health filed a lawsuit against the FDA based on the subsequent delays and not taking action around menthol. And so now we are seeing they are in the rulemaking process and so that is moving forward and as a few things. And if you think things move slowly at the state level or at the city level, we all know how slowly it moves at the federal level, but that is definitely in action currently.
Speaker 8: And the nature of that is that there are the idea is to ban flavors and then menthol is also a flavor. So how can you not if you're banning flavors, you're blame banning flavors. It's not new banned flavors except for this one is I think that's the nature of the lawsuit.
Speaker 3: The lawsuit was specifically named menthol on behalf of the plaintiffs who filed the lawsuit around the an action that was taken with the FDA. So it was specifically spoke to menthol in that lawsuit. And so that's what's being responded to. And then the FDA is also taking further actions around removing flavored cigars from the market as well.
Speaker 8: Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Question is that answer your question. Okay.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember Hines, Councilmember Black.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam President. Councilwoman Sawyer, I think you asked both Joe McCarthy and Jody Radtke if. The FDA had approved flavored e-cigarettes as a cessation advice. And I think that the answer was no. But I just wanted to point out, I have an article from The New York Times from October 12th of this year. That said, the Food and Drug Administration for the first time on Tuesday authorized an electric cigaret to be sold in the United States in green lighting a device and tobacco flavored cartridges under the brand name. Beause the agency signaled.
Speaker 3: That it believed that.
Speaker 2: The help.
Speaker 5: Certain vaping devices offer smokers to quit traditional e-cigarettes is more significant than the risk of ensnaring a new generation. The statement concluded, the FDA determined that the potential benefit to smokers who switch completely or significantly reduce their cigaret use would outweigh the risk to youth. So I just wanted to clarify, I think your question was specifically about flavored vaping products, but according to the article in The New York Times.
Speaker 4: Madam President, can I respond?
Speaker 1: Sure. Just a minute. Are you finished, Councilman?
Speaker 2: The BLOCK.
Speaker 1: Go ahead. Councilmember Zoya.
Speaker 4: Yes, that's correct. Councilwoman Black. And also the bill specifically exempts any products that are approved by the FDA for smoking cessation.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you. Councilmember Sawyer, Councilmember Black, did you have any other questions?
Speaker 3: Not right now. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Okay, great. Thank you. Councilmember Flynn.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Madam President. I like to call Arthur way up the figure. I was intently listening to your three minute testimony. I wanted to get your reflection, if you could please, one on something that hasn't yet been addressed by those who would support my amendment. And that is the issue that the black community surely prefers. Menthol Cigarets. I've heard that for three hearings now, but what I'm being told is that we need to adopt this ban because you have been targeted by predatory marketing. Now, I kind of feel like Captain Renault in Casablanca saying I'm shocked, shocked that a mass marketer would determine what its market is and advertise toward it. And maybe we'll go after Chivas Regal next. But could you tell me your reflection and your opinion on whether you as whether your community has been unfairly targeted by predatory marketers any more than, say, a Virginia Slims smoker or the Marlboro Man that might target white smokers or cowboys?
Speaker 8: You know, I was I remember being upset as a as a teenager when I started to see McDonalds commercials where, you know, a bunch of hip hop music being played and it seems like our culture was put on display in order to sell their product. You know, this is nothing new for the black community. And more than anything, I don't know anybody in my neighborhood that that smokes menthol anymore. I couldn't say that 20 years ago. Over the last 50 years, 33 million fewer cigaret smokers exist in this country than in 1970 and our population has doubled in that time. And black people are. Rates have gone down, maybe not as much as white people, but the fact that our smoking rates, given the structural inequity and the health care inequity that we deal with, are similar to white folks. I think that's a victory. You know, when you look at the smoking rates of the Native American community is ridiculously high. And I know tobacco has a long history within the indigenous culture here in this country, but I think their smoking rates really reflect the amount of poverty and structural inequity that they're dealing with. And despite, you know, Newport and everybody going at the African-American community, we've seen it all before. We know how to deal with it. And I just want to remind you all that. You know, there's a difference between deaths that are caused by smoking and smoking related illnesses, our smoking related illnesses and the disparities that we have in regards to our smoking related illnesses. Primarily tracks back to the disparities that we face within the health care system when it comes to access to health care, when it comes to standard health care being lowered and what our white counterparts face. So, you know, the fact that marginalized communities who deal with a lot of structural inequity on a day to day basis may have a harder time quitting than other communities, I don't think should surprise no one. And I think that would be the case, whether we smoked menthols or Marlboro Reds.
Speaker 9: Thank you. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Councilman Hines.
Speaker 8: Thank you. Council President. Mr. McCluskey, will you? I think it's only fair if I asked Miss Radtke the question. Would you also be willing to it? The question that I asked earlier was about the FDA in 2009 and the action that they the determination that they took and also regarding their lawsuits on menthol products. If you'd be willing to address that, that would be great.
Speaker 0: Madam President and Councilwoman.
Speaker 8: Hines, thank you for the opportunity to speak about this. There's two interesting deets about the FDA that provide context. First is the famous 2009 legislation that President Obama signed. What's also interesting is about late 2018, early 2019, there was an FDA decision that basically being flavors in small, discrete dual type vaping products, but allowed flavors to exist in large, bulkier, more expensive open tank products like the ones I described on Slide four of my presentation earlier. And this next, that's really, really key. From 2009 to 2016, youth vaping didn't exist. It wasn't an epidemic. These thousands of stores, there's 14,000 stores in nine states of America that are small mom and pop, about average 650 square feet with eight employees. They have a 41% market share. They peacefully coexist. And people like Amanda Wheeler and by the way, her husband Jordan are here on their sixth wedding anniversary tonight. They flew in from Phenix because they feel so strong. They have stores throughout Colorado and they started in oh nine because they wanted to quit smoking cigarets. It was only in late 2016. Early 2017 is when RJR and Altria and these massive international tobacco companies poured tens of millions of dollars into Jewel and Blue. And that's when you saw the youth epidemic. They've ruined it for us. We've existed. Helping millions of Americans adults wean off smoking cigarets.
Speaker 0: Those two key dates are really important.
Speaker 8: The lawsuits are 16 hour conversation that would take up the rest of the night. But I wanted to talk about those two key dates. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Council President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Hines. And looking here, we don't have anyone else up in the queue for questions and so want to give it a moment. Then I didn't miss anybody. All right. Councilman Herndon.
Speaker 0: I thought I.
Speaker 2: Was all right. I was.
Speaker 0: I was just.
Speaker 2: Then.
Speaker 0: I have.
Speaker 1: Waited as long as.
Speaker 0: I know. I think. Mizrachi could I have a couple of questions for you if you could come up? And so you are obviously in support of this bill. The bill that we have before us. And my question, though, is you've been supportive throughout the entire time. Even with the exemptions of hookah and cigars, your organization is still in support. Correct? That's correct. Now, here's the unfair question. If menthol was exempted, would your organization still be in support?
Speaker 3: We would not support the ordinance.
Speaker 0: You would not support the idea because menthol helped me understand why.
Speaker 3: Mental is then largely targeted over decades two African-American, LGBTQ, US and our Hispanic Latino communities. It is also the second most predominant choice among our kids, which has grown exponentially over the last couple of years. People tend to think or say or refer to menthol as being an adult flavor, which is simply unfounded and then factual. If you look at the data here in state, that is also true.
Speaker 0: Okay. So menthol menthol is your line in the sand. So would you would you would you believe that? So you're suggesting that the bill with the menthol exemption does not meet the spirit of reducing teen vaping within the city and county of Denver?
Speaker 3: Can you repeat the question?
Speaker 0: So I'm asking is you in support of the bill now? We exempt mental. You are no longer in support. My understanding. Let me know. This is incorrect that the purpose of this bill is to reduce teen vaping within the city and county of Denver. So if I'm going to attest that you're no longer in support, then you believe that the bill does not meet the spirit of that of its intent.
Speaker 3: That's correct. We're going to tell this widely, again, used by kids. But our intent is not solely to prevent kids from using the products. Our intent is to protect the public.
Speaker 2: Health.
Speaker 3: Of our community. And here in Denver, which includes both kids and adults, menthol, most of our adult tobacco users started at the age of 13 and they become addicted very quickly. Addiction is not a choice. So oftentimes you'll hear this being referred to as multiple choice. But addiction is not an adult choice. At age 13, your physiological pathways are changed. Menthol makes it much more palatable to use the product. It also makes it harder to quit long term. Here in Colorado, the rates.
Speaker 0: I'm sorry. I don't I don't want to interrupt everyone. I know we're getting late and we have other amendments. I want to go back to the statistic that you said earlier, that you said a third of youth are using menthol. I want to make sure I heard that statistic correct when you threw that out.
Speaker 3: A third of Denver kids that smoke are using ventilated cigarets. That's correct. And that's from the Healthy Kids Colorado survey data.
Speaker 0: And when was that survey done?
Speaker 3: And the last it's done every two years. And the last survey data were reported in 2019. Current data is being collected for 2021.
Speaker 0: Okay, I had one more question. My apologies, Madam President, and just escaping. Okay. Thank you. And Director Bald. I mean, could you come back up again? Appreciate it. Thank you for being here. So I just wanted to go back to what you were talking about with. And actually, I have the same question. The school board is in response to the unfair question. We exempting who? We're exempting cigars. Do you believe and you can give me your personal opinion, if we exempted menthol, this would no longer DPS would no longer be in support of this bill. I can't speak for the Board of Education or our policies prevent me from speaking on behalf of the board. But as a as an educator, you were speaking to the challenges you were using, the examples of vaping and all the challenges in school. By exempting menthol, would we no longer meet that spirit, in your opinion? So we have a whole department or we actually have somebody. I want to I want to figure you're going to ask me a question. So I wanted to pull up the information from our. Michael Holden is our substance abuse prevention program. He's the head of that department and he's the one that has done all the research on this and provided the information. I'm the messenger on this. So I'm actually not an educator. I'm just a parent. But he's the one that gave me the information in the statistics and was the one that emphasized the importance of including the the menthol. And phone it. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Mackey, I remember the question. My apologies. The FDA has not authorized flavored tobacco as a cessation. You can come on up and ask the question so you can be quicker. And I agree with that. They have not. So do you not believe that flavored tobacco can be a cessation technique?
Speaker 3: I believe that the vaping industry, if they believe their product, has the properties that it claims to have, that there is an application process through our federal government that they should go through in order to submit their product to be studied, for its efficacy, to determine if it.
Speaker 4: Is indeed a.
Speaker 3: Successful FDA cessation approved product, in which case they would be doing that recognition.
Speaker 0: So you do not believe that. As as Councilwoman Sonya said, it was kind of a yes or no question. So do you not believe that it cannot be used? Can flavor tobacco be used as a cessation to smoking?
Speaker 3: There. What? There hasn't been one submitted yet for that.
Speaker 0: So you do not believe that then, and that's fine if you don't. I just want to know if your organization believes that.
Speaker 2: Thus.
Speaker 3: Far the studies indicate. No. That flavors are not required to assist with cessation. Okay.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Herndon. The public hearing is now closed. The First Amendment is on the floor. Comments by members of Council on the First Amendment. And we want to go to the sponsor of that amendment. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Madam President. We have heard through the course of the various committee meetings and tonight a lot of testimony that conflicts from the same community, the same communities. We've heard communities of color who want us to adopt this ban entirely. And we've heard from communities of color that want us not to adopt it entirely. So it's a very difficult position for me, a person who looks like me to be in right now. So we've gotten an outpouring of e-mails on this issue over the last couple of months. And among them, we have emails that say don't put any loopholes in the ban. And I just wanted to say push back a little bit on that. I don't consider this amendment to be a loophole. I consider the ban to be an overreach and that this amendment slightly pulls back and allows adults, whether they're black, LGBTQ and Latino or white, to make their own damn up, to make their own decisions. Excuse me. About what they want to use. And Madam President. So that's why I brought it forward. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Flynn. And I just wanted to remind folks that we are talking about the First Amendment that Councilman Flynn offered the menthol flavored tobacco product exemption from the flavored tobacco ban. Next up, we've got Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Thank you, Madam President. White people smoke menthol. Cigarets. Black people smoke cigars. We have a lot of race issues in this country. I think they're misplaced in this particular discussion. I'm going to go to the side briefly, Madam President, and that I made a mistake in bringing forth my cigar ban because I used a word that came out of California, which was premium cigar, when what I meant was a natural hand-rolled cigar that. Doesn't have a tip or a filter. So I ask the sponsors to change the wording from premium to natural. I'll spare you reading my list, but I have a list of about 15 cigars costing $3 or less. My father worked six days a week and smoke cigars. He didn't smoke expensive cigars. This is not a race issue. The other thing that and this is just in my mind, most of the people I know today that smoke cigarets. It's not a matter of freedom of choice. Most of the people I know today that smoke cigarets do not wake up in the morning thinking, oh, I don't need a cigaret today. Maybe I'll go for a run. Most people smoke and cigarets today that I know are addicted to cigarets. They do not have a choice. So as far as menthol being a choice, I don't look at anything to do with Cigarets nowadays as a choice. That's just my view of things. So as far as. Targeting Black people's freedom of choice or their ability to make decisions as far as smoking goes. And if you're smoking today, I'm sure there are some of you out there that smoke cigarets occasionally. Maybe after a good meal or with a glass of wine or something. Most people that I know smoking nowadays, it's not a matter of choice. So I don't do this that way. And I have other comments, but I'll save those for other amendments. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Cashman. Councilmember Black.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam President. I do support this exemption simply because I don't think banning menthol cigarets is going to prevent anyone from smoking menthol cigarets. They can be purchased in all of our neighboring cities. The stores that sell them in Denver will lose out on that business. We've heard from small mom and pop convenience stores that rely on people who come in and maybe buy a pack of cigarets, menthol or otherwise, but they also pick up a few groceries and they'll lose that business. And I really care about those small businesses in our community. I come from a small business family and they employ people and they pay rent. And I don't think we should have a policy that punishes them and also will not work. It won't prevent anyone from smoking menthol cigarets. So I am very interested our way. Great ideas. Let's talk more. Let's as a council and a community, talk about other ways to address reducing smoking and preventing youth use. But this is not going to work. I also want to point out that it's not going to prevent anyone from buying a pack of girls or buying marijuana or buying alcohol. And so we 20 people who are 21 and older are responsible and they should be able to buy what they want and.
Speaker 3: Cornelius Right. I love your name.
Speaker 5: I what you said you go to the shop in Park Hill and if you want the menthols, they send you packing. So I just it's, it's not effective. So I support the menthol exemption.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember Black. Councilmember can each.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Council President. I guess that I just want to observe that the conversation in this chamber is has played out with a narrative about small business and choice. But, you know, the lobbyist registrations for this issue, you know, include Altria, which is the largest seller of Cigarets in the United States, whose website begins with We're Moving Beyond Smoking, the largest cigaret smaller seller in the United States. You may know them better as Philip morris. R.J. Reynolds is lobbying on this bill. I feel sad that our community is divided in a racially charged debate with humongous national corporations who stand to profit, and only the users of these products suffer the cancer and the effects of addiction. Right. So these products, this is all proven. They were designed to be addictive, designed, perfected, tested. And they profit multibillion dollar corporations. So. I have to put that on the record, because if you were to listen to this debate, you would not know that fact. You would not know the facts that big tobacco is funding lobbying efforts on this bill and big tobacco benefits from every sale of a menthol cigaret. I will acknowledge that no public policy is perfect. But to be a leader is to take the right stand for the health of our community. And the difference with this type of a situation is the health costs are borne by our community. We give tens of millions of dollars each year and your tax dollars to Denver Health to treat smoking related illnesses. All of us, if we are insured, pay higher premiums for that insurance because of the effects of smoking. So the cancer and the, you know, other lung related diseases and other things that come from menthol cigarets. May be born first by an individual. But the costs to all of us in society and so forth. So I want to just be clear that we are being divided today by mass corporations making billions and trillions of dollars in profit. The second thing I need to put on the record is that we are here today because of failure of our federal government's product protection. Right. This is the level of government that is supposed to make policy in the interest of public protection. My colleagues are right that we'll have a patchwork in Colorado if this measure passes, but that I've never seen with climate. I've never said, well, the federal government failed to act for four years and in fact made things worse. So we in Denver should sit back because our part in climate change is too small. I've never sat back and said that we can't control, you know, what happens in in other jurisdictions with respect to wages or with respect to other things, where businesses could choose to change sides of the region and move to a different region because our wage is higher. No, we did what was right. So for me. Every time we make this product less attractive, we give folks an opportunity. They have an opportunity to smoke another product. Maybe that product's less desirable. Maybe it gives them that opening to quit. But if not, we are filling in the gap with what we believe is best until our federal government acts in the way that it is supposed to. So I do not feel that we are divided as a community on our own. We are being divided by a federal government that is reneged on its responsibilities, and we are being divided by corporations making billions of dollars off these products. And so, unfortunately, we'll have a divided vote tonight. And fortunately, we have folks with different opinions leaving this chamber tonight. But it is important for us to remember who really is benefiting and who's really behind this. So I will not be supporting the amendment tonight for these reasons, but it's not because of lack of respect or lack of listening to those with different perspectives here tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember Koinange, Councilmember Hines.
Speaker 8: All right. Thank you. Council president, I have other comments not to the amendment, but I'm going to limit these to the amendment. They I want to make sure that I make decisions here in this seat, because I inhabited only for a limited time. But I want to be as determinate and transparent as I can. And if we are interested in banning flavored nicotine products, then we should ban flavored nicotine products and not make a carve out for one flavor different than other flavors. So I will be against the amendment because it is counter to the intent, as I understand, of the bill. Thank you, counsel. Prisoner.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember Hines. Councilmember Flynn.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 9: I don't know if you want to go to Councilman Herndon ahead of me since I want to.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry. That's right. This is your amendment.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Herndon thinking that I'm president. Well, to my colleague, Councilman Hines, I thought this bill was about teenagers smoking, not banning flavored tobacco. I think the messaging has been has the goalpost has moved a couple of times with this. And I will just say I agree that yes. Cigar cigaret and and I don't smoke and never smoked. I wish people didn't. But I also believe that you should have that choice. As someone who has worn a uniform for the freedoms of our country, that is me personally. But sidebar there are health effects of cigarets. Absolutely. But you know what? Their health effects of premium cigars. Their health effects of hookah. So how this body has exempted those and then suddenly chosen to effect menthol. And I will not get into the argument about whether it's cultural or not, but if it's impacting one segment greater than others, we should acknowledge and have a conversation about that. And so I think people are frustrated because of the mixed messaging that this council is bringing forward with exemptions for some and not for others. And if this is about teens again, which I believe that's what this was, then I am supportive of this amendment because I believe it's consistent with other amendments we have previously in this bill. So I'll be in support. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember Herndon Council Member Cashman, you're back up and then we'll go to you, Councilmember Flynn, for the final.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam President. I just wanted to emphasize that as far as what my goal is, is to do everything possible to keep tobacco out of the hands of kids while not taking away items that aren't used by kids. That's that's what I want with the cigar piece, because I don't know kids walking around with those.
Speaker 9: Nasty old stogies.
Speaker 0: Like I said, my father smoked them all my life. I wouldn't go near one no. Inches. So that that's just my point on that. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember Cashman. Councilmember Flynn.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Madam President. I just want to make it clear on the record that that the tobacco industry is not the only lobbyist here, that this is part of a national campaign by Bloomberg Philanthropies to eradicate vaping and e-cigarettes. And they've they announced about two years ago that they would go on this campaign. We have the lobbyists from that that side here also. So it's not David versus Goliath. It's Goliath versus Goliath. And it comes into cities all around the country. And I think Bloomberg, the news report I saw was he put $160 million into this effort two years ago. So I just want to make sure everybody knew that this is there are lobbyists, well-funded on both sides here. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember Flynn, Councilmember Ortega.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. Nobody is on this council. It was here when the youth from West High School came into this chambers, and along this wall here lined up all the different products, the chemicals and carcinogens that are in tobacco. And they pleaded with the city council at that time to bring forward legislation that banned the placement of products, as well as the outdoor advertising that specifically targeted communities of color, both black and Hispanic communities. And that was then followed by those same students going to Washington when R.J. Reynolds and other tobacco giants were brought before Congress . And there were memos that were produced that were that showed that young people were being targeted and they were expected to be long term consumers of tobacco products. That was over 20 years ago. And we're still having the same conversation in these chambers. And the focus has always been protecting health. We start with protecting youth, and they no longer become the lifelong consumers that the tobacco industry relies upon. And they knew that if they continued to find other ways to target youth. That's exactly what we're experiencing today. It's different types of products, but with the same the same type of addictive components that are designed to create those consumers that will continue to come back over and over again buying the same products. So I am not supportive of this or any of the other amendments tonight. I'll make my comments now on the entire bill. But the focus has always been protecting the health of our community, starting with our kids. And if we can protect our kids at the same time, we're protecting adults. I understand people want to have that choice as an adult, but adults do have the ability to order their product online or to go across a county line. But in Denver, we have always been unafraid of taking the lead, just like we did on the 16th Street Mall when we stopped the tobacco industry from distributing free tobacco , free, free samples of cigarets and cigars. We stopped the ban of advertising at our National Western Stock Show in other venues owned by the city when there were concerts and other things being held. And this is another opportunity for us to look at how we protect our youth and at the same time is protecting our adults who have been historically targeted. Going back to the 1990s, when the tobacco industry admitted before Congress that they were targeting kids to be their lifelong customers. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Ortega. And not seeing anybody else in the queue. I'll go ahead and share my comments on the menthol on the menthol exemption. And I think as everybody up here and as you sitting out here and thank you again for your patience tonight. I've gone back and forth. I mean, I would love if people weren't addicted to nicotine. I would love if folks weren't addicted to flavored vape. There's a lot that goes into what makes up addiction. I think we've seen pretty clearly that by removing something doesn't cure somebody's addiction. And it was troubling to me where we were exempting, you know, the natural cigars. And I think we've heard tonight and through your emails, there's a whole population of folks who are menthol smokers. And by trying to roll menthol into this bill. Are we going to accomplish our goal at the end of the day? And I went back and watched the first committee meeting, and it was around reducing the access for youth in vaping. That was the intent. And I think in a lot of ways well intentioned, it has morphed in a different way and. I'm frankly very concerned about the unintended consequences. But we haven't fully explored and dug into as a council when we're trying to take action on something that would only affect the city and county of Denver. There is nothing in this legislation that would stop somebody from going to Aurora or Commerce City and buying menthol cigarets and selling them in a park in Denver. And I mean, you know, there's maybe different restrictions that we could create, but we're really trying to change the the end outcome. Instead of going to the manufacturers instead of going to the powers that be to hold them accountable or to help people in addiction recovery and not have to spend their dime on these products that we know have been strategically and very intentionally marketed to certain communities. And so I am in support of this amendment tonight because, again, if we're exempting natural cigars, if we're exempting hookah, I want to make sure that we're being equitable and then we're not creating a system that has really deep unintended consequences . And so I will be supportive of this First Amendment tonight. Madam Secretary, roll call on the amendment to Council Bill 1182, please phone.
Speaker 2: I know.
Speaker 3: Cashman.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 3: Kenny Ortega.
Speaker 2: Sandoval.
Speaker 3: No. Sawyer. No. Torres. No.
Speaker 2: Black. Hi, CdeBaca.
Speaker 3: No.
Speaker 0: Clark, I.
Speaker 4: Madam President.
Speaker 1: I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced results.
Speaker 3: Eight nays. Five Eyes.
Speaker 1: Eight nays, five eyes. Council Bill 1182. The amendment has failed this evening. Councilmember Black. Your motion to amend.
Speaker 5: I move that council bill 21 dash 1180 to be amended in the following particulars on page three Line 24 Add Specialty Retail Tobacco Store means a business operating as a tobacco business as defined in c r s 25 Dash 14 Dash 203 18 that sells, gives, delivers or furnishes tobacco products to a user or consumer and prohibits under the age of 21 from entering or being present in the store. Unless the individual enters solely for the purpose of providing a service to the specialty retail tobacco store, including making a delivery three letter, subsequent subsections and on page four after line 24, insert online three flavored. Tobacco products sold in specialty retail tobacco stores.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Black. It has been moved. And second to questions or comments by members of Council on the Second Amendment. Councilmember Black.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam President. This amendment exempts bait shops and tobacco stores from the flavor ban, but requires them to be treated like marijuana stores, meaning that one has to be 21 years or older even to enter the store. We have 21 small businesses in Denver. Some of you are here tonight that are vape shops. And we have heard from the sponsor and from others that kids don't actually use these large tank open vaping device. That are sold in those stores. And they also sell liquids that have nicotine and some don't have nicotine, but these are not products that kids use. Without this amendment, if this bill passes, these stores will likely shut their doors. And I know many of you have leases, you have bills to pay, you have outstanding debts, and you have employees. And so I think if we allowed you to stay in business, I think that as your council members up here, that that we should not shut you down, especially when this.
Speaker 4: Bill is about kids.
Speaker 5: And it's about smoking and what you are selling. You're not selling it to kids and people are not smoking. So that is why I am proposing this.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Black. I don't see any other folks in the queue. I knew as soon as I said it, we'd get a few. Council member Sawyer.
Speaker 4: Thanks, Madam President. I absolutely appreciate why this recommendation and amendment is coming forward. I understand why there are council members who support it. We have seen in other cities that this legislation doesn't work. We know that reducing access to these products reduces usage by a few because 40% currently of our retail stores are selling to minors. But in addition. Excuse me, I am speaking. You had your turn. Please allow me to play away.
Speaker 1: Please, please. Let's allow folks to use their time. We waited and heard from everybody. Go ahead, Councilmember.
Speaker 4: Thank you. So if 40% of our retail stores on in the current round of checking by age are selling to minors. And then we know that the second most popular place that minors get these products are from 21 year old to purchase it for them, whether it's a family member or a friend, whether it is someone that they hands that cash to, that goes into the store and buys it for them and then hands it to them. That is how our kids are getting these products. Those are the two largest ways in the city and county of Denver that our kids are getting these products. And so a 21 plus amendment is not going to achieve the goal we're trying to achieve, which is to stop tobacco and vaping usage in kids under the age of 21. And so that's why I'm not supportive of this amendment. That's why we have put a an annual reporting requirement into the bill so that enforcement will have to come to council once a year to report to us on the effectiveness of this, so that if in the future we need to make changes, we can. But we know kids are going to access these products, whether it's because they're getting given the products by someone who is an adult and purchasing them legally, or whether they are going to a store that they know is non-compliant and they're buying them on their own. And if the goal here is to stop youth vaping and tobacco product usage, then this amendment undermines that goal and I cannot support it. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Sawyer. And just a reminder to folks, I know it's getting late in the evening, but the more than I have to remind you then, the more we hear from folks and the longer it takes us. And I'm sure you all want to get home here at some point. So, Councilmember Clark, you're up next.
Speaker 0: Thank you, council president. First, I want to thank the sponsors of this bill for taking so much time and really digging into this. I know it's easy for me to sit here and play armchair quarterback and say, hey, I would have done it this way, but I want to acknowledge that I did not take this on. I'm not leading on this and you all are. And so I really appreciate the work and the effort, and I want to be clear about that. That being said, had I had I had my my way. You know, I think we have a lot of holes in how tobacco is managed and regulated in our city. I huge. And I think that this has put a spotlight on that. And I hope that this is, you know, as much as I love late night city council, I hope this is not the end of how we continue to tackle tobacco. I would have started on the other end where I really feel like we should have gone after stricter licensing, stricter enforcement. Really tackle that piece first and see what results we get. With that we have, that is how our marijuana system is set up. And if we can do that with marijuana, I believe that we could do that with tobacco instead of coming at this this this way. Right. But that again, I didn't take this on. I didn't I didn't write it. And and I appreciate the work that went into it. I do think that this amendment gets us a little closer, that it still doesn't do the work that we need to do around licensing and around enforcement and around ID checking and the things that are in place for marijuana and the fines. I was you know, it was shocking to hear the difference in fines between selling to someone underage for marijuana and for tobacco. Those are gaping holes that we need to fix. I think how do we fix those first? And we can really look at this issue and what the right thing is. But I do believe that this amendment takes us back and starts to address some of that and gives us the space to come back and come and hit on those harder things. So for that reason, I think that this is a really good amendment. I am very supportive of this. I struggle with the bill as a whole without this. And so it is my hope that this passes because I really I do. Want to be a yes on this bill. And I think that this is that piece that really for me allows me to really fully get there. So I'm really hoping that this this one comes together and I am supportive of this one. Thank you. Council President.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember Clark. Councilmember Cashman.
Speaker 0: Yeah, thank you, Madam President. I have I've struggle with I've spoken with the sponsors. I struggle with with the bill overall in that, as I said, I don't I want to limit the collateral damage from keeping tobacco away from kids, I think. The ideal. I think Councilman Clark and I are on a similar page to the ideal situation, which would be a 21 and over there works that would have something to do with enhanced verification. Increased Penalties for selling to minors. I have no sympathy to anyone who sells to a minor. Increased licensing fees to fund inspectors for a Department of Public Health and Environment. And perhaps additional licenses so we can get into what is a tobacco store as opposed to, you know, the convenience store at your local gas station, all that type of stuff. This amendment doesn't do that. What what I'll be bringing forward next is an amendment to delay the date of effectiveness if the bill as it moves forward and passes. If this amendment passes, it would give time to tweak that and tighten it up to where it might actually be effective. If if it doesn't pass, it gives. And if the bill ultimately goes as is councilmembers, Sawyer and Ortega have presented it gives businesses additional time to reassess their their business model, to deal with leases and so on that have to be dealt with. Now, I continue to be concerned about the collateral damage.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 9: And thank you, Madam President. I support this amendment for several reasons, not least of all, is the situation that council president brought up. The fact that we are are in the middle of a huge metropolitan area and that access to any of these products, if none of these stores in Denver can survive. This is quite my my district in southwest Denver borders seven other jurisdictions, all within most likely walking distance in most cases from many of my many of my residents. So not allowing this exemption and saying that we are going to prohibit all sales to willing adults who want to choose to buy these things. It's sort of like prohibiting or banning the presence of water in the middle of a bathtub. I mean, I could lift a bottle, a bucket of water out of a bathtub, but it's going to fill in again from the sides. And so I think that this is a way to more effectively control to the council. And Cashman's point are Councilwoman Black and I are discussing an amendment to the tobacco ordinance that would increase fines for sales to minors, including revocation of licenses by all sellers, not just not just the folks represented here, but by convenience stores and by King Soopers and Safeway and everyone else. Greatly enhance those penalties, frankly, because I wish that No. One, I wish that no one smoked. But I see this amendment as providing a a much more equitable and fair way to to establish the to continue the fight against youth vaping and and smoking by having a system where adults can go in and get them because they'll be able to get them in Englewood or Lakewood or. Madam President, your district in Commerce City or Aurora, as you mentioned. But stiffen the penalties and stiffen the fines so that they have they have their entire business at stake if they if they mess up. So I would support this amendment, Madam President.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember Flynn. Councilmember Black, we had you speak to explain the the amendment. Is it okay if I go to Councilmember Hines first? Okay. Councilmember Hines, go ahead.
Speaker 8: All right. Thank you, council president. First of all, I want to say thank you to my colleague from Park Hill. I tried too hard to limit my comments just to the amendment. And so it's totally a fair, fair comment about why are we here. So I apologize for that. The the main reason why I wanted to ask about the FDA decision in 2009 is, is because they they put the industry on notice federally and back then and. I agree with Councilmember CNOOC's comment about, boy, it would be great if we tackled this from a federal level, but we're we're moving too slowly as from the federal level. We've got the the comments from 2009. We have a process to create authorized devices through the FDA. And I believe that there are products that are underway right now. And and I would encourage people to if you want to if you want to sell a product that FDA knows way more about , making sure that we have appropriate products out there then than what the city of Denver can can do. Our FDA has way more resources than than the city of Denver does. And so while I would love for this to be a national topic that's tackled nationally, we in the city of Denver have to do something to protect our public health, safety and welfare. And that is a core charge of what a city does. So I, I won't be supporting this amendment either, predominantly because I want to make sure that that we do this the right way. Thank you. Council President.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember Hines. Councilmember Black.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam President. I was just going to remind everyone which Councilman Flynn already did that. Councilman Flynn and I have been talking to many of you about a separate bill that would increase penalties for businesses that sell to people under 21. So I think we've talked to most of you, but we will we will be back with that. And then I also just wanted to remind everyone that this exemption is really about these small vape shops and the products that they sell are not the products that that kids are using. They're not those small, discrete projects of products. So when you're voting, just please remember that.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Black. And I've learned a lot more about vaping than I ever knew before. And it's been a huge education. And, you know, these are specialty tobacco retailers who are 21 and over. We've got plenty of liquor stores all over the city that are 21 and older. And we know that young people get access to alcohol as well. But we're not looking at. Banning them from our city, that that's not the intent. And so I'm going to be a yes on this amendment tonight, because I've heard from many businesses that they would go out of business. And these are businesses that are employing individuals who are city and county of Denver, residents who are, you know, spending their paycheck in our city. They're residing in our city. And to do something that, again, I think has unintended consequences, that we're not looking at a regional approach for this. And so, again, we're creating a patchwork of legislation and we're creating issues, I think, for these small businesses. But then also. Just somebody being able to go to Aurora or Commerce City. I just can't believe that other municipalities are going to follow suit on this. We're going to really need some action at the state level or where we can make sure that the fines are a place where, you know, we're going to put these folks out of business that aren't going to comply with the regulations that are, you know, that they have to comply with. So I will be in favor of the Second Amendment. Madam Secretary, roll call on the Second Amendment to Council Bill 1182, please.
Speaker 3: Black.
Speaker 2: I see. Tobacco pass.
Speaker 0: Clark. I.
Speaker 3: Flynn.
Speaker 9: I.
Speaker 2: Herndon. Hines.
Speaker 0: No.
Speaker 3: Carson. No. Cliques, no.
Speaker 2: Ortega No.
Speaker 3: Sandoval No. Sawyer No. Torres. No. CdeBaca. I. Madam President.
Speaker 1: I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announced results.
Speaker 2: Seven days. Six and.
Speaker 1: Seven days. Six eyes. Council Bill 1182. The amendment has passed. So we've got that one passed. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. We've been doing this a long time. It failed. I am so sorry. So sorry. It's been up here a long time, so. Got it. That one has failed as well. Councilmember Cashman, we are to the Third Amendment tonight. Would you please make the motion to amend.
Speaker 0: The Council bill to.
Speaker 2: I don't think your speaker's.
Speaker 1: Mike is on, sir.
Speaker 0: And those who are pearls, so to speak, in there. I move the council bill 21, dash 1180 to be amended in the following particulars. One on page six Line 15 Strike July one, 2022 and replace with July one, 2023.
Speaker 1: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded questions or comments by members of Council on the Third Amendment. Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 0: Yes, Madam President. And as I said, if the bill passes and will impact a number of stores in our community and I think an implementation date of July one of 2022 is is two too quick and doesn't give people adequate time to react. I was in a position a number of years ago where changes in my industry took place and fortunately had a little bit more time to plan my next move. So I would hope my colleagues could support this.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Cashman. Councilmember Flynn.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Madam President. I think this is a fair amendment. If, in light of the failure of the prior two amendments, we basically just gave a death sentence to the businesses that are sitting out here. I think it's only fair that we give them more than six months to deal with whatever the fallout is should the bill pass. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember Flynn. Councilmember Sawyer.
Speaker 4: Thanks, Madam President. I have been thinking about this all afternoon since I learned about it this afternoon, and I do think it is a hard one. The reason that we chose the implementation date of July 1st of 2022 was to give at the very least. And remember, we started this conversation with one committee that we went to with multiple meetings, but then one committee that we went to on October six. Right, it's now November 20, I don't know, nine, eight, something like the 29th. So, you know, by now that bill would have already passed if it were going to pass, except that we extended committee to extra times. So while I understand the impetus to extend the date for implementation, I'm curious how many kids are going to get addicted to cigarets and vaping during that extra year? I'm curious how how businesses that have known since 2009 that the FDA was going to move to pull these products from the shelves. Are asking for one more year to make more money before they if they are going to close. Close. And frankly, when I spoke to the mayor of Colorado Springs I'm sorry, not Colorado Springs. Glenwood Springs, when they implemented this law, they have not seen a single store closed. There were two that left voluntarily before it went into effect. But in Glenwood Springs, where this business exists or where this law exists, they have seen zero businesses close up to this point. So while I understand the impetus to want to extend the period of time for the bill. She has told me that if this bill passes, they will execute it and begin enforcing it on July 1st, 2022. That's enough time to inform businesses. And so I am not going to be supportive of this tonight. Thanks.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember Sawyer. And seeing no one else in the queue, I'll go ahead and comment. I want to try to give businesses a little bit more time to figure out what the next steps might be. And so I will be in support of this amendment tonight. Madam Secretary, roll call on the Third Amendment to Council Bill 1182, please.
Speaker 0: Cashman, I.
Speaker 3: Can eat? No.
Speaker 2: Ortega No. Sandoval.
Speaker 3: No.
Speaker 2: Sawyer. No. Torres. I black. I see tobacco.
Speaker 3: I. Clark.
Speaker 2: I Flynn.
Speaker 0: High.
Speaker 2: Herndon.
Speaker 0: No.
Speaker 3: Madam President. I.
Speaker 1: Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 3: Five names, eight eyes.
Speaker 1: Eight Council Bill 1182 has been amended. Councilmember Ortega, would you please put Council Bill 21, dash 1182 on the floor as amended?
Speaker 2: Madam President, I move that council bill 21, 82, 21, 1182 as amended, be placed on the fourth floor and do this working tonight. Sorry to be published as amended.
Speaker 1: Yes. Wonderful. Thank you. It's been moved and seconded. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 21, Dash 1182 as amended.
Speaker 4: Councilmember Sawyer Thanks, Madam President. I want to thank everyone who has come out tonight, everyone who has come out every single time for the last six months, eight months that we have been talking about this bill. I want to thank you all for the conversation. This is difficult conversation, but it's important conversations to have. Obviously, I'm still supportive of this bill. The process has occurred and more than seven council members said that they want to extend the time to July 1st, 2023. Great. I'm still hugely supportive of this bill. I disagree, but I always say we can disagree without being disagreeable. And I think that that is a very important point to take home today. So I am still very supportive and very happy with this bill being implemented on July 1st, 2023. I am so thankful to everyone who helped us go through the process of this. There is not a single, you know, person who can say that we didn't do our job and we're not fair and ears open and had thorough conversation about a lot of different potential options with an issue, with a lot of different moving parts and very, very passionate opinions on all sides. So thank you to the entire community who is here tonight and has sent us emails, participated in town halls, had these discussions, lobbied. I really appreciate it. I'm I would ask my council, my fellow council members to respect the process as well. And who supports publishing this bill tonight and approving it next week? Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember Sawyer, Councilmember Sandoval.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. I just wanted to thank Dr. Terry in the back. Your comments were struck home to me tonight. And as a doctor, I have asked several of my nurse friends and sometimes I get stuck in politics and politics are messy. And so sometimes I have to go outside of my circle and go to doctors. And I just want to thank you for your service and think all the industry of doctors right now, because the pandemic has been hard. And not only has it been hard on you, it's been hard on your families, and it's been hard on everyone. And the smoking epidemic has been four years hard. And so I just want to thank all of our doctors and our health care professionals who came out to give us information. And in a time where the United States is so divided, whether you're vaccinated or not vaccinated, I think our council president had to remind this chamber five times tonight that the city and county of Denver had a mask mandate on five times. I've never heard that before in ever. Sitting here, people just put the mask on. But we're divided over so many certain things. And I just want to say that although I may not have voted the way you may liked, I do stand in solidarity with all of us during this really challenging time as we go into the solstice. Some dark days, literally dark days. The sunset at 430 tonight and our meeting started at five. So we've been here in the dark. And although I may not have voted the way you felt I should have or the way that I was reflective of your representation, I just want you to know that I do respect all of you as humans and all we mankind has gone through in the past year and a half. And I just had to call out Dr. Perry, because thank you so much for your comments. They helped me stay steadfast in my decision to. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Sandoval. Councilmember Flynn.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Madam President. I want to. Hearken back to the next to the penultimate speaker here, or the first speaker, rather. Councilwoman Sawyer. She is exactly right that this is how we legislate and we can disagree on things, as Councilwoman Sawyer said, without being disagreeable. As a matter of fact, although we have opposed each other on aspects of this bill, Councilwoman Sawyer and I are working together with Councilwoman Black on another project, and that's how the process is supposed to work, and I respect that. The other co-sponsor of this bill sits to my left here. Councilwoman Ortega. Councilwoman Ortega and I have been acquainted very favorably for nearly four decades now, and I have complete respect for her as well through this process, even though we don't agree on this bill. And so having said all that, Madam President, I will vote in favor of publishing the bill and moving it forward to a final passage and and look forward to the resolution of it. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember Flynn. Councilmember Black.
Speaker 5: Thanks, Madam President. Just for those of you who aren't familiar with the process of the city council tonight, we are just voting to publish the bill. So the final vote won't be til next week. And we almost always vote to publish the bill. And so I will be voting to publish the bill, but I will not be voting in favor of the bill next week. But I just wanted to explain to you.
Speaker 3: Why I.
Speaker 5: Would be voting yes tonight. And we usually have the hearing and all the comments on the the second reading on for the final vote. But because we've had so much tonight, I'm going to say my piece tonight and then I'm not going to say anything next week and I'm going to repeat some of the things I said the whole time. But.
Speaker 3: I believe.
Speaker 5: I believe in them. So anyway, we all agree that kids should not use tobacco, and we all agree that smoking is bad and kills people. However, this is not a good policy from the public health angle because it will not prevent people from smoking and it will not prevent kids from getting vaping products. As we've all said, people can get them and online they can get them in our neighboring cities. And then, of course, unflavored products are still available in Denver. So it's not going to prevent anyone from using the products. We've also learned that some people actually use vaping products to stop smoking. And so why would we take that option away from people who are trying to quit? We've also heard tonight this is very paternalistic. Why should 13 of us here tell someone who is an adult what they can and cannot buy, that they can buy a pack of camels, but they can't buy menthol, or they can go buy a wide variety of marijuana products or alcohol products. But for some reason, we're not going to let them have that. Skoal chewing tobacco. I've already made the point that it's it's a bad policy for small businesses. And I'm very sorry.
Speaker 3: For all of you.
Speaker 5: I think it's terrible what is going to happen to your businesses. Some people have talked about sending a message. I don't think sending a message is a good policy when it doesn't achieve the desired outcome, which is preventing kids and adults from smoking. It to send a message at the expense of these businesses, I don't think is good policy if if the goal is a state or national prohibition. Prohibition doesn't work. We had national prohibition of alcohol. It did not work. The unintended consequences were a black market and a rise of organized crime. It did not end the production of alcohol or the consumption of alcohol. Marijuana was prohibited for many years. Everyone could get their hands on marijuana, which is why we have legalized it so our way. Everything you said tonight, I agree with. We do know what works in reducing smoking and its education. Fewer people smoke today when they than they did 30 years ago. And we have way more people in our country. So we need to invest more in education. And several people up here tonight talked about, I think, Clark and Councilman Cashman about looking at this from a different angle. What is the problem? And let's dig in and find some other solutions that will actually prevent kids from getting their hands on it and.
Speaker 2: Get adults.
Speaker 5: The help that they need. So, as I said, Councilman Flynn and I are working on something about for increased penalties. I do think we need to look to the FDA. To ban products. And I would love to talk with some of you about some of your ideas. So our way, I think you're tired, but you need to you need to send your ideas our way.
Speaker 3: All right. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember Black. Councilmember Ortega.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. I also want to express my appreciation to everybody who has not only been here tonight, but has reached out throughout this timeframe on all sides of this issue. I think we all learned a little bit more about the industry through this this process. But I want to say a special thank you to my colleague, Councilwoman Sawyer, who did the heavy lifting in.
Speaker 5: Bringing.
Speaker 2: This legislation forward and to the team of people that worked with both of us on trying to craft something that we thought would get us there. Obviously, through the process of going through multiple committees, I was not really supportive of either of the two amendments that were passed, but we're trying to find a way to ensure that we had legislation that didn't completely gut the entirety of what we were trying to do, and the two amendments tonight would have done that. So I appreciate the fact that we have a bill that will move forward that still retains the basic elements of moving towards protecting our youth, while at the same time, I believe protect our adults as well. Interestingly. When we had the CIA great hall contract come forward. 34 year contract, multimillion dollars, one pass through committee. And this has been to committee on multiple, multiple occasions. So it just shows you like the interests that we had in this issue. And I think the fact that there were lobbyists on all sides of this issue also brought out a lot of interest as well. I look forward to seeing a new language that would be brought forward that deals with enhanced penalties and and stricter enforcement so that we continue to not see these products in the hands of our kids. I think, again, we started with the health of our kids. But at the same time, in what we're doing, I think it protects adults as well. So thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember Ortega, Councilmember Clark.
Speaker 0: Thank you. The President. Well, I am certainly disappointed that tonight that we weren't able to use a little bit more of a scalpel to really get at, you know, kids versus adults and and allowing adults to make decisions for themselves even when we don't like those decisions. It's disappointing that I just want to echo again a thanks to the bill's sponsors. And, you know, we saw amendments tonight. There were also amendments that the sponsors did include from all of that committee work and spent a lot of time with me personally. I know with other members of council and with the body and really taking time with all of us to hear us and to again say these are the things that we're willing to and honestly, that the the body is willing to amend and not amend. And so I just really appreciate that. I echo what others said that I believe that lots of hard work and with our process that there's definitely deserves to be published. And yet on the second reading, I will personally be grappling with that lack of finding that right scalpel for the 21 and up between now and then. But I but I will be voting tonight to publish it and take that decision on to second reading. So thank you, council president.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember Clark. Councilmember Herndon.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam President. I'm out of town next week, so I'm as vote no tonight and I'm going to say why. Here's my problem. What this was about initially is not where we got to. And Councilman Ortega just just kind of said that it protects the bill as well. This was never about protecting adults, as we said. This was in the spirit of protecting our youth, which as the father of a 17 year old daughter and a six year old son, I absolutely agree. And I do not believe that this bill will prevent any youth in Denver from not smoking or having access. Every neighborhood I represent Park Hills, Central Park, Montebello, East Colfax. They all touch another community. All of our districts minus one. My colleague to my right borders a neighboring municipality. A student in all of our districts, I imagine, can get somewhere out of the city and county of Denver in about 10 minutes. So the idea that this bill is going to prevent that, I just believe is a fallacy. And I wish in that the the the lobbying efforts for this. The idea that is, I feel has come across as disingenuous because it's not about kids. If you have a bigger agenda that I want to make this tobacco free, just say that so we can have a conversation about those merits. Don't cloud it with this is about the kids when it's not it's illegal right now. By the way, if you're under 20 to smoke flavored tobacco, let's just enforce the laws. I think you can also make sure. Thank you, Councilman Clark, for the scalpel, because that's what we should be doing. This is a sledgehammer. We're adding the law on top of the law. One law doesn't work with. Create another. Let's find out how we can fix our laws. That's the way that we should and want to make important policy for that. And I appreciate Dr. Richardson and I say, Dr. Rosen, I know you as Terry, but you are not doctors. Right. So I was gonna say I love you disagree on this one, but I appreciate all that you do. And you know that that we disagree on that. So let's let's do that. Let's have that conversation. And I just this is and I will throw out this last anecdotal thing. No, I told you about my 17 year old daughter when this conversation started a long time ago. I can't even remember. But I pulled her aside. One day I was like, Hey, you know, friends that vape. She's like, Of course. And I said, Why do they vape? And she listed off a bunch of different reasons. And then I looked at her. I said, Do they do it because of the flavor? And she looked at me, she said, no. And I just thought that was interesting. Speaking to a 17 year old senior who we want to talk about, this is who we are impacting. This is just one conversation. But I thought that was I thought that that was very telling. And I asked you right there, sir, I agree with you and any ways that I can help you as well as continue to do so. But let's like let's make meaningful policy. Let's stop our kids from doing it. And unfortunately, I don't believe this is going to do it. So can't vote no next week, but vote no this week. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember Herndon and I will go ahead and make my comments so we don't have to belabor it next week either. I have struggled with this clearly, and it's been helpful to hear the intent of the co-sponsors, council members Sawyer and Ortega. I really thank them for taking up this topic. I would have liked to, like Councilman Clarke, seen us move towards the regulatory side of it so that we're going after the bad actors and penalizing them for that. And I think this is an opportunity for us now as a council to have an honest conversation about what addiction really is and what are those mechanisms through legislation, if there are any, to help and support people in the path to recovery versus creating patchwork legislation that we're hopeful that other municipalities might pick up. But we're not assured of that. And all the while, creating more hardship for the city and county of Denver residents that want to acquire these products legally and again, go after the bad actors. And so I will vote in favor of it tonight to have it ordered published. I'm still struggling as to where I will be on my final vote next week on it. But I again thank the public for being here with us, staying with us, those online, following us. You all got to see a little demonstration of my dyslexia tonight as well. I'm glad I've got a lot of good crew up here that helps out with that. But I appreciated the conversation and Mr. Way Art, I think what you said was spot on and I really look forward to figuring out how we can do better around this topic going forward and not creating that patchwork. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 1182 as amended, please.
Speaker 2: Ortega. I. Sawyer.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 2: Sandoval.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 2: Torres. I. Black. CdeBaca.
Speaker 3: I. Clerk.
Speaker 2: Flynn.
Speaker 9: I.
Speaker 3: Herndon. Hinds.
Speaker 8: All right.
Speaker 2: Cashman.
Speaker 3: Can I.
Speaker 2: Madam President.
Speaker 1: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 3: One May 12.
Speaker 1: 512 Eyes Council Bill 21 Dash 1182 has been ordered published as amended there being no further business before this body. The meeting is adjourned.
|
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_11222021_21-1148
|
Speaker 1: Madam Secretary, will you please put the first item on our screens? And Councilmember Flynn, will you please put council resolutions 1148 and 1149 on the floor for adoption?
Speaker 5: Yes, Madam President, I move that council resolutions 21.
Speaker 0: Dash 1148 and.
Speaker 5: 21.
Speaker 0: Dash 1149, be adopted in a block.
Speaker 1: Thank you. If we can get a second. To that. All right, we got it. Comments by members of Council on Council Resolutions 1148 and 1149. Council Member Sawyer.
Speaker 3: Thanks, Madam President. These are two more on call contracts, these ones from Didi. As you all very well know at this point, I have significant reservations about us approving on call contracts without more stringent reporting requirements around it. And so I will be voting no tonight. Just wanted to point out as well that this is at this point, there's been one meeting in the last two months that I haven't called.
Speaker 2: Out on call contracts.
Speaker 3: To the tune of several hundred million dollars. And as it's our job by the charter to follow the money, I think that that is irresponsible for us. So I'm going to again be a no tonight.
Speaker 2: Thanks.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember Sawyer. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Resolutions 21, dash 1148 and 21. Dash 1149, please.
Speaker 7: Ortega.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 7: Sawyer. No. Sandoval. I Torrez. I'm black. I see tobacco. I Clark.
Speaker 8: II.
Speaker 0: When I.
Speaker 7: Herndon. I signs.
Speaker 8: I.
Speaker 7: Cashman. Can you. All right. Madam President.
Speaker 1: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce results.
Speaker 7: There's one night. 12 Eyes.
Speaker 1: 12 Eyes. Council Resolutions 21 dash 1148 and 21 Dash 1149 have been adopted. Madam Secretary, please put the next item on our screens. Council Member Can each go ahead with your comments, please? On Council Bill 21, Dash 1291.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Agreement between the City and County of Denver and E.T. Technologies, Inc. to provide on-call storage tank services.
Approves a contract with ET Technologies, Inc. for $2,250,000 and through 11-30-26 for on-call maintenance, repair, and testing of city-owned petroleum storage tanks, installation of critical tank infrastructure projects, and removal of obsolete or failed storage tanks, citywide (ENVHL- 202160481). 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 10-6-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11222021_21-1310
|
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember. Sorry about that. And thank you, Councilmember Hines, and happy to support this this evening. Appreciate the comments on it. Madam Secretary, we're going to go ahead and move to the next item that's been called out for comments. Councilmember Clark, please go ahead with your comments on Council Bill 21, Dash 1310, please.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam President. This is the energize Denver kind of 2.0, Bill. And I just wanted to call it out to say huge thank you to all the task force members who took time out of their lives to serve on the committee that worked on this to our amazing Cassar staff, to Katrina madigan, who just does an incredible job with this over there. I also just want to call out Councilmember Kenney for sitting on and really pushing for the first version, energize Denver 1.0. That really laid the groundwork to get where we're getting tonight with this one. The task force worked really hard to come together and to reach consensus across the board. And this was not easy. There were hard choices and there were the really tough decisions that needed to be made. Bill 1310 is a big deal. These changes pave the way for more efficient buildings and huge reductions in emissions from those buildings. We are in the midst of a climate crisis and we can only solve it with bold policies like this one. And when everyone gets a seat at the table and agrees to work together to find implementable ways for us to dramatically reduce our carbon emissions. 1310 Highlights who we are here in Denver when we all come together, when we all work together and work, when we're committed to finding solutions together. So this is another just calling it out for comments because I'm really excited about it. So lots of exciting things on the agenda today that are exciting because we're we're keeping them on consent and we're all voting unanimously for them. So I'm so proud of our community for coming together and putting these recommendations forward to our amazing staff, for turning those recommendations into something that we can take action on. Because the time for action on climate change is now, and we're certainly not done yet. But this is a huge step that we're taking tonight. So thank you to all the individuals who stepped up to make this happen. And I'm very excited for it to pass this evening. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Clark. And again, thank you for your leadership and Councilmember CNOOC's work on this and happy to support it. All right. That concludes the items to be called out this evening. We are now ready for the block vote on resolutions and bills on final consideration, except for Resolution 20 1-1269 concerning the Gateway Village General Improvement District Resolution 21, dash 1270 regard regarding the 14th Street General Improvement District and Resolution 20 1-1271. Concerning the Rhino Denver General Improvement District. After the recess, Council will hold separate public hearings on each of these three. 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. Councilmember Flynn, will you please put the resolutions for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor?
Speaker 5: Yes, Madam President. It's quite a lengthy list.
Speaker 0: So grab your popcorn, folks. 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.
Speaker 5: All series of 2020 114, 2713, 12, 13, 56, 13, 50, 13.
Speaker 0: 5111 7612.
Speaker 5: 5113 1913 2013 5813 zero seven 1268 1272 1273 1274 1275, 1276, 1277, 1278, 1279, 12.
Speaker 0: 8012, 81.
Speaker 5: 12, 82, 12, 83, 12, 84, 12, 85, 12, 86, 1287, 1288, 1289, 12, 9012, 91, 12, 92, 12, 93, 12, 94, 12, 95, 12, 96, 12, 97, 12, 98, 1299, 1313 zero 113 zero 713.
Speaker 0: Zero 813 zero nine.
Speaker 5: 1252 1253 1254 1257 1258 1259 1260 1261 1262, 1263, 12, 64, 13, 13, 13, 15, 12, 47.
Speaker 0: 13, ten.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Flynn. And I believe we got them all. Council secretary. All right. Good deal. It has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, roll call Ortega.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 6: I.
Speaker 1: We might need to call her again.
Speaker 9: Council secretary.
Speaker 6: I'm. I'm connected. I.
Speaker 7: Can each.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 7: Hines.
Speaker 8: All right.
Speaker 7: Herndon. Sawyer, I.
Speaker 0: Clark I.
Speaker 7: See tobacco I. Torres, I. Black Eye Cashman or Sandoval, i. Flynn. Hi, Madam President.
Speaker 1: I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 7: There are 13 eyes.
Speaker 1: 13 eyes. The resolutions have been adopted and the bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass this evening. Our pre recess announcement tonight council will convene separately as the Board of Directors of the Gateway Village, 14th Street and Reno Denver General Improvement Districts to approve a work plan, adopt a budget, impose capital and maintenance charges
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance amending the Revised Municipal Code of the City and County of Denver to require energy performance and greenhouse gas emissions reductions in existing commercial and multifamily buildings and future electrification requirements for existing buildings.
Amends Chapters 4 and 10 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code to require energy performance and greenhouse gas emissions reductions in existing commercial and multifamily buildings and future electrification requirements for existing buildings. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 11-3-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11222021_21-1269
|
Speaker 1: Direct your comments to council as a whole, and please refrain from individual or personal attacks. Council is now convened as the Board of Directors of the Gateway Village General Improvement District Council Member Flynn, will you please put Resolution 20 1-1269 on the floor for adoption?
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 5: Madam President, I move that resolution 21, dash 1269, be adopted.
Speaker 1: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded the public hearing for Resolution 20 1-1269 is open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 5: Good evening, board members. I am Michael Carrigan with the city's Department of Finance, Capital Planning and Programing Division. I am before you tonight to give the staff report and request approval for the Gateway Village General Improvement District 2022 Annual Work Plan and Budget. The district is located in far northwest of the in the far northwest at the intersection of I-70 and Chambers Road. It consists of approximately 243 acres on the eastern border of Montebello is completely developed and primarily consists of residential property. Responsibilities of the district include maintaining landscaping and parks. City Council approved the formation of the Gateway Village General Improvement District I Ordinance Number 551 series 1994 and establish City Council as the ex-officio board of Directors of the District. The creation or also created the District Advisory Board made up of property owners within the guide. The ordinance specified that such District Advisory Board should conduct and manage all affairs of the District as the authorized agent of the Board of Directors, including its financial and legal affairs pursuant to Resolution Number 32 Series 1995. Denver City Council authorized the District Advisory Board to create a work plan and budget for approval by the Board of Directors annually. The Gateway Village 2022 Budget proposes overall expenditures of 1,295,000 and transfers to the capital fund of 800,000, with total revenues of $739,392. These are plans to assess 20 mills on real property within the district during 2022. The district anticipates funding a reserve study to develop a long term plan for replacement of its major capital items, fund streetlight improvements to improve safety at night and potentially start the third phase of the district's landscape improvement project. Additionally, the district plans to plan to continue landscaping, irrigation, maintenance, snow removal and storm drainage maintenance and storm drainage maintenance within the district. City staff has reviewed the 2022 budget work plan and recommends it for approval. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Michael. This evening we're still want to just give. A little bit of time. We've got one individual signed up to speak on 1269 and the individual is Colin Melky. Come on up.
Speaker 0: Good evening. Colin Mielke from the law firm Sutter and Vandewalle. We represent the Gateway Village General Improvement District here to answer any questions that you might have on the budget, but I don't have anything to add other than what's already been said.
Speaker 1: All right. Great. Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Questions from members of Council on Council Resolution 20 1-1269. CNN. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Resolution 20 1-1269. Seen no comments. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Resolution 20 1-1, 269, please.
Speaker 7: Ortega the.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 7: Black Eye. CdeBaca Eye. Clark. Eye for an.
Speaker 0: Eye.
Speaker 7: Herndon. Hi.
Speaker 8: Hi.
Speaker 7: Cashman. I can reach I. Sandoval. Sawyer, i. Torres, I. Madam President.
Speaker 1: I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 7: There are 11 eyes.
Speaker 1: 11 Eyes Council Resolution 20 1-1, two, six, nine has passed. We're going to now convene as the board of directors of the Denver 14th Street General Improvement District. The Council is now convened as the board of directors of the Denver 14th Street General Improvement District.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution By the Council of the City and County of Denver, sitting ex officio as the Board of Directors of the Gateway Village General Improvement District, approving a Work Plan, adopting a Budget and making appropriations for the Budget Year 2022 and approving a Mill Levy.
Approves the 2022 Work Plan and Budget for the Gateway Village General Improvement District in Council District 11. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 11-3-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11222021_21-1270
|
Speaker 1: 11 Eyes Council Resolution 20 1-1, two, six, nine has passed. We're going to now convene as the board of directors of the Denver 14th Street General Improvement District. The Council is now convened as the board of directors of the Denver 14th Street General Improvement District. Councilmember Flynn. Will you please put Resolution 20 1-1270 on the floor for adoption?
Speaker 0: Yes, Madam President, I move that.
Speaker 5: Resolution 21, dash 1270, be adopted.
Speaker 1: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded the public hearing for Resolution 20 1-1270 is open. And we have Michael Carrigan here with us again from the Department of Finance for the Staff Report.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Good evening, board members. Once again, Michael Carrigan from the Department of Finance. I'm here to provide the staff report and request approval for the budget for the 14th Street General Improvement District for the 2022 Budget and Work Plan. The district is 22.66 acres in size and located along the 14th Street, right of way from Market Street to Colfax, and generally includes all parcels along both sides of the 14/14 Street. It was created by council and approved by the electors in response to the 14th Street Initiative to create Denver's Downtown Ambassador. Street Initiative began in 2005 and visualized the 14th Street as a promenade and a major gateway to the downtown area. The plan contemplated street streetscape enhancements and related public infrastructure improvements. Stakeholders included private property owners, public officials and business organizations who participated to establish the conceptual design design for 14th Street. In 2009, City Council approved the formation of the 14th Street Guide and the creation of the District Advisory Board. The district was established to acquire finance, operate and maintain street improvements. The district's creation ordinance calls for the JD to annually pass a work plan and budget. District the district advisory board after notice and a hearing recommends to the Board of directors the proposed work plan and budget, including maintenance charges and capital charges before it's made in 2022. The district plans to continue maintaining district amenities, including, but not limited to street to tree planters, flower pots, landscape maintenance, signage, repairs, trash removal and sidewalk lighting maintenance. The work plan, budget and charges include total revenues of $567,310, which is comprised of $257,070 in maintenance charges, band rental and interest revenue plus $310,240. And capital charges for the repayment of debt used to be used to fund the capital enhancements along 14th Street. City staff has reviewed the 2022 budget and work plan and recommends it for approval. Thank you.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you. This evening, we have one individual signed up to speak in person. And so we're going to go ahead and start with that. Mikey.
Speaker 7: Good evening.
Speaker 2: City Council and President. Madam President, I'm Batman Whiskey, and.
Speaker 7: I'm the executive director for the 14th Street General Improvement District. I'm here to answer any questions you might have.
Speaker 1: Thank you. That concludes our speakers questions for members of Council on Council Resolution 21, Dash 1270. Seen none. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Resolution 20 1-1270. CNN. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Resolution 21, dash 1270 Ortega.
Speaker 7: I. Black. I see the. I. Clark. I when.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 7: Heard in. Hines.
Speaker 8: Hi.
Speaker 7: Cashman. I can reach Sandoval. I swear.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 7: Torres, I. Madam President.
Speaker 1: I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced results.
Speaker 7: There are 12 eyes.
Speaker 1: 12 Eyes Council Resolution 21, dash 1270 has passed. The Council is now convened as the board of directors of the Reno Denver General Improvement District. Councilmember Flynn. Will you please put Resolution 20 1-1271 on the floor for adoption?
|
Resolution
|
A resolution By the Council of the City and County of Denver, sitting ex officio as the Board of Directors of the Denver 14th Street General Improvement District, approving a Work Plan, adopting a Budget, imposing Capital Charges and Maintenance Charges, and making appropriations for the 2022 Fiscal Year.
Approves the 2022 Work Plan and Budget for the 14th Street General Improvement District in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 11-3-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11222021_21-1271
|
Speaker 1: 12 Eyes Council Resolution 21, dash 1270 has passed. The Council is now convened as the board of directors of the Reno Denver General Improvement District. Councilmember Flynn. Will you please put Resolution 20 1-1271 on the floor for adoption?
Speaker 5: Yes, Madam President, thank you. I move that Resolution 21, dash 1271, be adopted.
Speaker 1: Thank you. We have it moved by you. We need a second, please. All right, great. We've got it moved by Council Member Flynn and seconded by Councilmember Hines. The public hearing for Resolution 20 1-1271 is open. May we have the staff report and we have Michael Kerrigan here from the Department of Finance.
Speaker 5: Good evening, board members. Once again, Michael Kerrigan from the Department of Finance. I am before you tonight to give the staff report and request approval for the Rhino Denver General Improvement District 2022 Annual Work Plan and Budget. The district is located northwest of downtown and includes residentially and commercially assessed properties around the Brighton Boulevard corridor. Generally, the JDI is centered on Brighton Boulevard, stretching from I-70 on the north to 29th Street on the south and bounded east by the Union Pacific Railroad line and to the west by the Burlington Northern Railroad Line. The JD Sports infrastructure enhancements and maintenance in the Reno area, including streetscape maintenance to Brighton Boulevard. City Council approved the formation of the Rhino Denver Guide by Ordinance Number 309 Series 2015 and established City Council as the ex-officio board of Directors of District. The ordinance also creates a district advisory board comprised of property owners within the district. The ordinance specified that the advisory board should, subject to approval of the Board of directors, conduct and manage all affairs of the district as of as the authorized agent took the board of directors. The District Advisory Board has created the 2022 budget before you tonight. The Budget proposes overall expenditures and fund transfers of $1,562,086 and overall revenues of $1,000,609, 609 and $281 of these revenues. The district will generate approximately 1,433,681 through the levy of four mills on real property for general operating purposes. And it will generate approximately $175,000 from the imposition of a capital charge assessed on a lineal foot based basis on properties adjacent to Brighton Boulevard for repayment of debt used to fund the capital enhancements along Brighton Boulevard. City staff has reviewed the 2022 budget and work plan and recommends it for approval. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. We have three individuals signed up to speak this evening. Our first speaker is in person and the other two are online. And so we're going to start out with Tracy. Well, here in chambers.
Speaker 0: Good evening, counsel. My name's Tracy Whale, and I'm the executive director for the Rhino Art District, and I'm here to answer any questions you may have. So thank you.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you. We're going to go ahead and move online. Our first speaker online is Tess Dougherty.
Speaker 3: Council. I. Can you hear me? Okay?
Speaker 1: Go ahead.
Speaker 3: Okay. So thank you. So, hi, my name's Chester from District nine. And I just I'm curious about the, the budget in the board of directors and how the process for, for the so called Reno art district, how it works because in the 23 River North Neighborhood Plan, it mentions, you know, a name change to the area to improve its attract ability for investors. It mentions you know there's a huge emphasis on on the art and not as much of a preservation on the local culture of the area. And I'm just curious about, you know, why an area that was historically black and Latino and historically, you know, neglected and not invested, you know, magically becomes becomes rhino and and has a name change. And I mean, the 23 River North Plan is pretty much a guide to gentrification in the city. And so I would just I'm just curious if there are indigenous people at the table and who's at the table and what their board of directors looks like? Because. Because. You know, there, it just feels like a lot of a little bit of an erasure. You know, the whole process of of Reno art district feels very much like an erasure of culture and of history and and of people because, you know, there's been a lot of displacement that's happened in that area. And it doesn't feel like everyone's been at the table or had an opportunity to remain in that area. It feels like the city of Denver is very much made it comfortable for wealthy white people to move in at the expense of black, brown and indigenous people. And that's a real shame. It's a real shame. And and I just wonder how the River North, how the rhino art district feels about that and what they're doing to to correct that harm a in a restorative and transformative way for the community. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Our next speaker online is David Hagan.
Speaker 9: Hi. Good evening, counsel. I'm also a District nine, and I'd just like to, uh, to kind of just stick with the same stuff that tested said. Um, it seems to me that I'm curious to how much of that budget is. Going to go towards preservation of the people that have lived in that area, the preservation of the people. Five points in G as in what are we doing to keep them there and not just move them on and bring more, more gentrification in that area? What are we doing for affordable housing in that area? Is any of that money set up for affordable housing or. Who? Who does the market work for? What are we doing? For the people. What are we doing to keep the people there? I mean, it wasn't that long ago that Joes was was tried. They tried to push him out because of the unhoused folks buying forties at his liquor store or whatever. And he recently sold, I believe, but what's left of the original people. Do we care about them or are we going to move them over to another neighborhood until we decide to gentrify that neighborhood and build it arena or some other obstruction? It's just I just want to I just want to really highlight on the gentrification and make sure that we're not we're not forgetting about that. We've got to be doing something about that. Gentrification is colonization, and we should be better than that by this point in time. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. That concludes our speakers questions from members of Council. On Council Resolution 21, dash 1271. We've got a couple members in the queue. Councilmember Ortega, please go ahead.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Madam President. Let me put my hand down. So my question is for Michael Kerrigan. Michael.
Speaker 2: Can you tell me.
Speaker 6: How far off of Brighton the boundaries extend? I'm just curious if this includes the Salvation Army site, which is now owned by the city of Denver.
Speaker 5: Yes. Essentially, it it goes from a railroad track to railroad tracks. I'm not sure where the Salvation Army building is. If it's if it's immediate, the river at.
Speaker 6: 29th Avenue.
Speaker 5: That would be included within the district boundaries.
Speaker 6: It abuts the river. I believe 29th is the cross street. So it's. It's on the east side of the river, not the west side.
Speaker 5: Even the railroad tracks are on the west side of the river. So that would be that would be included in the district.
Speaker 6: Okay. So what how does that then apply when the city owns property? So I know we used to have the. But we'll have the park down there now. Where the police. What was the the place where they would auction bikes and vehicles off that were picked up and never claimed. But in this case, we we own that building now. So how is that handled differently from any of the other properties?
Speaker 5: So the the city truly owns it. The assessed value of that property would be zero. So that property would not be paying any of the four mills or the or the lineal foot charge into the district.
Speaker 6: Okay. Thank you for that. That's that's all I had for questions. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Ortega. Councilmember Hines.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Council President. I guess this is either either of you could answer this. I'm sure this isn't in my district. And so I'm not as familiar with the demographics of the people who live in this area. But historically, was this. It's my understanding that it was a railyard and a bunch of warehouses. Did people live here historically or was this main mainly just a storage area until it became, um, you know, until into housing started to get built in this area.
Speaker 1: Do you want to introduce yourself for us?
Speaker 0: Well, the executive director for the Rhino Art District in the sixties, it was really mostly gentrified and turned into more of an.
Speaker 8: Industrial hub.
Speaker 0: Back then. There are still a few houses left, including mine, where I live. So that's kind of the makeup of the district. Does that answer your question?
Speaker 8: So you you mention in the sixties it was gentrified, so people used to live there and then they got they left for warehouses.
Speaker 0: Yeah, well, it's kind of always this workaday neighborhood, I think generally. But then it was, you know, they started building more warehouses for for industry. And, you know, there's always been an industrial corridor, primarily. But some of that happened in the sixties, too.
Speaker 8: Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Councilperson.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Hines. And not seen any other questions from members of council. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Resolution 20 1-1271. CNN. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Resolution 21. Dash 1 to 7 one.
Speaker 7: Ortega.
Speaker 1: I know.
Speaker 7: Black Eye. CdeBaca, I. Clark.
Speaker 0: All right.
Speaker 7: When I heard in hindsight, Cashman can reach Brian Sandoval, I swear.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 7: Torres, I. Madam President, I.
Speaker 1: Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce results.
Speaker 7: There are 13 I's.
Speaker 1: 13 I's Council Resolution 21, dash 1271 has passed. We want to thank Michael Carrigan and the other representatives from the organizations that were here and the members of the public. Council is now convened as Denver City Council. Councilmember Flynn, will you please put council bill 20 1-1219 on the floor to be ordered published.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution By the Council of the City and County of Denver, sitting ex officio as the Board of Directors of the RiNo Denver General Improvement District, approving a Work Plan, adopting a Budget and making appropriations for the 2022 Budget Year.
Approves the 2022 Work Plan and Budget for the RiNo Denver General Improvement District in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 11-3-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11222021_21-1219
|
Speaker 1: 13 I's Council Resolution 21, dash 1271 has passed. We want to thank Michael Carrigan and the other representatives from the organizations that were here and the members of the public. Council is now convened as Denver City Council. Councilmember Flynn, will you please put council bill 20 1-1219 on the floor to be ordered published.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Madam President, I move that council bill 21.
Speaker 0: Dash 1219, be ordered published.
Speaker 1: Thank you. We have it moved and we've got it seconded there. Thank you, folks. The public hearing for Council Bill 21, Dash 1219 is open. And may we have the staff report, please?
Speaker 2: Thank you, council members. My name is Megan Presa and with the Department of Public Health and Environment and I have a brief presentation I'll go through fairly quickly here. Many of you have seen it. So we will go through rapidly. In addition to myself, we have a number of our Denver health colleagues on the line virtually, and they're available to answer questions as well as some of my city colleagues over here. The 2022 operating agreement between the City of Denver and Denver Health and Hospital Authority covers a number of services for the city. Those are included core services. And some examples are listed here noncore services and then some services that the city provides. Back to Denver Health. The contract for 2022 includes 36 services total. Relatively few language changes in 2022, with the exception of section 83, which is the public health section. As you can see, 27 are unchanged and nine of those sections had relatively minor changes other than a three.
Speaker 1: And two of them were removed.
Speaker 2: Because they're handled in another agreement are no longer necessary as a capital project. Some highlights of the core services. Patient Care Services just received some minor updates to the metrics to align with COVID 19. I'll get to the public health services in A-3 in the next couple of slides. And the third section of aa3 or eight just had an updated call answering protocol for the Rocky Mountain Poison and drug safety, digging into a3a little bit more. The Public Health Institute at Denver Health transferred a number of services back to the.
Speaker 1: City this year, including.
Speaker 2: Epidemiology and disease investigation, preparedness and response informatics, the chief medical officer, position and Vital Records. This will provide future cost savings efficiencies and a more seamless public health response and services to the city. Reduce the risk of redundancy. And this was further highlighted by the COVID response and the need to bring those two entities under one umbrella for emergency response. This resulted in 23 plus new F2, EAS and DDP. The remainder of a three that stays with Denver health are the four public health clinics listed here infectious disease, immunization and travel, sexual health and tuberculosis clinics. And there were some minor language changes around communication and data use, as well as further defining invoices and financial requirements. A few highlights from Appendix B The Caution Outline updated updated. The allowable time to respond to a records request and updated some protocols to address when the provider exhibits a pattern of.
Speaker 1: Performance inconsistent with.
Speaker 2: Existing standards of medical care. And the there is a section added to the health care at the Denver County Jail and Downtown Detention Center to work towards an electronic medical record system in the jails. A few minor changes to Appendix C Denver Health Approved Paying for two additional emergency communication operator positions. This is to support the EMS calls and to 911 and then some minor updates to the minority and women business enterprise program. The budget for 2022 is roughly $63.6 million. Almost half of that is for that patient care formally referred to as the AMA payment. And the other 33.9 million is for other core and non-core services. The city will also have an approximate revenue of about 3.5 million for the services we provide to the hospital. I won't go into the details here, but this is the details of the budget increase. A few of them are related to reductions that Denver Health took during the COVID economic downturn. A number of them are related to wage inflation and a few other minor changes to budgets and different sections of the agreement. That's it. Thank you.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you. We have 13 individuals signed up to speak this evening and all of them are joining us online. Our first speaker this evening is Robin Wittgenstein. Do we have Robin in the queue? Okay. We'll go ahead and move on to our next speaker. Jesse Paris.
Speaker 8: Yes. Good evening. Members of council cannot be heard. Yes. Yes. My name is Justin Boston Paris and I'm represents the black swan symbol of the self defense housing vaccine command for social change was the Unity Party of Colorado and front line black males. And I'll be the next male member in 2023. I'm in favor of this budget proposal tonight. Please pass this. That's all I have to say. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Our next speaker is Tess Dougherty.
Speaker 3: Hi, Councilor. My name's Test and I'm live in District nine. I, I, you know, I was in the board meeting when Bob McDonald announced that the, the switch was happening and that they'd been working on it to take, you know, give control back to the city instead of Denver health. And I guess I, you know, my own experiences at Denver Health have been pretty, pretty terrifying. I, I appreciate the services like the, you know, the STD clinic and the immunization clinic that they have. You know, I think that that those are very helpful services and actually deserve more funding but but personal experiences at Denver Health, my experience with hearing people tell me stories about Denver health have been pretty terrifying and gravely negligent. The the amount of people who are unsafely discharged from Denver health after being taken there if they're experiencing homelessness is is just absolutely alarming and terrifying and and not to mention the treatment of people. Denver Health regularly ignores requests from from service service providers who are sending in orders for people experiencing homelessness, and they just somehow get lost on the way to Denver Health in a fax machine, I guess. And that's pretty just despicable. But you know, what's really, really sad is that I don't I don't have much faith that the city of Denver is going to do much better. I actually am more scared that it's going to be in the hands of the city of Denver based on the treatment of people experiencing homelessness by the city of Denver. And that's really, really fucking sad and scary. Do better, please.
Speaker 1: All right. We're going to move on to our next speaker and I believe we've got Robyn Wittgenstein in the queue. Robin, you might need to unmute.
Speaker 3: I don't know if you intended for this to be Dr. Wittgenstein or me. But I'm in the queue, so.
Speaker 1: Well, we have Dr. Weinstein signed up as one of the public speakers. We're going to go ahead and we'll move on and see if we can get that figured out. Our next speaker is Connie Pryce.
Speaker 3: Hello. Thank you. I'm Connie Silver Price. I am the chief medical officer at Denver Health, and I'm also a resident of the city and county of Denver as a mission focused safety net provider. Denver Health is proud of the role we have played in Denver for over 160 years. While the COVID pandemic has continued to challenge us in ways we could not have imagined, it also demonstrates the essential value Denver Health delivers to everyone in our community. Two years into this pandemic, our dedicated Denver health staff continue to rise to the challenge. Since the pandemic began, care has been provided to over 3000 COVID 19 patients in the hospital, countless others who have received care remotely via our virtual hospital at home program, saving hospital beds for the sickest of the sick. And we have given over 100,000, 140,000 persons, the COVID 19 vaccination, to help contribute to over 80 to 90% of the city of Denver being vaccinated in all but the youngest age groups. Over 27% of our 5 to 11 year old age group has also recently been vaccinated, with the recent approval by the FDA. In this age group and our school based health centers and our vaccine outreach teams in partnership with our city have been hosting events at schools and in low income areas of Denver this week and for the remainder of the semester. And when monoclonal antibodies which prevent progression to those at risk for severe disease from COVID and prevent them from getting hospitalized or getting severe illness. When those became available, Denver Health was the first institution to make it available to our community. While dealing with this pandemic, we continue to provide everyday health care exceeding pre-pandemic volumes for many of our services. Now in our emergency room and urgent care centers, our hospital, our ambulatory care centers, and in outpatient behavioral health visits due to the well-documented impact of the pandemic on mental health. We did this while maintaining high standards of clinical care meeting or exceeding performance goals across a range of services. We also maintain our reputation as a leading trauma center and currently are caring for record numbers of trauma patients. Also, an impact of this pandemic. Even with all those accomplishments in our medical care, we are well aware that this is only part of the solution. That is why Denver Health continues to invest in our community and social determinants of health. We have been improving access to food, education and well-paid jobs in housing. And so in partnership with the Denver Housing Authority, we continue to work to convert a former administration building to a transitional senior housing project to allow for safe discharge for patients who are too frail to go home. We are also working with our community to help people who are experiencing homelessness get back on their feet. And thank you very much for my 3 minutes.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Our next speaker joining us online is David Hagan.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Counselor, for allowing me to speak tonight. This is going to be one hell of a sandwich. Back in September. A friend of ours that we've been advocating for experiencing homelessness was left in her bed for two weeks after being struck by a car. I met in two weeks without being taken out of her bed. You could smell or moved. You could smell her from two doors down. We were assured that she would be given a bath, cleaned and moved after that. And we were also assured that she would be released to some sort of housing that would be of assistance to her because she was not going to be able to take care of herself. What the Denver health do they release her to the 48th Street shelter. It took them half a day to get her there. They not they kind of knocked her over. She was laying on the sidewalk and then they made her stand up on a leg that she almost recently had amputated. This is what experience she had. Mine wasn't that bad, but I was definitely left alone there. It wasn't the greatest experience, but I'd like to focus on her experience. And then I'd also like to think in the jails. Why is it that we take Medicaid away as soon as you get to jail? Then why is it that we're making the the inmates pay for everything out of their own pockets without having any money because they're in jail? So it makes it really difficult to have any money. And getting services while in jail has been very difficult for the people that I've spoken to. It's been almost non-existent, to be quite honest. Meds, medication is not been provided for people that we've spoken with. Mental health. That's just a joke. I mean, that might as well not even talk about that because it's not it's completely non-existent. So I hope that in this budget that's going on. We have some money for these things and we're going to start paying attention to and advocating and making sure that these things happen and that the people that are marginalized in our community because this is not acceptable, it's disgusting. And then also, I just wanted to say before I get off here, Hines, that Walnut, Larimer, Lawrence are all in the right now. And then that stuff spreads over and then gentrification happens, money goes up. So it's not just.
Speaker 1: Asking that you stay on the tour.
Speaker 9: Thank you so much. Have a good time.
Speaker 1: All right. We'll go to our next speaker, Pastor Topaz McBride.
Speaker 7: Good evening.
Speaker 2: So. I feel a little a little kind of.
Speaker 6: Out of sorts just because I just.
Speaker 2: Jumped on. So I don't even know where I'm coming in at, however. I do want to.
Speaker 6: Express my concern on behalf.
Speaker 3: Of the different organizations.
Speaker 6: That I am representing this evening, which include the Greater Denver Ministerial Alliance.
Speaker 2: And.
Speaker 3: Community. I'll just stick with that. And community concern about the respect of.
Speaker 2: Workers.
Speaker 3: Across the board as it relates particularly to.
Speaker 2: Employees of color and and really.
Speaker 3: Allowing them a voice and.
Speaker 6: The.
Speaker 1: Support.
Speaker 2: That is deserved and necessary in this particular climate in which we're living in being treated with the same professionalism and humanity that all workers deserve.
Speaker 3: In a press conference and prayer meeting that was held in front of Denver Health a few months ago, back in the summer, I had an opportunity to hear from several Denver health workers and how they were being treated and the evident discriminatory practices and lack of equity that comes from Denver Health.
Speaker 2: Even with the.
Speaker 3: Support of the Union, there is a lack of equity. And so I'm here to speak against that. I'm here to speak against the.
Speaker 2: Implicit.
Speaker 3: Biases within the health care system that are.
Speaker 2: Reflected from employees to patients.
Speaker 3: To differences in how.
Speaker 2: Patients are treated. There were a couple of.
Speaker 3: Families that came.
Speaker 2: To the Denver Ministerial Alliance, and I was saying a couple, but actually there were several, but there were a couple, a couple who were willing to be public with regard to their specific cases and names. And it was evident that they were treated with much bias.
Speaker 3: And and it was because of the color of their skin that was evident.
Speaker 2: Once the investigation was done and there was a comparison in the.
Speaker 3: Outcome of those particular cases and other cases.
Speaker 2: The community is what Denver Health is supposed to be available to support community.
Speaker 3: At large regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, etc.. And when you take an oath as a health care professional, then the expectation is that you are going to be.
Speaker 6: Committed to the oath that.
Speaker 3: You've taken.
Speaker 2: To support.
Speaker 7: Patients, that that's the.
Speaker 1: Time we have allocated for you before.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Our next.
Speaker 3: Speaker.
Speaker 1: Is Juliana Thomas.
Speaker 6: Good afternoon and thank you for the opportunity to address you today. Members of the Council. My name is Juliana Thomas and I am a proud retired union member and I am very active in our community. Presently, I am a volunteer at the Redeeming Love Fellowship Church. I helped to run a food bank there, along with the volunteer at Sidney Elementary School as a substitute teacher. Social emotional. So my thoughts tonight are the same as present as the previous speaker about the injustice that has been taking place at the U.S. health. Most humanitarian efforts, I would like to say, such as hospitals, daycares and orphanages where initiative by Christians. My faith in God tells me that there must be a difference in the world in how we treat one another. We are taught to love our neighbors and ourselves is when we as Christians use our influence to try to correct the moral and ethical issues that go on. This is where we are meet with the contention, which I'm glad to be to be a part of. When a group in society is oppressed or is suffering and is constantly denied the privileges and rights of the institution that the majority enjoys. It is called social injustice. Therefore, it is unfair and will ultimately lead to contention, discourse and uprising such as what we are seeing in our society today. Injustice is sin and it should not be tolerated. There should be no respect to persons. There should be no differences. And in how we treat one another and how we do our jobs and how we go about serving our community. One thing that I stand by, God is not mocked whatsoever a man. So that's what he's going to reap. Now, I was also a part of the community praying for racial justice at the Denver Health. We prayed that day for Denver health leaders to do a couple of things. Three things in particular that I remember. First, that Denver health leaders would have the courage to honestly face institutional racial injustice. Second, that Denver health leaders have the humility to accept community responsibility. Third, that Denver health leaders have the moral strength to respect the rights of their workers. As Denver Health Council, one of our pastors who prayed that day said, We wanted to ask God to shake every house so that our elected officials use their power to guide Denver health on a path of demonstrating racism or dismantling excuse me, racism and protecting workers rights. I ask you all tonight, have you done all that you can do to support the workers who are courageously united to make Denver health the best place to give and receive care? It is our responsibility to stand up for those that are treated unfairly, and I stand with those that are fighting against the injustice at Denver Health. Thank you for your time this evening.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Our next speaker is Brook Bender.
Speaker 7: Nor can you hear me?
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 7: Wonderful. Thank you.
Speaker 10: My name is Brooke Bender.
Speaker 7: And I am.
Speaker 10: The administrative director of our Center for Addiction Medicine at Denver Health. I am representing the entire entity of Denver Health as our Center for Addiction Medicine crosses over all of our services. Denver Health Chem Center for Addiction Medicine aims to do things differently than many traditional health care systems. By identifying patients wherever they enter our system, assess their substance use needs, and link them into inclusive and compassionate ongoing care if and when they're ready for treatment. Much of our.
Speaker 2: Model would be impossible.
Speaker 10: Without funding.
Speaker 3: From the City Operating Agreement.
Speaker 10: For our Treatment on Demand program. This program funds three full time substance treatment therapists to meet patients in the emergency department and hospital at bedside to conduct a full bio psychosocial intake, assess needed level of care, and link patients to next day outpatient follow up. A Denver health or within one of our community partnerships. The City Operating agreement has allowed us to innovate and expand.
Speaker 3: Over the last few years.
Speaker 7: We started in 2019.
Speaker 10: As a city pilot program just in the emergency department, and over the last couple of years have expanded to our inpatient unit and serving patients with opioid use disorder, alcohol use disorder, stimulant use disorder and poly substance use. In addition, we've expanded to also outreach to patients post overdose in our emergency department. We've been over the last couple of years due to COVID increased numbers of overdoses.
Speaker 7: Occurring within the city and county of.
Speaker 10: Denver. Many emergency departments are stabilizing those patients that they can and sending them back out into the community. Our treatment on demand therapists outreach. Those patients offer support and linkage to treatment. What we've seen so far is an increase in patients entering treatment through this program every year, including during COVID. As of this.
Speaker 3: Year.
Speaker 10: In October, 380 patients were served by this team with an average linkage rate of 60 to 70% to ongoing services.
Speaker 3: Our patients are showing gratitude for this program.
Speaker 10: A couple of quotes they've shared with us are the compassionate staff at Denver Health saved my life by helping me believe my life was worth saving. They were super kind and genuinely there to help me. No judgment. Our hopes for next steps for the treatment and demand program is to expand beyond the three treatment providers we have . We're only reaching a small portion of the patient population within the hospital that have substance use disorders due to a limited capacity of the team. We also want to offer learnings and technical assistance, including for clinical consultation to other emergency departments and hospitals interested in building their own treatment on demand models. Thank you very much for your time tonight.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Our next speaker joining us online is Julia Aureliano.
Speaker 7: Hey, can you hear me okay?
Speaker 1: Yes, go ahead.
Speaker 7: Hi. Good evening. I'm Julie Ariana. I'm assistant chief paramedic for Denver Health X. I've been with Denver Health. I'm the paramedics first. Our operations.
Speaker 1: Let me see. Your microphone seems to be going in and out a little bit. Maybe if you go ahead and speak louder and we'll let you know we're here and. Yeah.
Speaker 7: I'll talk louder. Can you hear me now? Yes. Okay. So I am currently overseeing our operations out of the airport. We have paramedics there 24 hours a day. As you know, Denver International Airport is very busy. It's the third busiest airport in the nation, the eighth in the world. They see about 69 million passengers every year. Just in 2021, Denver paramedics have run over 6000 calls and transported almost 2200 patients from the airport alone. You know, this is an important operation for us, the airport being.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 7: Kind of a vulnerable population out the location wise from where any medical help could get there. So those 60 over 6000 patients would be calls that would have to come from our downtown 911 system. So having our paramedics there is is vital to serving that population. That number is also significant considering that the first five months of.
Speaker 2: This year there was.
Speaker 7: Very limited airline traffic. So our numbers are very close to what they were in 2019, which was 12 months of a busy airline traffic. So we are committed to being a great partner with the airport and a great partner with the city. We play an important part with our our partners out there in public safety, the police department and the fire department, and supporting taking care of all of those those passengers out of the airport. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Our next speaker is Elizabeth Epps. Elizabeth Banks.
Speaker 2: Evening.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Go ahead.
Speaker 3: Good evening, City Council. It's been a while since I've been with you, but I'm still Elizabeth Epps. And I founded and served as the executive director of the Colorado Freedom Fund. The Colorado Freedom Fund. We pay ransom. We pay cash bail for our neighbors trapped in Colorado cages most often the Denver City cage. The Denver City cage, where far too many people are transported after incidents that happen there at Denver Health. I'm here this evening just to briefly address the patient to prisoner pipeline. No one who seeks medical care at Denver Health should ever have to think about seeking that care because they may delay that care because they may encounter law enforcement. We we should all agree that hospitals should be patient sanctuaries, which balance the rights of vulnerable patients with the need for public safety. We know from our work at the Colorado Freedom Fund that Denver Health at times functions as a really active, aggressive, willing participant in this patient prisoner pipeline. I mean, this in the most direct, direct way, counselors at the Colorado Freedom Fund, we regularly pay bond several times a month for people disproportionately black and brown women who are accused of assault, where the assault at issue is flinching, panicking, spitting or otherwise being less than one's best self when in the custody of a Denver health employee. Institutional racism impacts everyone, and our health care system is not immune to that. Denver Health Hospitals Already it's really, really must meaningfully acknowledge, confront and work to dismantle these oppressive systems within those halls of Denver health. So counselors, even as we ask you, of course, to vote yes on the operating agreement. We also want to remind you that, you know, Denver Health can start with transparency around the report that the executives commissioned the equity project to complete and can continue by honestly posing the question, how does racism operate here? We're here. Is at Denver or how Denver Health should partner with community with their workers and their union patients to learn the answer to that very question. Denver Health really does need a careful and transparent review of policies which allow racism to operate. Just one solution is safe staffing so that workers have the support they need to provide the best care while also actually interrupting racism. Another solution would be providing real anti-racism training for workers building systems which support them in coming forward when they experience or witness racism together with his patients, the community and workers. Denver Health really can disrupt this patient, prisoner, pipeline executives and top leaders. They just can't do this alone. So while we need you to approve the operating agreement, of course, we also need you as councilors and the mayor's office to do everything in your power to support community members and workers who are actually doing the work to dismantle racism at Denver Health. We call on you to do just that, to create more accountability and transparency in the city's contract with Denver health patients. Workers, indeed, very community health depend on it. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Our next speaker is Carmen Casali.
Speaker 2: Hi. This is Carmi.
Speaker 3: Can you hear me?
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 3: Hi. I'm Carmen. Sally. I'm a registered nurse. I'm also the health services administrator at the Denver Sheriff's Department for Denver Health.
Speaker 2: I worked at the.
Speaker 3: Facility for 22 years.
Speaker 2: I am certified in correctional care. I'm also a NCC HD.
Speaker 3: Survey surveyor for jails across the United States. I was very excited to see the electronic health record.
Speaker 2: In the operating agreement going into next year.
Speaker 3: At 22 years we have utilized a paper record and we have been very effective and very efficient with the paper record, but we have not been able to be as efficient as we should be able to be. Patient safety is our number one priority and electronic health record is going to help us expand and increase our patient safety. Right now, with a paper record, we have paperwork that we have to locate, that we have to find. One person is only able to have the chart at one time. So, for example, of both a psychiatrist and a doctor need to see the chart. They have to wait. They have to take turns. Legibility can be an issue with the paper. Record storage is an issue for the paper record.
Speaker 2: We are having to transport our charts back and forth to a warehouse between both jails. When patients book in, we do not have the patient history, so.
Speaker 3: We often have to start all over with our patients that are very well known to us. And until the chart does arrive, at times, finding information can be challenging in a paper record.
Speaker 2: There is nobody outside of the jail that can review the paper record, such as outside Denver Health Doctors. There's really no ability for data collection. It can be challenging to determine.
Speaker 3: Medication compliance on current medication paper records that are going out to the housing units. It's a manual transfer process to transfer information from one jail to the next jail. The cost to maintain staff at the Denver Health Warehouse, which staff that could be rerouted to help at the jails would be beneficial.
Speaker 2: Miss filling in charts.
Speaker 3: Is definitely.
Speaker 2: Occasionally happens. At times we cannot.
Speaker 3: Find a chart urgently when we need it. The Denver Detention Center is five floors with multiple exam rooms.
Speaker 2: There's no audit.
Speaker 3: Trail. A paper record can be altered where an.
Speaker 2: Electronic health record has a very robust tracking system. Cost of just a paper chart, I think, eventually will outweigh what the.
Speaker 3: Cost of an initial chart will run us. And it's definitely a challenge to complete release of information, requests of information for community members into facts and scandals.
Speaker 2: So super excited for the electronic health record and look forward to hopefully.
Speaker 3: Being able to start the process and implement that into correctional care for the patients. Denver Health serves at both Denver jails. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Our next speaker is Sarah Rowan.
Speaker 2: Madam Chair and City Council Members, thank you for the opportunity to speak today and also thank you to all the other speakers who brought forth so many important points. My name is Sarah Rowan and I'm an infectious disease doctor at Denver Health. I live in Denver and I'm fortunate to live one block from the Park Hill State outdoor space. I'll be speaking about our four public health clinics, each of which serves a vital role in the Denver metro. I personally see patients in two of those clinics, the sexual health clinic and the infectious disease clinic. The Sexual Health Clinic is the largest provider of free and low cost sexual health services in the Rocky Mountain region. We offer those services to about 15,000 patients per year. In addition to testing and treatment for sexually transmitted infections, we also provide access to contraception and comprehensive HIV prevention services, including the HIV prevention pill. Also, if patients test positive for HIV anywhere in the city, we've worked hard to make sure we can offer immediate HIV treatment at no charge. Our outreach arm, which I supervised, provides free HIV, Hep C and STI testing at community sites throughout the metro. When the pandemic hit, our team leveraged our experience, our medical expertize, and our community partnerships to be the first agency to provide free community based COVID testing in conjunction with numerous nonprofits and shelters. Additionally, we provided technical assistance to other agencies and testing infrastructure as testing infrastructure was developed in the city. We worked closely with homeless service providers in our community and we spent a great deal of time serving those who are houseless and unsheltered caring about the tragedy at the rescue mission. The reference to Salvation Army. These are all very familiar sites. Our infectious disease clinic provides care for 1500 patients living with HIV. We're one of the largest insecure sites in the state. We have national leaders in HIV research and treatment. We treat hepatitis C, which is prior to COVID, was responsible for more deaths than all other reportable infections combined, and the incidence has skyrocketed in the face of the opioid epidemic. Through our community partnerships and coalitions, we're continually innovating new ways to bring Hep C and HIV treatment to people where they are, rather than rigidly demanding that people come to us. Our other two public health clinics or at the immunization clinic, which provides free and low cost vaccines to anyone who needs them and their role in the COVID vaccine response has been invaluable. The Metro Tuberculosis Clinic provides free services for the region, ensuring that tuberculosis does not spread in our community. And the patients with active and latent TB, many of whom recently arrived in the United States, receive excellent medical care. In summary, our clinics are instrumental in treating and managing conditions of public health significance conditions that, if gone untreated, lead to high costs for our community through outbreaks, costly hospitalizations and unnecessary suffering. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. And our last speaker this evening is Rosario CdeBaca. Rosaria, we might need you to unmute. I think we're still showing that you're muted. Okay. Our producers are letting me know. It looks like you're. Not they are now. We're not seeing anybody at the computer. So we're going to go ahead and move on here. That concludes our speakers this evening. Questions from members of Council on Council Bill 21, Dash 1219. Council members say the Barka.
Speaker 2: Yes. Thank you. I have a couple of questions that were sent to me from workers at the hospital. There was a an equity study that was done by the equity project. And workers are wondering why Denver Health is refusing to produce the study and share the results, specifically with workers who participated, even if not with the rest of the general public. I'm going to have to defer to the Denver Health Partners if we can promote Stephanie Signer.
Speaker 10: Take your money. Hello, this is Robin with the CEO, Denver Health. I apologize for not being able to speak before we had some technical difficulties. The equity the equity study that Councilman CdeBaca asked about was conducted under attorney client privilege. And it was done so so that the confidentiality of the employees who participated would be protected. We have shared generally the results of the equity study with our organization, and I have offered to sit down with any member of city council who would like to hear the results of that study. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Abstract. Of that study.
Speaker 10: As we said, the study was conducted under attorney client privilege and is not going to be released its entirety. But we're happy to sit down and share with you the same information that we shared with our with our employees that came out of that.
Speaker 2: So does that mean that there were no disparities found or what was the point of doing the study?
Speaker 10: So the study was intended actually to, uh, to hear the voice of employees at Denver Health, and it was not just employees. We also conducted stakeholder interviews with people both inside the organization and now. And it was intended to allow people to speak frankly about the experience of being a person of color inside Denver health the findings and that. And we shared them with our our employees as well as with community organizations outside of Denver Health and certainly with our board of directors really fell into four buckets. One of them was that race matters. Denver Health, like all organizations made up of people, have issues dealing with systemic racism, disparities and issues that affect the day to day lived experience of people of color in our organization, as in our society. And our employees came forward and told us about some of those. There was also some concern that, um, as the institution dealt with issues of systemic racism, of health equity, health inequities that exist in our society and that affect our patients as all patients unfortunately are affected across the country, that there would be there was some concern would we take this seriously? Would we move forward to address these issues? There was there were themes around transparency and communication, making sure that we did, in fact, actually share the results of this of the work out. And then, more importantly, give voice to people in our organization in developing the plan that we would use to address the findings. And then finally, the last finding was around our role as an anchor institution, which, as you might imagine, is extremely is supported by by our entire workforce. The idea that Denver health can be part of the solution to both economic challenges that our our patients face, our communities face, but also issues around how to promote opportunity for people of color, especially those who historically may not have had opportunity, was something that was embraced by our employees. But the point was also that we have many employees who have who've experienced the same the same lived experiences, the same economic challenges, the same issues that the people throughout our society have. And so we pulled all of that together and working within the organization, with our city council, with employees across the organization, with our equity steering group, we have developed a three year strategic plan that is Denver Health's commitment to addressing issues of systemic racism, of of the challenges that people of color face both inside our organization and their everyday lives. And we are now we've released the draft to to our CEO council, to others, to our board of directors. And we're in the process of releasing that to the organization as a draft. And the reason we're just we're releasing it as a draft is because these issues have been widespread and historic. And we fully expect that even with the initiatives that we've identified to address some of the feedback that we've gotten, this is going to be a work in progress for a very long time to come. We've identified a number of things in each of the the findings around creating and engaging work, workplace, engaging, inclusive, workplace, addressing issues of inequity for patients in conducting and creating and ensuring that we have a fair and accountability system and a fair and just climate and then making sure that we have the infrastructure that we need to address these issues. We released the report, the the study, the three year strategic plan. And we're now in the process of actually developing very detailed work plans for each of the initiatives again. And as I've shared with you, Councilwoman. These are longstanding issues and problems. Denver Health has never and we'll never say that we don't have many of the same issues that every other organization in our society has. What we are trying to do is understand what those issues are inside our organization, how we can address those working with our employees, and how we can address those issues, working with community members and patients to address the health inequities and disparities that exist. So we're moving forward with that plan. And as I said, I'm happy to sit down and go through that with you, and we'd be delighted to hear the ideas and suggestions you have for how to move forward on some of the things you hear from your constituents as well.
Speaker 2: The study conducted.
Speaker 10: I'm sorry. I didn't hear your question.
Speaker 2: When was the study conducted?
Speaker 10: The study was conducted in late in 2018, 2020. I believe going into 2021.
Speaker 2: Include attrition rates disaggregated by race and ethnicity.
Speaker 10: No, this study does not. This was intended to give opportunity for the voice of our employees in our community to bring the issues forward.
Speaker 2: Do we have attrition data over the last couple of years disaggregated by race and ethnicity?
Speaker 10: We we have we have some employee data, although I will tell you, we're in the process right now of working to gather that information. The most recent information is, of course, challenging given what's going on in the labor market. But we are we are working together that.
Speaker 2: And what is the current attrition rate?
Speaker 10: I don't have the answer to that question right now, but we can certainly get that to you.
Speaker 2: Additionally, what efforts are being implemented or taken to secure hazard pay or premium pay for the frontline workers that took on the risks early on in the pandemic?
Speaker 10: So Denver Health is not paying hazard pay to any of the health care workers. However, we have done a number of things that are intended to address the the workload that our staff has been experiencing over the last. 18 months. I'm just going on two years, frankly. We have introduced critical staffing, incentive pay. We have introduced and increase specialty pay for those health care workers that are particularly impacted by COVID. We have, unfortunately, like all other institutions in the entire country, we have we are experiencing labor shortages and oftentimes are asking our employees to work extra overtime shifts. We have voluntary overtime agreements in place with them so that if people volunteer to step forward and take on extra work, if that fits within their their particular life situation, they get paid not only their their pay plus and overtime rates, of course, if they're working overtime, but there are additional bonus payments made to them after they can. They conduct a certain number of shifts. We have recently announced are in the process of implementing an increase for all in compensation for our employees, raising our minimum wage to $17 or and giving 3% salary increases. So $70 or 3%, whichever is higher and making sure that we have that available. As you know, Denver health is a safety net institution and we are using the resources that we have available to target those dollars as best as we can at the front line and the central hospital workers who have struggled throughout all of COVID
Speaker 2: . So the employees, the frontline workers got a 3% increase in salaries. Will there be another 20% increase for the executives like there was last year?
Speaker 10: So the 3% increase will actually be effective December 5th. So employees will seed in their, their salary, their paychecks. Uh, I think it's December 28. The increases other than just the 3% increase, um, we also could doubt that, like shared with you every year we conduct salary surveys where we look at the wages that are paid at Denver Health and we compare those regionally to wages paid for similar roles across across the region. Where necessary, we make market adjustments in compensation for any role that has fallen out of line with the market. Um, Denver Health organizational philosophy is we look to pay at the 50th percentile for all roles in the organization. When those roles have when the compensation for those roles is different than the market surveys show us, we make adjustments for those. So it will depend on what has happened in the marketplace for any given role. We will be looking at additional market adjustments in the beginning of 2022 as we get the salary of the salary survey information for, um, for roles here at Denver Health.
Speaker 2: Are you seeing that any of those efforts are improving the attrition rate?
Speaker 10: That's a really good question, Councilwoman. Um, I would say this. The answer is yes in that Denver health at the last point in time where we could collect information about vacancy rates at hospitals, nearby hospitals in the region, Denver Health was actually faring somewhat better than other institutions. But I'm going to say that's within the context of we are all in crisis at this moment in time. So everyone is struggling with staffing. And again, it's not just Denver Metro, as I'm sure you know, it is. Hospitals across the country are having a really difficult time right now. Institutions are somewhat less willing to share information more recently. So we have not been able to update that in the last month or so. But um, through the time period that we were able to get information while we were also in crisis, we were doing a little bit better than some of the other hospitals.
Speaker 2: And I know you don't have the actual attrition rate for Denver health, but it sounds like, you know, the area's typical attrition rate. Do you what is that?
Speaker 10: It's again, it's going to vary pretty significantly by job role, I can tell you. For nursing, for example, at Denver Health, our, um, our turnover rate has, has historically been significantly lower than national rates for nursing nursing personnel. So, you know, again, it will vary by job click, job, class and role. Denver Health generally has run a lower turnover rate than many institutions and where there are national numbers available, like in nursing. Denver Health has historically done better than the national averages. Benedict.
Speaker 2: We had information and we're taking note the whole ceremony to get back with you from the safety committee to give us a presentation on the study. It would be nice to see the actual attrition rates and the comparisons by job classification as well as if it's possible disaggregating by employees by rate that race and ethnicity as well . Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Council members say to Barker and thank you, Doctor Wittgenstein, for your answers. I've seen no other folks in the queue for questions. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 20 1-1219. Not seen any. Give it a second. Councilmember CdeBaca, you're up first.
Speaker 2: Thank you. I would just like to share that I have been appalled by the lack of leadership of this organization, especially when it comes to racial equity within the organization. Several times I've had conversations with leadership to really discuss what it means to create equity, and it falls on deaf ears over and over. And while we desperately need this agreement to pass tonight, I encourage my colleagues to dig deeper with this organization. Talk to board members, continue to raise the concerns because what is happening on the inside of this organization is really disappointing, given this is our health authority. And so tonight I will be a yes, but I am extremely disappointed.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember CdeBaca, Council Member Sawyer.
Speaker 3: Thanks, Madam President. I have some concerns as well. I really do appreciate Denver Help's partnership with the city. You know, they provide an invaluable service to the residents. And I especially want to thank our nurses, our tax, our doctors and the staff who continue to put themselves in harm's way during the pandemic to protect the health of our community. Like I said, I've got concerns. I'm I'm not convinced by some of the answers that I've heard this evening. I wasn't convinced by some of the answers I heard in my briefing. I wasn't convinced by some of the answers I heard at committee. We don't have a choice but to approve this agreement in the middle of a pandemic. This is our.
Speaker 1: Hospital.
Speaker 3: Authority. So, you know, I want to again stress the importance of partnering with all employee representatives. I think it's important to find solutions that make the staff feel supported and included. We've had this discussion before, and I think, you know, it's not a it's not an overnight fix. And I appreciate that the leadership of a DHS is working hard to do to implement some changes. I'm not sure it's enough, and I'm.
Speaker 1: Not sure it's.
Speaker 3: Happening fast enough. But that said, I believe in the mission of DHS and the services that they provide to our community. So I will be a yes tonight. Thinks that a president.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Sawyer. Councilmember Sandoval.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Madam President. I have similar concerns with my colleague when you continue to hear from paramedics who are leaving the industry. Yet at the same time, I have a friend who's an ER nurse and the industry is suffering because of the pandemic. And I believe that Denver Health plays a vital role in the history of Denver and for all of our residents. I support the workers who are trying to unionize. I hope you I stand in solidarity with you. And I hope that. People don't always the general public doesn't always understand that there is a separation between Denver health and the city county of Denver. And so if they look bad, we look bad. And I just want to support all of our health care workers. And yet, at the same time, this is the second year that we've had public comment during a hearing on this contract where people are coming, complain that is a sign of something that is not working. So I hope that we can work on this and make sure that there is not this type of discord when this contract comes forward. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember Sandoval, Councilmember Hines.
Speaker 8: Thank you. Council president, I think. You know, a hospital is a location where people don't want to spend time. They're not. No offense to all the workers and in the institution. I would say that I've spent too much time in as an inpatient in Denver health since the last hearing that we had. I spent 16 days in Denver Health in August. And I just I want to commend all the people who work at Denver Health. I heard time and time again, you know, as a as a you spend too much time in the hospital. You get to interact with a lot of employees who work at Denver Health. And I just I heard so many times that people really buy into the mission level one care for all. And people said that they work at Denver Health because of that mission. And I just I want to thank the workers so much from the techs for the janitorial staff up to the positions because they really are passionate about making sure that they can heal those who are are are hurting. So they certainly helped me. And again, it's not that I wanted to be there, but but I was there nonetheless. So I just wanted to thank the workers. As I understand it, this is you know, this is something that the city is interested in. Denver health, um, you know, doesn't make a lot of money from this. So it isn't as if it's, you know, just the hospitals losing a lot of revenue. So I think it makes sense to support the what we're talking about this evening. Um, I recognize that Denver Health has some work to do with the relationship between the authority and the employees. Ah, the administration and the employees. And I hope that continues. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Council President Thank you, Councilmember Hines. And I'll wrap up here. I think it's very clear that a lot of our institutions are taking another look at how they look at implicit bias, how they really walk the talk or implement the work to make sure that their institution is an anti-racist, anti oppression institution organization. And that work is going to take decades to accomplish. But it's important that we show progress to the folks who are spending day in and day out serving others. And, you know, the paramedics are a group of folks that are important to us as well. And our certified nursing assistants, a lot of folks just go to nurses, doctors, etc.. But really the certified nurses assistants are the seniors are the ones that really do a lot of that work and they're telling us their stories. And I think that we should listen to them and make sure that the board and the leadership are implementing different procedures, different trainings, whatever they need to do to address this need, they need to be doing it. And I have to believe that they are working on that. And I look forward to the upcoming reports on where they're at and the next plans. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 20 1-1219, please.
Speaker 7: Ortega. Right Black. I see tobacco. I. Clark.
Speaker 8: I.
Speaker 0: When I.
Speaker 8: Herndon, I.
Speaker 7: Himes. Cashman can reach Sandoval. Sawyer, i. Torres, i. Madam President.
Speaker 1: I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 7: There are 13 eyes.
Speaker 1: 13 Eyes Council Bill 20 1-1219 has passed.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance approving a proposed Fiscal Year 2022 Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated Operating Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Denver Health and Hospital Authority, providing for the amounts to be paid for services by the City and County of Denver and by the Denver Health and Hospital Authority for Fiscal Year 2022.
Approves the 2022 Denver Health and Hospital Authority operating agreement (ENVHL-202160644). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 12-31-21. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 11-10-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11082021_21-1244
|
Speaker 0: Council member Sawyer has called out Bill 20 1-1192 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 Cashman, will you please put council resolutions? One, two, four, four and one, two, four or five on the floor for adoption?
Speaker 3: Yes. Council President and I move the council resolutions 21, dash 1244 and 21, Dash 1245, be adopted in black.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded comments by members of Council on Council Resolutions. One, two, four, four and one, two, four, five. Councilmember Sawyer.
Speaker 8: Thanks, Madam President. These are airport on call contracts. You know, we see these almost every week come through from one agency or another. So, as you know, I disagree with the use of these without proper reporting to us. So going to vote no and don't need to take anybody else's time up. Thanks.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Sawyer. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Resolutions 21, dash one, two, four, four and 21. DASH one, two, four, five, please.
Speaker 7: Ortega.
Speaker 1: I. Sandoval.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Sawyer. No. Torres, I black. I see tobacco.
Speaker 5: I cry.
Speaker 1: I swim.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 1: Herndon. Himes. All right. Cashman. I can each i. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 1: One May 12 eyes.
Speaker 0: One day 12 eyes. Council Resolution 20 1-1, two, four, four and 20 1-1, two, four, five have been adopted. Madam Secretary, would you please put the next item on our screens? Councilmember Cashman, would you please put Council Bill 1192 on the floor for final passage?
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Contract between the City and County of Denver and HNTB Corporation concerning on-call geospatial support services at Denver International Airport.
Approves a contract with HNTB Corporation for $700,000 and for three years, with two one-year options to extend, for on-call geospatial support services including airport geospatial surveying, data management, data analyses, modeling, surveying and scanning, civil engineering and cost estimation at Denver International Airport (202054609). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 11-29-21. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 10-26-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11082021_21-1192
|
Speaker 0: One day 12 eyes. Council Resolution 20 1-1, two, four, four and 20 1-1, two, four, five have been adopted. Madam Secretary, would you please put the next item on our screens? Councilmember Cashman, would you please put Council Bill 1192 on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 3: Yes, Council President. I move the Council Bill 21 dash 1190 to be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It's been moved and seconded. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 1192. Council Member Sawyer.
Speaker 8: Thanks on President. I made my comments last week, so nothing really to add. Just wanted to again thank Finance for their thoughtful decision making process and really appreciate all of their partnership, but just not willing to support $4 million for social services, something that my district feels really strongly about. You know, this is meant this money meant for long term investments. And so US sites are not a long term solution. So I'm going to be a no thanks.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Sawyer. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 21, dash 1192, please.
Speaker 1: Ortega. I. Sandoval.
Speaker 2: I. So, you know.
Speaker 1: For us, I. Black. I see tobacco. I. Clark. I. Flinn.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 1: Herndon.
Speaker 3: Hi.
Speaker 1: Cashman. I can eat. I. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 1: One 812 Eyes.
Speaker 0: 12 Eyes. Counsel build 20 1-1192 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 bloc vote and you will need to vote I. Otherwise, this is your last chance to call out an item for a separate vote. Councilmember Cashman, will you please put the resolutions for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor?
Speaker 3: Yes, Council President. I move the resolutions be adopted and bills and final consideration be placed upon final consideration and do pass in a bloc for the following items. All series of 2021 1242 1243 1244 Excuse me 1224 1225 1241 1236 1237 1238 1080 1228 1233 1240 1246 1205 1209 1000 and that should do it.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, sir. It has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, roll call, please.
Speaker 1: Ortega. By Sandoval.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Black. I see tobacco. I. Clark.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 1: FLine, my friend. In hindsight. Cashman. I can age. I. Sawyer, i. Torres, i. Madam President, i.
Speaker 0: Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 1: 13 eyes.
Speaker 0: 13 eyes. The resolutions have been adopted and the bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass. Our pre recess announcement this evening. Tonight there will be a required public hearing on Council Bill 20 1-1030, changing the zoning classification for 1090 South Dayton Street in Windsor.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance amending Ordinance No. 591, Series of 2021, as amended by Ordinance No. 706, Series of 2021, as amended by Ordinance No. 1145, Series of 2021, to allocate spending in the American Rescue Plan Act Grant Fund for Recovery, Revenue Loss, and Administration.
Amends Ordinance No. 591, Series of 2021, previously amended by Ordinance No. 706, Series of 2021, to allocate a total of $100.1 million in spending in the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Grant Fund, including $25.3 million in the “Revenue Loss” category to accommodate the 2022 portion of the allocation approved in Ordinance No. 706, Series of 2021 that will continue to be supported by ARPA, $73.5 million in the “Recovery” category, $1.3 million in the Administration spending category, which will be reallocated from unspent dollars in the initial Revenue Loss category, and approves a capital equipment purchase of a van for the Wellness Winnie program. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 10-12-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11082021_21-1030
|
Speaker 0: We have two public hearings tonight for those participating in person. When called upon, please come to the podium on the presentation monitor. 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 permitted, your screen will flash and say Reconnecting to meeting. Please don't leave the meeting. You will be reconnected and willing 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've 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 addresses. If you've signed up to answer questions, only state your name and note that you are available for questions of council speakers. It will have 3 minutes. There should be no yield in 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 Cashman, will you please put Council Bill 1030 on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 3: Yes, Council President. I move that council bill 21 dash 1030 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 1030 is open. May we have the staff report and we have Libby Adams here.
Speaker 2: Yes, thank you. Okay. So I think you council president and council. I'm Libby Adams of Community Planning and Development and I'll be presenting the MAP Amendment at 1090 South Dayton Street. So this application is located in Council District five in the Windsor neighborhood. This two acre site is located on the northeast corner of Mississippi Avenue and Dayton Street, at the edge of the city near Arapahoe County. The applicant is requesting to rezone from U to open space B, which allows for parks and open spaces not owned or operated by the city. And the applicant plans to locate a private outdoor swim club on the site. So as stated previously, this property is currently zoned suburban single unit. IE this allows for single unit civic, institutional and educational uses in the suburban house building form and requires a minimum zone. Lot of 12,000 square feet. The site is currently vacant, although there are single unit land uses to the north, east and south and then there's a school just to the west. So this slide shows the existing building form and scale with the subject property on the bottom left hand side. You can see the school that's in Arapahoe County on the top left, and then to single unit homes in both Denver and Arapahoe counties. So a postcard notifying property owners within 200 feet of the site was sent out on July 1st. And then on September 1st. This went to planning board where one resident spoke in opposition and planning board recommended unanimously to recommend approval. So to date, staff has received 15 comment letters in opposition of the proposed rezoning and a statement of opposition signed by 69 residents. The concerns were mostly regarding traffic and the site receiving access from Emporia Street. The Denver Department of Transportation and Infrastructure typically requires access from the street with the lowest classification. So in this case, Emporia Street, which is the local street, as this will create less vehicle conflict points. Other comments cited concerns about wastewater and storm drainage in the area and that this property should be developed under the existing single unit zoning. And so at the time of development, the applicants will need to demonstrate that on site in an onsite drainage report that no adverse impacts to the historic drainage patterns will occur as a result of the development. And additionally, I want to note that traffic and wastewater impacts are typically reviewed at the time of site development plan when a specific development is proposed, and then the Council offers recommended mediation and hopes the applicant could reach a good neighbor agreement with the neighbors regarding these concerns around traffic. And when the applicant expressed their interest interest in mediation, when the mediator reached out to them. However, neighboring property owners were unwilling to participate in the mediation process, so it did not move forward. And then a successful protest petition has been submitted, which requires an affirmative vote from ten council members for this rezoning. So, you know, as briefly stated previously, any potential side impacts that are related to a specific development project will be reviewed at the time of site development plan. So at that time, transportation engineers will identify if mitigation measures are required for a particular project. So kind of moving to the rezoning. The Denver zoning code has five review criteria that must be met in order for rezoning to be approved. The first criterion is consistency with adopted plans, and there are two plans that are applicable to the site. This rezoning meets several of the goals and comprehensive plan 2040, but I'll just mention a couple. It will improve access to resources that improve quality of life, and it will promote development where if infrastructure is already in place. And then Blueprint identifies the future neighborhood context as suburban and parks and open spaces are important and necessary land uses within all of our neighborhood contexts. They are also found in all of our neighborhood contexts, and they help make our city neighborhoods complete. And then Blueprint identifies the future place type as low residential, so similar to the suburban single unit districts which make up most of low residential areas. OSB allows for civic, institutional education, cultural park and open space, and then public and religious assembly uses and then Mississippi Avenue and is a residential arterial south Dayton is identified as a residential collector and then Emporia Street as a local street. And residential streets are primarily residential uses, but also may include schools, civic uses, parks and small retail nodes, which is consistent with the OSB zoned district and then the growth area strategy and blueprint. Denver is all other areas of the city, so this is where we expect to see 10% of employment growth and 20% of housing growth by 2040. So by allowing active and passive recreation uses on the site, that will increase job growth by a limited amount. Staff also finds the requested rezoning meets the next two criteria. The rezoning will result in uniformity of district regulations and will further the public health, safety and welfare by enabling more opportunities for recreation uses and allowing a park use which are compatible with the surrounding residential uses. Staff finds there is a justifying circumstance for this MAP amendment. With the new infill development found in both Denver and Arapahoe counties creating a greater need for more recreation opportunities. And lastly, the proposed zoning is consistent with the open space contexts and the specific intent of the OSB district. So based on the review criteria, staff recommends approval of this requested MAP amendment. And that concludes my presentation.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you for a great presentation, Libby. And it looks like we have nine speakers, nine individuals signed up this evening. All of them are joining us online. And our first speaker is Joseph Skinner. And we know, Joseph, you're online and we have a Lydia Skinner. And so if you can raise your hand, if that's you, Joseph, we'll go ahead and get you moved over. Okay. You can go ahead, Jason.
Speaker 4: Good evening. I'm Joseph Skinner, and I'm here with my wife, Lydia Skinner. We. We're the applicants for the rezoning of 1090 South eighth Street from SW single district to OSB open space.
Speaker 2: I'm standing on individuals. We're not associated with any large organization and are under contract on this undeveloped parcel located within District five with the intention of creating a seasonal outdoor swim club as a proposed use. Our vision is to build a community asset that would include an open air pool, children's ward, a pool area greenspace and a community space for gathering is for Memorial Day to Labor Day. Each year we want to create a community oasis that can be thought of as an extension of one's own backyard.
Speaker 4: Rezoning from SSI to OSB will promote infill development where infrastructure and services are already in place. We believe changing conditions in the area provided justifying circumstance because there are significant numbers of new infill residences in both Denver and Arapahoe County and a demand for more recreation option opportunities. Rezoning to OSB will allow for more park and recreation uses in this growing area. While there are other rezoning designations that we could have potentially fit our proposed use, we believe Open Space Recreation District is the most appropriate and shows our commitment to investing in the community.
Speaker 1: In terms of community.
Speaker 2: Engagement, where we socialize the rezoning proposal with council menswear and the President and the Range V Neighborhood Association, Roger Miller at the beginning of May, we also mail the letter to each home in the R.A. to introduce ourselves the rezoning and proposed use, as well as invite interested individuals to meet with us in person at the parcel to learn more. This informal meeting took place on May 20th. We also reached out to the Chan School across the street, and the school district expressed written interest in entering a joint use agreement with us to utilize each other's parking as overflow. This coincides while given that our operational months would be opposite, the outdoor swim club would be open when school's out for summer and closed when school is in session. After the first hearing, when neighbors writing concerns over increased traffic, we met on three separate occasions with the mediator that Councilwoman Soaries offers put us in contact with. We were open to having a discussion with the neighborhood as a whole and in particular with the residents who submitted concerns. However, the few residents in opposition opted not to engage in mediation from both the informal meeting with residents and multiple one on one conversations with neighbors over the past several months. We have received positive feedback and excitement at the rezoning and proposed use.
Speaker 4: In conclusion, we are excited at the prospect of creating an asset for the Windsor community by rezoning from SSI to SB. And we thank you all for your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker this evening is Jackie Boyer.
Speaker 1: Can you hear me? Yes. Okay. My name is. Good afternoon, counsel. My name is Jackie Beauregard. I reside in District five. I've been a homeowner in the range neighborhood for over 40 years. This is an area located adjacent to the High Line Canal Trail and 15 to 20 minutes for most of the minutes. Jim here to. I and many of my neighbors chose to leave here because of the fighting feel of the neighborhood, the high line trail and the family friendly Bean Basin Park. There's a park, has trees, green grass, lounge or play on grills and a children's play area. The applicant seeking the change wrongly believe that changing to OSB would be adding value to our community. There is no way that a zone change from SS youth on to OSB would be beneficial to range view. We, the voters of Denver spoke loud and clear on November 2nd. We want our voices to be heard when our neighborhoods of being. We imagine constituents want to have a say about what would, should or could be done in our neighborhoods. We do not want decisions made for us under the guise of what is good for us and or the city. I implore all of you to please vote no on 21. 1030. Thank you for this.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker joining us online is David Hagan. Okay. It looks like we don't have David Hagan on. So we'll go to our next speaker, Tony Miller.
Speaker 1: Yes. Can you hear me? Yes. Thank you. My name is Tony Miller and I live in.
Speaker 2: Denver at 980 South Emporia, adjacent to the 1090 South Dayton property.
Speaker 1: I've never previously.
Speaker 2: Opposed any rezoning efforts anywhere, but.
Speaker 1: This time I feel compelled to. Prior to the September.
Speaker 2: 1st Planning Board hearing, I submitted extensive written comments.
Speaker 1: When this.
Speaker 2: Rezoning application was approved by the Planning Board and the Land Use Transportation and Infrastructure Committee meetings. Despite my and others objections, I began to explore what else could be done to express our opposition.
Speaker 1: Since no.
Speaker 2: Range View registered neighborhood organization meeting has been held.
Speaker 1: With regard to this.
Speaker 2: Rezoning application, no official R.A. position statement or comments.
Speaker 1: Could be filed.
Speaker 2: Circulating a protest petition appeared to be the only way left to demonstrate the level of my and my neighbors opposition to this unjustified rezoning application. A neighbor and I gathered signatures of 23 owners.
Speaker 1: Of.
Speaker 2: More than 20% of the land area within.
Speaker 1: 200 feet outside.
Speaker 2: The 1090 South Dayton property and.
Speaker 1: Hand-Delivered this petition to council. Also want to address comments.
Speaker 2: Tonight that there has been no good neighbor agreement. Inexplicably, just days before the September.
Speaker 1: 14th.
Speaker 2: Land Use Transportation and Infrastructure Committee meeting.
Speaker 1: We learned the council office had.
Speaker 2: Asked mediation specialist Steve Charbonneau to reach out to.
Speaker 1: Mediate a resolution.
Speaker 2: Well, what is there to mediate? During both.
Speaker 8: The planning.
Speaker 1: Board and.
Speaker 2: The committee meetings. There were multiple reminders.
Speaker 1: That this application is.
Speaker 2: About the rezoning of the.
Speaker 8: Property and the free.
Speaker 2: Zone. There is no guarantee a swim club will actually be built there.
Speaker 1: The CPD staff report states that OSP mainly allows.
Speaker 2: Cultural special purpose parks and open space.
Speaker 1: Uses some.
Speaker 2: Educational, civic entertainment and recreation.
Speaker 1: Uses.
Speaker 2: And some institutional and public and religious assembly uses. So we don't even have a clear understanding of what could be built here.
Speaker 1: Under this proposed rezoning.
Speaker 2: Until we can see.
Speaker 1: A detailed site.
Speaker 2: Plan and.
Speaker 8: Specifics.
Speaker 1: Of the actual.
Speaker 2: Proposed project. And there's some reasonable assurance of this proposed development. Not something entirely different will take place. There's no way to know what issues or.
Speaker 1: Concerns we may.
Speaker 2: Have, and therefore nothing to mediate with the applicants. The highly objectionable access to this property.
Speaker 1: Off our.
Speaker 2: Quiet residential neighborhood street is.
Speaker 8: Not within the applicant's.
Speaker 2: Control to negotiate.
Speaker 1: I hope you hear us.
Speaker 2: The people who actually.
Speaker 1: Live in this neighborhood and that.
Speaker 2: You vote tonight to deny this rezoning application, there's absolutely no justification to rezone this property. It's accurately zoned as an extension of our suburban residential neighborhood. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker this evening is Paul Miller. And we don't see a Paul Miller in the Zoom meeting, but we do have two phone callers. And so if you could raise your hand, Paul Miller, we'll get you into the queue.
Speaker 4: Hi. Can you hear me?
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 4: Hi. My name is Paul Miller and my Denver home is at 90,004. You adjacent to the 1090 South Dayton property. I received a flier from the Skinners postmarked May eight. It said that they were writing to introduce an exciting project proposal for our district, a seasonal outdoor swim club. The second paragraph led neighbors to believe this would be a community pool and open space for our neighborhood residents to use. As it said, our vision is to develop a new community focal point that would include an open air pool, children's ward, dep area, greenspace and community space for gatherings. The fliers said they would be on site at 6 p.m. on May 20th to share their plan to preserve greenspace and promote recreational use and surrounding neighborhood. Most people who received this flier came away with the impression that this is a proposal for a pool and open space for community use, not a private member only facility and did not even bother to go to the informal onsite meet and greet. My wife and I did attend, but the Schooners told attendees that no site plan was available and that the city would tell them where the access would be to the property. At that time, I and most other residents also didn't understand that rezoning of this property doesn't guarantee that the proposed swim club would actually go in or be built. Now that something else has been identified and potentially less desirable could be built under OSB zoning or have an idea that the point of access to this property is from our residential south and history, and not from East Mississippi or South Dayton. Despite being told that a range view registered neighborhood organization meeting was going to be held in May and subsequent requests for a meeting by some of my neighbors no are in the meeting has been held to address this rezoning application. Instead, it has been left up to the individual neighbors such as myself, to learn the facts. In my opinion, this rezoning application is somewhat disingenuous and misleading and includes unsupported claims to make their case. There's absolutely no community need or unfulfilled demand that justifies changing the current zoning of this property. Changing the current zoning of this property will degrade or normally quiet neighborhood. I did submit detailed written comments last week, but also wanted to explain that I believe far more people who live in our neighborhood would have expressed their opposition sooner had they not been misled. Thank you very much, Council.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker this evening is joining us virtually as well, Jessie Paris.
Speaker 4: Yes. Good evening. Member of the council. Can I be her?
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 4: My name is Jessica Sampras and I'm representing Black Sox to move for self-defense. How's the Mexican-American salsa changed? Was the Unity Party of Colorado in a front line? Black males. And I'll be there next November in 2023. I reside in District eight and Christopher Hernandez district. I'm against this proposal tonight for all the reasons that the speakers previous to me have spoken just did not get proper approval from the Arnolds. There's no neighborhood agreements. There's no guarantee that this is going to be a swimming pool or club. There was one speaker in opposition, a planning board. There are 15 letters of opposition. And 69 residents and signed a letter of opposition. So I agree with Jackie on Tony and John that this is not a good thing for this neighborhood. So I would ask that you not vote in favor of this rezoning tonight for 21, 1030. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Linda Rhea.
Speaker 1: Lenny Ray, can you hear me? Yes.
Speaker 2: Thank you for allowing me to testify.
Speaker 1: My name is Linda Ray. I live at.
Speaker 2: 940 South Emporia.
Speaker 1: And I have.
Speaker 2: Submitted written testimony. And so I will let that stand. And I'm here primarily to answer any questions you may have about that. But I certainly want to emphasize the points made by the earlier participants who talked about how misleading this has been, how rushed, how truncated in terms of our being able to get information. It has been a very exasperating experience and it did.
Speaker 1: Not need to be that way. So I will let my comments stand as written, and I'm just available to answer any questions. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our last speaker is Tess Dougherty.
Speaker 2: I'm sorry, did you did you call in?
Speaker 0: Yes, you can. Go ahead. Oh.
Speaker 2: I'm so sorry. Okay. So I think I think I put down that I was opposed. I guess I actually don't I don't necessarily have an opinion on the one way or another. I mean, I just haven't really made up my mind. But but I just think that, um. That. The outcome of this decision tonight will be pretty telling, given that the DiNardo hearing, if I remember correctly, it was about that part of the meeting was about 4 hours long because of how many people testified against the development. And you all went ahead and approved it anyway. And so, you know, it would just it'll just be pretty interesting to see how how this zoning application, the outcome of it, given the the protest letters and who you listen to in the city city council. And I hope that I hope that all the residents protesting I you know, we hear you in District nine. We do. We hear your we hear your frustration. And I just I would just implore I would just hope. And I invite you to to to join us because, you know, we've we've these zoning applications, these types of decisions that are made without community input. These are the types of things that happen week after week in District nine. And to this part of the city and and this city council tends to just ignore that, to ignore the residents and to go ahead with the development, the unfettered development that and the mayor's agenda here in Denver. And and it's pretty it's pretty gross. It's pretty it's pretty traumatic and inhumane. And and this happens all the time. And so I would just invite you to to join other other districts, other people in other districts of the city who who are also experiencing something similar. At the same time, I do think that that oftentimes resisting development is a form of is a is a form of, you know, preserving the status quo in a city that needs more, that needs, you know, vacant land is a pretty hot commodity. And people, you know, people like other people in other neighborhoods need to kind of be willing to to also take on that some of that burden that's been disproportionately placed on certain neighborhoods in the city. So, you know, I think that I as a as a former lifeguard, I think I think swimming is fun. So. And I would I would say that at no zoning, do do we ever know or have a guarantee of what the development is going to be? So this your your experience is not unlike any zoning. The site plans don't happen until after the zoning is. And so they're not voting on the site plans tonight. They make that very clear. And that indeed is part of their reasoning sometimes for why they vote in opposition of the of the of this residents. Thank you.
Speaker 0: That concludes our speakers this evening. Questions from members of Council on Council Bill 1030 and we have council member soil here.
Speaker 8: Thanks, Madam President. Thank you for being here.
Speaker 1: So can you.
Speaker 8: Explain what would be allowed? What forms would be allowed on the USA? What I say. Which is or is. I'm sorry. ASU eyesight, which is what it is now.
Speaker 2: Yeah. So it would allow the suburban house building form, but you could do a variety of uses. So obviously single unit, but you could also do like a library for example, is allowed in that district, but it would have to be within the suburban house building form.
Speaker 8: Got it. Okay. So if it's zone to OSB. Then what could go on that site, assuming that the swimming pool idea falls to pieces and then it's just risen to OSB with nothing there? Yep.
Speaker 2: So the general building form is the only building form permitted in OSB, but it allows for. Actually, I can pull up. I have a slide that shows the differences between SC I and I see an OSB.
Speaker 8: That'd be great, if you don't mind. Yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah. So you can see the it does allow for about five feet greater height, but the setbacks are greater in OSB so they have to be 20 feet from the sides rear front versus they're just five feet from the sides and see why. And then they use uses. I've highlighted the ones that are different. So the main differences is as you I would allow for like residences, residential care as well as like a postal facility and then OSB would permit a cemetery, museum, arts, recreational entertainment, parking garage and then agricultural uses.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 8: In addition to.
Speaker 2: To all the other. Yeah. But all the other ones that are not bold are the ones that are the same that are. But.
Speaker 8: Okay, I understand what you're saying. So. So in if I'm looking at this properly, in the ACP side, you still have communities that are daycare, library, open space, all of those included on the OSB side as well, in addition to these other ones. Yep. Okay. I see what you're saying. And so let me just make sure I understand and it's and it's super clear to me. So the primary st setbacks are the same. Correct. Both of those own districts. But the setbacks for the side street and the interior, 15 feet more.
Speaker 1: Per.
Speaker 8: Side.
Speaker 2: Correct. And I would additionally add, although I know we don't speak about specific projects, but what they're proposing would have to actually be 50 feet. The an outdoor pool, an outdoor use like that would have to be 50 from any residential use. Okay.
Speaker 8: So the if they're if they do get this rezoning and they do have a pool that they end up putting on this, what does that mean for like for the parking lot? Right. So if there's a parking lot, does the step back on the parking lot then have to be that 20.
Speaker 2: Feet on all.
Speaker 8: Sides as.
Speaker 2: Well? That's a this is for the building. A structure would have to be 20 feet. But the parking I don't know. I would have to get back to you on that.
Speaker 8: Do you know that by any chance? Sorry, dude.
Speaker 10: I'm sorry, Councilwoman, I missed the question.
Speaker 8: So as we're looking at the difference between the two zone districts on this slide, the side street setbacks and the interior setbacks are 15 feet greater in the Osby zoning than they are in the assessed zoning. So I'm I understand that that is for the building form. Is that also true for, say, a parking lot if this pool ends up being built there, if they get the rezoning.
Speaker 10: The parking lot would not have the same setback as as a structure.
Speaker 8: Okay. So is that something that can be negotiated in a good neighbor agreement?
Speaker 10: Yeah. There would be like build to requirements and particular landscaping requirements that the applicant would still have to meet. So that might provide a buffer, but it wouldn't necessarily be the same as a setback.
Speaker 8: Got it. Okay. So and so since you mentioned like landscaping, is that something that could be negotiated and a good neighbor agreement?
Speaker 10: Yes.
Speaker 8: And the parking setback of the parking lot is something that could also be negotiated in a good neighbor agreement.
Speaker 10: Yes.
Speaker 8: Okay. What other kinds of stuff could be negotiated in that kind of agreement.
Speaker 10: In a good neighbor agreement? You know, the neighbors and the applicant can work through just about anything. I mean, that's that's really sort of the foundation of zoning is that folks got together and they said, oh, we like this particular area and we don't like that. Or that's how they that's how you come up with setbacks and what type of uses are allowed and all that. So I mean, it, it would be privately enforced. So there is any number of items that that is on the table when it comes to good neighbor agreements.
Speaker 8: Got it. Okay. And how many times have we seen I think this is probably for Libby. Thank you so much. How many times have we seen applications or sites?
Speaker 0: Councilwoman, can I interrupt you for just a second? We didn't really get need to introduce himself for the record. Oh, and so I know you said his name, but wanted to, since the public is watching. Excuse me for interrupting.
Speaker 8: No, no.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, sir. Assistant city attorney.
Speaker 0: All right. Great. Thank you. Go ahead, Councilman.
Speaker 8: So I know that there's been several attempts to do something on this land. How many times has this potential site plan come through?
Speaker 2: Yeah. So I believe this is the first formal application, but in the pre-op stage there were about seven perhaps.
Speaker 8: So there are seven potential developments that have been tried on this land, and not one of them has made it past the upstage except for open space. Correct? Okay. Can we talk a little bit about the street access issue? You mentioned it like you touched on it a little bit, but I guess I need to make sure that I understand very clearly exactly what kinds of decisions or what information daddy uses when they are determining where ingress and egress would need to go on a parcel.
Speaker 2: Yeah. So I think Matt Farman is on the call. He's one of our data engineers, so he may be best equipped to answer that question.
Speaker 8: Thank you. Hey, Matt.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Okay.
Speaker 4: All right? Yeah. My name's Matt Farman. I work for Development Services, dot transportation, so I review private development as it relates to the right of way. So I permit the right of way design next to private development. And generally speaking, on this one, the city wants to have access off the lowest classified street as possible. And so Mississippi Avenue is an arterial roadway. Dayton's a collector in Emporia is a local. So Emporia is the local hair loss classified street and part of the reason for that. So we don't want access off of arterials. Think of that like a highway. We want that to get people from point A to point B and then your collector roadways are kind of your in between roadways to get people to local roadways where ideally access is taken off of. So when the development came in and proposed a plan, they had an access off Emporia. And then we look at that and compare that to our policy standards and requirements to see if that meets what the city could approve. And in this case, it met the requirements that we would want to see from.
Speaker 8: Hmm. Is there some? Would it be possible for in a neighborhood agreement to make the determination that the ingress and egress should be off Dayton instead of Emporia? Is that like is that allowed?
Speaker 4: You know, I'm not sure as that directly relates to the good neighbor agreement, but we do have. So the way our department works, plans are proposed and then we we comment on those. We, the city would be happy to look at another plan with access at in a different place. But I couldn't guarantee, you know, that that that would be approved. But we also have a variance process that that can be appealed and that goes up to some upper level management to help make that call. But there's a lot of challenges with these other roads with arterial. Then you also have a traffic signal there.
Speaker 8: Okay. Great. So. And maybe this question is actually for the applicants then in terms of it, are they willing to propose a different area of ingress and egress off of Dayton as opposed to Emporia, which is where this original, I guess, site plan suggested that go?
Speaker 4: I'm sorry. That to the applicant or to.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 8: Can we please upgrade them?
Speaker 0: I think we're getting Joseph or Lydia Skinner moved over.
Speaker 4: Hi. This is Joseph and Lydia. District five, the applicant. So.
Speaker 8: So just to repeat it, I'm wondering whether I'm right, because there's in the way the city processes work, there's a difference between the rezoning and the site plan. If you were to get this rezoning, would you be willing to consider altering the site plan for ingress and egress on Dayton instead of Emporia.
Speaker 4: Right? Yes. So our original intention was to go off Dayton when we hired on our civil engineer team. They they reviewed all the city code and all that. And so they said to get this through planning, it needed to be done on Emporia. But we're more than happy to rereview this after after rezoning, just the cost burden for us to do that. Now, prior to rezoning in that short amount of time that we were kind of given notification that might be an issue was was a bit too too heavy on us.
Speaker 8: Okay. And that's good to know. Thank you. I appreciate it. Did you consider any other zone district? Is there? Maybe this is even. Well, let me ask this first. Did you consider any other zone districts when you were considering this free zone?
Speaker 4: There were several zone districts that what our intention was could fit under. But knowing kind of what we were after, and that was to secure green space and secure recreation zone. I mean, it just it felt like any other way than OSP would be almost disingenuous, right? Like the worst case scenario as as it was brought up, what happens if this all falls through? Well, now it's designated OSP and it can only be used as a community asset, an open space asset, where if we would have gone with a mixed use or something along those lines, our design falls through, we sell the property and now, now you have a gas station there. So we pursued OSP all the way through because we felt that was the most accurate for what we were trying to do.
Speaker 8: Got it. Okay. I really appreciate that. Thank you so much. And then last question, I guess, for you guys as the applicants or the Skinners, do you? Would you be willing to consider going to mediation and hammering out a good neighbor agreement if this rezoning is approved? As you get to the site plan stage.
Speaker 4: Absolutely. Absolutely. We were we were wanting to engage in mediation, to go over the traffic concerns and issues before we even got here. I mean, in talking with a few neighbors who would drive by where we were setting up signs, that sounded like a lot of them weren't completely aware of, you know, that it was going to be seasonal, that there wasn't a be there year round. Right. What what everything entailed. It just felt like there was a lot of misinformation. And so we were pushing for mediation so we could explain the traffic that we already have a signed agreement or if something were to go in joint use agreement with the challenge school across the street to help, you know, drastically ease the traffic concerns by utilizing the 100 plus parking lot during the summer. So we just never felt like we were given the opportunity and we were really pushing Steve to kind of get everybody conversing. But it sounded like that just wasn't it wasn't a high priority for the other party.
Speaker 8: Okay. Did you attempt to do any other outreach to the community in terms of other meetings or things like that? I know you had that one. Would you be willing to do more than that if you were to get this rezoning?
Speaker 2: Absolutely. This is Lydia speaking, Councilwoman Sawyer. So we would definitely be open to speaking at a scheduled range view and neighborhood association meeting. One has not been scheduled that we're aware of from the duration that we've been up against for this rezoning. I think, you know, addressing a broader group would definitely be beneficial to, you know, not have any sort of. You know, take all night just to be able to get the messaging out once and for all, kind of what we're about that we really see this as an asset. We also are members of District five where husband and wife no larger organization. So it's it's a lot more straightforward, I think, than than it has been interpreted as.
Speaker 8: And we're happy to do that. Q Thanks so much, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Do you council member Sawyer. Next up, we've got Councilmember Black.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. I have a really quick question for you, Libby. So on the staff report, it says the lot is 84,000 square feet and the minimum lot size in as you eye is 12,000 feet. So they could put seven houses there, is that correct? Potentially. Given how they configure it? Yeah. Okay. Just want to get a feel for the size of the lot. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Black. Next up, we've got Councilmember Flynn.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Madam President, but I really was quick. Councilwoman Black caught me off guard. I am flustered a little bit by the bodies. Decision that you can only access this parcel from Emporia which is the the residential side of the.
Speaker 5: Of the lot.
Speaker 6: Because I look along Mississippi I see that there was a proposal to rezone. Down at the corner on Geneva. That was, I believe, failed in June, but I didn't see any. Similar remarks by Dotty then in fact, there was an existing driveway right off of Mississippi for that. And then just to the west of this, there's an existing entrance into a parking lot for the school, which of course is in Arapahoe County. So Dottie had no say over whether there was access there. But I know of similar, you know, arterials and then neighborhood collector streets that have driveways on them. So I'm struggling with the notion that if there's a commercial enterprise like a private swim club, to be accommodated by this rezoning as open space, be private open space that the customers, the paying customers can only access it from by winding through the neighborhood and going down a residential street to get into the parking lot. Would I'm sorry, was it.
Speaker 2: Mark Matt.
Speaker 6: Matt from Dottie. Could you further explain the thinking behind that? And I know that we sometimes update our standards. We change what we used to do because many of us up here on the dais have asked for things in our district, traffic controls and things like that, and we might see them widely used elsewhere. And they say we don't do that anymore. So I'm wondering what is the what is the thinking here about not allowing in access off of date or Mississippi? Because that seems to be a hindrance to the development of this property. Excuse me, Frank. And frankly, I'm not interested in things that keep traffic speeding on Mississippi. This is not a words. We don't want to put a driveway there because we we don't want to slow down the traffic behind a right turning vehicle.
Speaker 4: Yeah. I can help clarify that a little bit further. And, and I guess I just wanted to start off by saying, you know, Dottie didn't necessarily say. For sure it needs to be off in. We're just going off of a proposed plan and then looking at our standards so in excess of Emporia would meet all of our standards and current practices. You know, part of the some of the things that we look at, we really try to avoid access to arterial roadways, Mississippi, Dayton, here, where it's close to a traffic signal. And we don't want to have access that is too close to the traffic signal where you have tubing that backs up. And then we also don't want it where there's turn lanes. So and then you have an access across the street and for Denver Vision Zero. We really like to have access aligned and other things we look at or conflict points with pedestrians. So if you have an access on Dayton, you would have more conflict points with cars going over the sidewalk, with people walking up, you know, to the school. So there would be less conflict points off in Peoria as well. And, you know, it's hard to say, you know, what was improved in the past with access off the Mississippi, I can't really speak to that. But current practices, this is what the city pushes for.
Speaker 6: Because he had change from prior practice. And I guess I have a little I have a little bit of difficulty. Understanding why we continue to have practices in some parts of town that we don't do anymore. But the ones that already exist where they seem to function. Well, I just I'm just flustered by this. I guess I have to take that into consideration. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Flynn. Libby, did you want to say something?
Speaker 2: Well, I was going to say that I don't want that particular property down Mississippi. I don't know if it had a potential to be accessed from a different street, but sometimes it did okay. Because obviously that's only has one street frontage, then access would probably need to be permitted even if it's an arterial. But since this one has three options, that's why looking at the lowest classification is the most in line with Vision Zero.
Speaker 0: All right. Great. Thank you. Next up, we've got Councilmember Cashman.
Speaker 3: Thank you very much. I will say it feels like this is not really fully baked as far as one meeting with the community and no community benefits agreement in place concerns me to make room for a profit making business. And, you know, the use is an interesting use. I'd love it if it were Denver building a community pool. I would say that would be outstanding. I wonder what other under the existing zoning, what profit making businesses could move in.
Speaker 2: Yeah. So, you know, you could do a community center under the existing zoning that includes a pool, but that would need to be a like not for profit organization that runs it. So impact on the ground would be very similar to what's being proposed. But as far as a profit making business, you know, I'm trying to pick a school. I mean, maybe a private school, for example, would be although most of those are probably still non-profits as far as how they're registered. But most of them would need to be a nonprofit. Uses under the existing district.
Speaker 3: Mm hmm. Okay. Yeah, I guess I don't need to hammer the same subject as Councilman Flynn, but I wonder about the access. And, I mean, it's not his words, but it does sound like staff is pretty set on Emporia being the access point. I hear a willingness. Yeah, we can talk about it, but I'm not hearing that there would be much chance of other access being developed.
Speaker 2: And I guess I would say there's there's no guarantees. And I think I don't know of an actual proposal has been made that Matt has reviewed along Dayton Street. So I think it'd be challenging to speak.
Speaker 1: Sure, I would be approve and.
Speaker 3: I understand that. I guess I would just be more comfortable with the Community Benefits Agreement signed on on this use. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Cashman. And next up, we've got Councilmember Ortega.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. My first question is for Lydia or Joseph Skinner. I wanted to ask if you have an idea of what percentage of the lot the pool actually take up. And then how many parking spaces does that actually give you?
Speaker 2: Or I can address that. Lydia here. So we have a rough proposal right now. It's still in draft form, but I believe it was only 37 or so percent of the entire approximately two acres of land because this is an outdoor swim club. The requirements for parking are a bit different. I believe that when we spoke with Dottie previously, the requirement would be based on the building size. We have a footprint, proposed footprint of approximately 2500 square feet, which is equivalent roughly to a single family home as our pool building. And so for that size of the building, the required number of parking is actually only seven parking spaces. Right now, our draft includes obviously a lot more. Right now we have, I think, around 50 parking spots proposed along Dayton. And then with that joint use agreement with the Challenge School, which we would, you know, obviously finalized once we zoned and go into development, would be additional 100 parking spaces. So we have more than adequately addressed the parking based on the requirement.
Speaker 1: And you indicated that the pool would be open from May to September, right?
Speaker 2: That is correct. Memorial Day to Labor Day is the standard for swim clubs here in Denver. Outdoor swimming obviously is very seasonal here. So there would be no chance of it being open outside of that because it would definitely ruin the pool and infrastructure.
Speaker 1: So sometimes school starts before Labor Day. And so just wanted to get your thoughts about the additional spaces that you're talking about. If you have kids from the neighborhood. I don't know what the schedule is at the school, but you're referencing the challenge school if they're on the same schedule as the schools or not. And so if if they're not on the same schedule, just wanting to to figure out if parking is really going to be an issue that might push parking into the neighborhood. If it turns out that you're going to have a lot of traffic in and out, and I would suspect in most cases parents are going to drop their kids off and then come and come up if they're not required to be present with them while they're swimming.
Speaker 4: Yes, that's a great question. And so to answer this question, we're going to base it off. You know, our experience here in the Virginia Vale neighborhood, right across from our neighborhood is the Virginia Bay Swim Club. It's actually how we got the idea for this, the swim club, our own. And so what we've seen over the last five, four or five years of living here is that the 66, I believe, spaces at the Virginia Bay Swim Club has is more than adequate on any normal day of the year. Now, there are days like the 4th of July and Labor Day itself, where there is quite a lot of overflow from those 66 spaces. And so that's why we proactively went ahead and did the challenge pool joint use agreement for the worst case. You know, anticipation of of traffic, fourth July weekends are always a little bit heavier. But on the average weekday, I mean, we've done a handful of times and there's at most, you know, dozens of families.
Speaker 1: So one point I'd like to.
Speaker 2: Add on that is that unlike school, which has a very set start time and end time, the probability of members of the pool coming all at the same time is highly improbable. People would trickle in and out throughout the entire day as opposed to the school, which is, you know, probably an hour of time between in the morning as well as in the afternoon when it's the highest volume. So the volume that our proposals would contribute would be a lot more spaced out.
Speaker 1: I didn't notice if the joint you took agreement was part of the application. Is that something that was included or is that something you're planning to use down the road?
Speaker 2: The Joint Use Agreement was entered as an artifact, so we have had written confirmation that they want to enter into one without one. We are still under contract on the parcel and our close is contingent on a successful rezoning it. But until we can do that as owners, we can't really come or have any finalized agreements with them, but they have expressed written interest and obviously if this is successfully revoked, resigned, we will engage on that front and have something.
Speaker 1: More formal drafted. Okay. Thank you. I have no further questions.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Councilmember Ortega, we've got Councilmember Canete. You're up next.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 8: Council president. I guess my first question is for Nate Lucero.
Speaker 2: Nate. You know, there were some.
Speaker 8: Questions asked earlier about nonprofit versus for profit. And I just want to get clear on the law. When we are considering a zoning, are we allowed to consider who the applicant is? Is that a legal criteria we're allowed to consider?
Speaker 10: No, it's not. It doesn't matter.
Speaker 8: Okay. So there's no it would not be a legal basis to say, well, I would like a pool if so-and-so owned it, but not if another person owned it. We would be we're supposed to be considering the use or the the appropriateness of the zoning based on the the five criteria. Yes.
Speaker 10: Right. It's not part of the five criteria. The only thing that has to be considered and this is vetted before it even gets to council, is whether or not the applicant is is an appropriate entity or person to initiate the applicant. So in other words, it's either the property owner or a member of city council or council as a whole or the manager of CPD.
Speaker 8: Okay. Thank you for that clarification. My next question and.
Speaker 2: I don't remember.
Speaker 8: If we have someone in the on line who is representing the Range View Neighborhood Association, I heard questions or concerns from colleagues about the fact that there wasn't a more neighborhood meetings, but I want to clarify whose responsibility it is to convene a neighborhood meeting. And so I just want to clarify whether or not we have someone from the Range View Neighborhood Association in the meeting.
Speaker 0: I am not aware that we do or not. But if you are a member of the Rain View Neighborhood Association, if you raise your hand and we can bring you into the queue to answer Councilwoman Nature's question, and if you wouldn't mind introducing yourself for the record and your involvement with them.
Speaker 1: Okay. Hello. I'm Linda Rea and I am now a former. A former board member of our R.A. And what has happened in this case.
Speaker 2: Was the applicants began a conversation.
Speaker 1: With our existing.
Speaker 2: Board president.
Speaker 1: And. He began talking about having a meeting, and I had multiple emails.
Speaker 2: And phone calls trying to get in our own R.A. meeting, because it was my view that the board is to convene the body.
Speaker 1: Let the body discuss the matter at hand and come up with a position. And instead, what happened was the applicants took the board president's enjoyment of his private swim club as being good for this neighborhood and have presented it as his support means. We support it. We were never asked. We tried and tried to get conversations with our our whole R.A. We.
Speaker 2: Tried to get.
Speaker 1: A dialog through our council member to ask the applicant.
Speaker 2: To come and meet with us so that we.
Speaker 1: Could have a forthright, amicable, discussed discussion about this.
Speaker 2: And instead we've been sidelined. So there's a lot.
Speaker 1: Of resentment that's built up in this neighborhood about the manner in which this has been conducted. There's a lot of misinformation.
Speaker 2: There is no understanding by our board because they don't live on this side of the.
Speaker 1: Neighborhood that.
Speaker 2: The parking lot at the school does not.
Speaker 1: Work. Now it has.
Speaker 2: 128 parking spaces.
Speaker 0: I'm going to go ahead and ask you to pause. I think we've gotten that point across. And Councilmember, can each of you want to go ahead and put.
Speaker 1: I sorry.
Speaker 8: You were going a little further in my scope of my question.
Speaker 2: I hear your frustration that the neighborhood didn't meet.
Speaker 8: I also heard the applicant's frustration that the neighborhood didn't meet. I don't know that we can hold an applicant responsible for an R.A. that refused to meet. Right. I am very empathetic to what you just described, but it's also, I think, beyond the scope. And so, again, if if the staff would like to correct me, we don't have a letter from this R.A. in this packet.
Speaker 2: That is correct.
Speaker 8: So if we are voting tonight, none of us would be voting based on evidence that the R.A. supports it because we have no such evidence.
Speaker 2: Correct.
Speaker 8: So what may have happened in the community and what buzz there may have been, I just want to assure folks is not in the record and would not be part of our decision. But it also can't be part of our decision that because the R.A., because they didn't meet with the R.A., I'm hearing testimony from both sides that they would have liked it and that that that's what I take from the record. I have just one more question. It's a little bit unusual, but Madam President, feel indulge me. I have a question for Councilman Herndon. I think he's down there. But several of our colleagues have mentioned they're surprised at the standard about not being willing to have ingress and egress from, you know, collectors. I'm sorry, you know, arterials, but I recall many zoning is in the past and I believe you had when Councilman Herndon the affordable housing and Central Park and MLK if I believe it and if you don't remember, it's okay because you're not on the staff seat tonight. But Councilman Herndon, have you had a rezoning.
Speaker 2: Where we discussed this.
Speaker 8: This matter where there was consternation but the standard had been in place for a while. Was this is this ring any bells for you?
Speaker 3: Council? I'm thinking of affordable housing and off of MLK.
Speaker 4: Are you referring to the apartments on Moline?
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 8: Well, this is the. It's still undeveloped, as, in fact, it's the parcel that was on the corner of southeast corner of Central Park and MLK across from the open space. It is still undeveloped today and it was a subject of a rezoning here. Yes. And this issue was was discussed at length, if I recall, correct?
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 3: They so if you're not familiar, the intersections of Central.
Speaker 4: Park and Martin Luther King Boulevard, the South. Yeah. Councilman can is correct. There are questions about where the egress is going to happen. And they did not do it on Martin Luther King. And I have to go back, but I'm under the assumption for the reasons that we're talking about right now, the and the egress for that would be on the local street, I believe. But as Councilman Kennedy said, we have not seen what I have not seen, I should say, a development plan as of late. But I believe what Councilman King needs to talk about is correct.
Speaker 8: All right. Thank you. I'll save the rest of your comments. But thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember each and Councilmember Herndon for weighing in here. We got some folks coming back into the queue. And so we've got and we see they're switching around here. Council Member Sawyer or actually Councilmember Herndon, were you in the queue for?
Speaker 4: I did, yes.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Sawyer. Since you've already been up. Councilmember Herndon.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Kelly This is a question. Just understanding outreach, because this is what we're spending a lot of time on. Is there anything in your view that the applicants did not do when it comes to their responsibility for outreach for this rezoning?
Speaker 2: No.
Speaker 4: Okay. Thank you. And for the applicants. A quick question it seems in. It's okay. Are you aware of any individuals that we're trying to connect with you that you wouldn't you were not willing to meet with? That's not what I am sensing from the conversations that you had, but I just wanted to ask you that question. Like you seemed very willing to have multiple conversations about this. Just let me know that. Is I misinterpreting that.
Speaker 2: That's an accurate statement. We spoke with anyone who wanted to engage with us. No one reached out to us directly. But when we were posting signs for both the hearings and folks we're driving by, we answered the questions and introduced the pathologist and any questions they had at the time.
Speaker 4: And I will state that back in May when we reached out to the Range View President. We had one one resident reach out to us directly first before the President responded. We responded that we would like to go to the Range View Neighborhood Association kind of chain so everybody could be discussed in the initial proposal. But after that, we've been quite open to discussion with any, any individual or group. Thank you for that. Most everything else. I have a comment, so I am good. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Herndon. And wanted to do a quick check. Colleagues are everybody's good with their questions at this point. All right. Not seeing anybody else in the queue. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 1030. Councilmember Sawyer.
Speaker 8: Thanks, Madam President. This is a tough one, right? I would also feel better if there was a neighborhood agreement in place. That's why my council office repeatedly reached out to the neighborhood organization, to the neighbors themselves, to the Skinners, to try and get them together to hammer out a good neighbor agreement. I'm concerned about the fact that there isn't a good neighbor agreement here. However, the neighbors have had ample and repeated opportunity to create one and have refused to the point where several of them did not even respond at all. That is concerning because, you know, I think we've seen this a couple of times now where when you're looking at a protest position or you're looking at next door, people are lying to their neighbors about what's going on in order to get what they want. And that's not okay. And so, you know, we talked about this in a previous District five rezoning with CPD, and I think we need to talk about it again because I think what needs to happen here, based on repeated experience with this, is that whatever protest, petition or whatever language is put out there about exactly what the rezoning is has to be metered by the city attorney's office and CPD when it's put out. You cannot lie to your neighbors and then to get what you want in our rezoning process and exploit that whole. And also, you can't refuse to negotiate in some, you know, or even respond when negotiation is openly offered and then say that you weren't engaged. That is not okay. It's not okay. So. Right, we've talked about this. The land is vacant. There have been seven attempts to develop here. Seven. This is the eighth. None of those attempts have been successful. And the reason behind these failures, it's kind of interesting. You know, some of the neighborhood doesn't want the increase of density that comes with an SMU three or an SMU five, which would be appropriate here. Some of the neighborhood doesn't want the change of use that would come with an x three or in some x five zone district here. We saw this at the Mississippian Geneva rezoning. You know, just this past summer. So so what do we do here? You know, does this parcel stay empty forever? If the underlying SSI zoned district was appropriate for this property, that seven houses, so that seven for profit houses that a developer would be able to develop on that land. It would have been successfully developed by now if it was going to be supported in one of these past seven attempts. But it hasn't. So that's an indication, I think, that a zoning change is needed here. You know, so the question is, is OSB zoning the right zoning to go on this land? I understand that there's concerns about parking and street access. And, you know, as we've discussed, we've attempted to send it to mediation repeatedly. That would have been the place for neighbors to negotiate on these kinds of issues like entry and exit location, hours and days of operation, which I frankly think is going to end up being a bigger problem if we end up rezoning the parcel than the parking or the ingress and egress off of any street, you know, those kinds of things. Priority for neighbors living in the Range View Neighborhood Association. That's something that could be put into a good neighbor agreement if the neighbors were willing to mediate. It's not an appropriate tactic to refuse to mediate in the hopes of stopping a rezoning. So, you know, what are we what are we going to do here? I don't know. Right. I think the most important point that needs to be made in this situation is that our rezoning criteria doesn't look at the use of the property. So, you know, again, we're about to is OSB an appropriate zoned district for this property? And what does that mean? OSB is, and I'm quoting here, intended to protect and promote open space and parks not otherwise owned, operated or leased by the city, and generally intended for active or passive recreation use. So like were thinking kind of about this a different way. You know, the swim club doesn't work out. Is this OSB good for the neighbors, good for the community, good for the city? We're not just going to develop to develop for develop sake. We're going to develop because it's adding some sort of community benefit here. Parks and open space, I think are critical in any neighborhood. And this neighborhood has no city park except for a portion of the Highline Canal. There's a neighborhood directly north of the Highline Canal Park Forest where Ben Bezos Park is. That's not range view. The different neighborhood. So no park here at all. In fact, of all the neighborhoods I represented, District five, Windsor as a whole has the least amount of parks and open space. So by changing the zoning from suburban to open space, we're insuring a portion of this neighborhood remains dedicated to open space, recreation or some sort of community serving use. It's something that not only meets the goals of these supporting plans that we look at, but the actual needs of the neighborhood. I I'm very conflicted because I really, like I said, wish that there was a good neighbor agreement in place here. I think that that would have been the thing that would have really and truly sealed the deal on ensuring that the neighborhood truly benefited from this. But there's time. Right. We have the whole site review time to come back. So, you know, mediation is not off the table. I know the Skinners would be willing to do it. I know my office has repeatedly made the offer to sponsor it for free. That's still on the table. If we end up rezoning this, first of all, and it goes through the site plan process so that these kinds of issues could still be hammered out. And so I've got to look at the five criteria and this rezoning meets the criteria. So I'm gonna be supporting intimate thinks that I'm president.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Sawyer. Next up, we've got Councilmember Kinney.
Speaker 8: Thank you. Council president I to find that the criteria have been met tonight and I guess in particular, you know, to imply that our city could have, you know, residential neighborhoods but not have amenities that serve them, such as pools or community centers or daycares. Some of the other uses in this list, we just couldn't function as a city. And so I think that it also in particular in terms of plan, conformance rate, the need for complete neighborhoods, right? Not just places people live, but places they can recreate or work or do. The other things that we have to do in our lives. We don't just live at home when we're not in a pandemic. Right. So so I find the criteria are met. But I wanted to chime in for for two reflections just on the discussion. I think that I'm concerned because this issue, you know, I brought up Councilman Herndon's rezoning because the same issue did come up. Everyone wanted the traffic to come off of Central Park or MLK instead of from the side street. I think Councilman Torres has had this issue in her district. I know Councilwoman Sandoval has. And I think that to the extent that our council has concerns about where curb cuts are going and why, I think it's incumbent upon us to take it up with our Department of Transportation not to be considering or not considering rezonings because of it. It is done to reduce traffic incidents, rate pedestrian car traffic incidents, bike car traffic incidents and car car traffic incidents. If we don't believe the science, if we don't understand the science, then I think the place to take it up is there. But it concerns me that it keeps showing up as a potential basis to affect a rezoning. And I just think that I have to raise the policy issue that if we are not in agreement with our Department of Transportation about curb cuts, then we should take it up directly and not have it be playing out in these rezoning conversations. The second thing is just, you know, it's really I think about.
Speaker 1: If we.
Speaker 8: Had to build schools in our city, would we have even been able to do it? I mean, the second issue that keeps coming up in every rezoning is cars. You know, there's going to be cars, there's going to be people. And I think schools are described in every one of these rezoning discussions as a as a as a terrible imposition and a real disruptor to neighborhoods. But they educate our kids.
Speaker 2: And the kids.
Speaker 8: Have to get there.
Speaker 2: And yes, in the olden.
Speaker 8: Days, perhaps everyone walked to school.
Speaker 2: But we now have ECD.
Speaker 8: That begins at three age three. And we also have school choice, which means kids can go to a neighborhood, neighborhood school or a school that fits them better, maybe because it has specialized ESL programs or because it has a a science, technology and math program that they need. And I just I.
Speaker 2: Worry that.
Speaker 8: That I can't imagine how we would build the things that our city needs based on how we describe the things everything is is an imposition and or a harm. Right. That schools are a harm to neighborhoods. Like, I would like us to step back and just think about that, that we describe these things like pools and schools as harms. And.
Speaker 2: And, you know, the kids don't get to.
Speaker 8: Come and talk to us. The kids don't get to come and testify to us. Generally speaking, we're hearing from adults, mostly disproportionately homeowners. Right. You know, who especially relies on recreational amenities, people who live in apartments or who don't have, you know, yards of their own. They especially need these kinds of spaces. I speak for a neighborhood that does not have it has its first park, the Fairfax Park in North Park Hill. But other than that, the only thing around is schools. And yeah, they generate traffic and they also educate kids and they provide a place for community to gather and support our community. So. I just wanted to share those reflections before we move on. I know that we care deeply about each of the comments we hear, but I also think it's really important for us, particularly on the dais, to step back and think about the big picture needs of the city and why the zoning code has some of the criteria it has. I see uniformity of zone district here. We've approved many projects on major arterials that aren't going to get curb cuts. Right. Uniformity. Right. We're we're doing that uniformly in other places, too. So with that, I'll be supporting this tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Canete. And I appreciate both of my colleagues comments and the discussion. And I'm in full support of this rezoning. I can't imagine this council voting down something that is open space zoning, especially given the community gaps that we're seeing in this area. And, you know, even if you are a Denver Parks and Rec recreation holder permit, you still have to pay to use the pool. There are still costs involved with it. It's not like if the city was building this, it would be free either. And so I am in full support of this tonight. And a reminder to my colleagues that since community planning and development has determined that the requirement for a legal protest has been met. It will require ten affirmative votes instead of the standard seven affirmative votes of council to pass this bill. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 1030, please.
Speaker 1: Ortega. I heard.
Speaker 7: Sandoval.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 8: Sawyer I.
Speaker 1: Torres, I. Black eye. CdeBaca.
Speaker 3: I can't. I.
Speaker 5: When I.
Speaker 3: Herndon I can. All right.
Speaker 1: Cashman. I can each time, Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 7: 13 Eyes.
Speaker 0: 13 Eyes Council Bill 20 1-1030 has passed. Thank you to the community members and Libby and Nate for being here with us. Moving on, Councilmember Cashman, we put Council Bill 1072 on the floor for final passage.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 1090 South Dayton Street in Windsor.
Approves a map amendment to rezone property from S-SU-I to OS-B (suburban to open space), located at 1090 South Dayton Street in Council District 5. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 9-14-21. Community Planning and Development has determined that the requirement for a legal protest (signatures by the owners of 20 percent or more either of the area of the lots included in the proposed change or of the total land area within 200 feet from the perimeter of the area proposed for change) has been met (petition signatures represent 0% and 31%, respectively).
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11082021_21-1072
|
Speaker 0: 13 Eyes Council Bill 20 1-1030 has passed. Thank you to the community members and Libby and Nate for being here with us. Moving on, Councilmember Cashman, we put Council Bill 1072 on the floor for final passage.
Speaker 3: Yes, Council President. I move the council bill 21, dash 1070 to 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 1072 is open and we have Fran here for the staff report.
Speaker 7: Good afternoon, members of City Council. My name is from Pineville City Planner with Community Planning and Development. And today we will be reviewing a rezoning request for two properties one at 3255 Newton Street and the other one at 3254 Osceola Street. Subject properties are in Council District one in the West Highland neighborhood. And the request is to rezone both properties to a district allowing for 80 use. All other form and use of standard would remain the same. The current zoning in both properties is US u. U. SB, which allows for a minimum standard size of 4500 square feet. For reference, the property of Newton Street is 6250 square feet and the one in Nasrallah Street is 6870 square feet, both exceeding the 4500 square feet required by us one. The green land use of the sites is single unit residential and they're both surrounded by other single unit uses the market. The map here also shows some two unit uses multi-unit residential uses in the vicinity, as well as some commercial retail and office uses on 32nd Avenue. This slide shows the character of the neighborhood with the images on the bottom left and top right, showing the subject properties and a couple of extra images to show the mixed use character of 32nd Avenue half so half a block south of the properties and also the residential character of the neighborhood in general. Throughout the rezoning process, application notifications have been provided according to code requirements. Planning Board recommended approval and animosity on September 15, and to date, staff has only received one letter of opposition from a neighbor concerned with short term rentals. The letter of opposition refers to a potential use of the EU for short term rentals. On that point, I would like to mention the Denver Zoning Code and Associated Licensing Regulations allows a resident of the primary dwelling unit to conduct a short term rental, either in the primary dwelling unit or in the legally permitted accessory dwelling unit . Basically any one resident in a primary structure can apply for a short term rental license as long as they live in the property. Not allowing for an 80, you won't prevent an applicant from getting a short term rental. Important to know, though, the property owner would not be allowed to conduct more than one short term rental at a time. Now moving on to the Denver zoning code review criteria, it must be found that the request map amendment is consistent with the five criteria. In regards to criteria number one, there are two adopted plans that apply for the request rezoning Comprehensive Plan 2040 and Blueprint Denver. As stated on the staff report, the rezoning is consistent with several goals in 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 live in Denver. The subject properties are both mapped as part of the urban neighborhood context. And the future places map designates the subject properties as low residential place type displaced types have predominantly single and two unit uses and accessory dwelling units are probably Newton Street and Sewell Street are both designated as Local Street, which is mostly characterized by residential uses . The growth area and blueprint Denver for both sites is all other areas of the city. This area is anticipated to see 10% employment growth and 20% housing growth by 2040. Therefore, the finding of the request is consistent with the applicable adopted plans. Finally, Blueprint also identifies specific policy recommendations. Housing Policy four focuses on the spring housing choice through the expansion of accessory dwelling units throughout all residential areas. Stuff also finds that the requested signing meets the next two criteria. The rezoning will result in uniformity of district regulations, and it will further public health, safety and welfare, primarily through its implementation of adopted plans. The justified circumstance for this rezoning is a changing condition in a particular area, and a lot of the recent physical changes within proximity to the subject sites include new streetscape improvements along 32nd Avenue, but protests, pedestrians and increased safety along the corridor. Other changes include the construction of a new multi-unit residential project at Lowell Boulevard near the intersection with West 32nd Avenue. These changes demonstrate the transition from a low intensity residential neighborhood to a higher intensity residential and mixed use neighborhood where residential uses are compatible, appropriate and complementary to existing uses. Also, Blueprint Denver Specific specifically recommends the city diversify housing choices to the expansion of accessory dwelling units throughout all residential areas. The plan was adopted after the date of approval of the existing Southern District. Therefore, these are appropriate, justified SEC stances for the proposed rezoning. Overall, the proposed zoning is consistent with the urban neighborhood context residential district and the U.S. would be one strong district.
Speaker 4: With.
Speaker 7: That stuff. Recommends approval based on finding all review criteria has been met.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Fran, for the staff report. We have one individual signed up to speak this evening. And it's Jesse Paris joining us online.
Speaker 4: Yes, good evening. Members of council, those watching at home. My name is just Sebastian Paris. And I'm representing four black star families for self-defense because of us in those times, as well as the Unity Party of Colorado. And for a lot of black males and I'll be the next mayor of Denver in 2023. I'm in favor of this rezoning to my house in crisis. Any time that this council is approve of zoning, so create more housing. I'm in favor of I'm in favor of this rezoning tonight and meets all five of the criteria. Consistency with adopted plans. Uniformity of district regulations by the public health, safety and wellness. Justified circumstances and consistency with neighborhood contents and zone this purpose and since. So with that being said, I just to approve this summary. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. That concludes our speakers questions from members of Council on Council Bill 1072. Council Member Flynn.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Madam President. Fran, could you address some of the issues that were raised by the letter in opposition to the one on Newton? In other words, that this is it's a single family home, but apparently it's been divided into two units. At least was the claim in the letter in opposition, and that both of them are being used as Airbnb at least half of the year because the owner of the property lives in Granby, apparently.
Speaker 7: So. Yeah, I mean. Anyone going to have a short term rental and anyone can have a long term rental. So.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 7: It all depends where you have your residence. I think that the legal description is that you need to leave for six months of a year and you need to receive your bills and it needs to be like your voter address. So that's what defines your residence.
Speaker 6: So I'm sorry, what defines the residents?
Speaker 7: I'm sorry.
Speaker 6: What defines your residents?
Speaker 7: I think it's like where you receive your voters, your your bills and when where they address and you put it as a voter and I can look it up in the code, but. It's basically where you reside for six months. Mm hmm. So legally, someone could live in a house for six months and have a long term rental. So definition the difference between a long term rental and a short term rental is short term rental is shorter than 30 days.
Speaker 6: Right.
Speaker 7: Right. So he could potentially be. Living in his house for six months or eight months and having a long term rental. And then aside from that, you can have a short term rental. Now, you can not have more than one short term rental property. So even if he was a you have three people living in a house, you can not have three short term rental licenses for that property. It's only one for property. So if he if this owner for example builds the 80 you that's another thing he cannot have to wait to use. So if he already has an idea, he's not going to be allowed to build the arena. But he could have a short term rental in one room. Like a short term rental doesn't need to be in NATO. It can be just a room.
Speaker 6: Yes.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 6: Okay. In this case, the owner of the property is also registered to vote in Granby. So I'm curious how that.
Speaker 7: That I don't know how to we can see if the applicant is on line, if he wants to answer that question. But I was not aware of that detail.
Speaker 6: Okay. So I just wanna make sure you're unclear if this single family house has been divided into a duplex, essentially by having a basement apartment. Would that be an attached adu to you already or what would that be considered?
Speaker 7: Cannot be divided as a duplex. I mean, so an you can be a basement. Right. So if you. Yes. So he could have an edu. Like if he has a kitchen, a full kitchen in the basement, that would be considered 80. You know, if that's the case, he's not going to be allowed to permit the like the detached accessory dwelling unit. And he knows that. He's aware of that because we always recommend or he should know that I should say, okay, we recommend them to meet with development services to get those details.
Speaker 6: Okay. So there could only be a single unit and an ADU on the property?
Speaker 7: Yes.
Speaker 6: Okay. Thank you. If the owner is there, how could they answer that question as to how do they live in this unit and rent out as an Airbnb, the basement or their living quarters? And would their intent be to use the ADU as a as a short term rental.
Speaker 7: Name.
Speaker 0: The floor. Mr. Laffer, did you hear the question? Councilman Flynn, do you want to pose the question?
Speaker 3: Oh, sorry, I was on. Sorry about that. Yeah. So the my intent is to have the you built so that my elderly mother can live there. My father recently died, and I'm looking to add an extra building on the property for her to be able to move out. She's living with my sister right now in California short term until we can get her additional housing.
Speaker 4: So that is my aunt. That's.
Speaker 6: I'm sorry. What's your name?
Speaker 3: Alex LaFleur.
Speaker 6: Okay. Now the owner of the property and not Klinghoffer.
Speaker 3: I have always been the owner of the property of the city of Denver. I made a mistake of the title. I do not live in Granby. I, Carly Klinghoffer does not own the property. I do. So I'm not sure why the website is currently showing that she is the owner. I called the.
Speaker 4: City today and they made.
Speaker 3: The change to correct that error.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Councilmember Flynn. Councilmember Hines.
Speaker 3: I thank you. Council President. Ms.. Benefield, the the rezoning will. Considers the five criteria. None of those criteria are about a short term rental are. Is that correct?
Speaker 7: That is correct.
Speaker 3: And while there may be a short term rental that is considered later, that is that is something that falls under excise and licenses, not through simply or this this process.
Speaker 7: That is correct.
Speaker 3: And while we are hoping that that a property owner will consider their options in advance of a rezoning, it's ultimately the owners prerogative to do that or not. Is that. Is that right?
Speaker 7: Yes. Anyone. Anyone can apply for a short term rental license. Okay, you are without it, you.
Speaker 3: And so ultimately, it's the it's the property owners responsibility to follow in this case, follow the five criteria for, you know, the the rezoning or to make sure that the potential rezoning misappropriate five criteria and then later make sure that the property meets the excise and licenses criteria for a short term rental. Should that be in the cards for someone in the future? Correct. Yeah. Okay. So thank you. Thank you. Thoughts, president?
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Councilmember Hines. And seen no other. Councilmember Flynn, you're back in the queue.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Madam President. I just wanted to clarify that my questions were directed at the claim that there already was, in effect, an adult operating on the property. And if that were the case, that would be a different conversation we be having. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Flynn. The public hearing is closed. Comments from members of Council on Council Bill 1072. Councilmember Sandoval.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 1: And we all know lots of aid goes to Northwest tember, and we are currently working with this neighborhood or location to see.
Speaker 2: If they're interested.
Speaker 1: In doing an entire neighborhood wide rezoning. And so.
Speaker 2: Given that this meets all the.
Speaker 1: Criteria, I would like to ask for their support.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Sandoval, and agree that this rezoning does meet all of the criteria. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 1072 Ortega.
Speaker 1: I. Sandoval. I. Sawyer, I. Torres, I.
Speaker 2: Black I.
Speaker 1: See tobacco i.
Speaker 3: Far I.
Speaker 0: Flynn.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 1: Herndon. Hines.
Speaker 3: All right. Cashman.
Speaker 1: I can reach Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 1: 13 Eyes.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 3255 North Newton Street and 3254 North Osceola Street in West Highland.
Approves a map amendment to rezone property from U-SU-B to U-SU-B1 (allows for an accessory dwelling unit), located at 3255 North Newton Street and 3254 North Osceola Street in Council District 1. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 9-21-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11012021_21-1192
|
Speaker 1: Thank you. I'll do a recap here. Under resolutions, no items have been called out under bills for introduction. Council member Sawyer has called out Council Bill 20 1-1192 for a vote under bills for final consideration. No items have been called out under pending. No items have been called out. Madam Secretary, please put the first item on our screens. And Councilmember Black, would you please put Council Bill 1192 on the floor for publication.
Speaker 2: Yes, I move that council bill 21-119.
Speaker 3: To be ordered published.
Speaker 1: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded comments by members of Council on Council Bill 1192. Councilmember Sawyer.
Speaker 3: Thanks, Madam President. I called this out this evening so I can vote no. This is the ARPA funds. First and most importantly, I want to thank the Department of Finance and host for their fantastic work over the last 18 months. Our city's in a solid financial position because of their leadership. And if the residents of Denver who are watching tonight don't know, you should be incredibly grateful to them. I truly, truly appreciate the thoughtful decision making process that went into allocating these funds. But at the end of the day, I can't support $4 million for safe outdoor spaces. Recovery Plan Act funding is meant to be for us to invest in long term solutions. And so sites are not a long term solution. I recognize that the value that the Colorado Village Collaborative has added to our city, but the residents of my district have made it clear that they believe housing requires a roof and a door, and therefore I will be a no tonight and next week as well. Thanks, Madam President.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember Hoyer. Councilmember Hines.
Speaker 7: Thank you. Council President, I. We're in a housing crisis right now. And while I don't believe that the safe outdoor space is a an appropriate long term solution, we need middle term and near term solutions. And I know that District ten hosted the first to see if outdoor spaces in our city and in the metro area, frankly . And we received more than a thousand emails in opposition to to the safe outdoor spaces before they opened. But since they opened, once they opened, they were transformative. We had zero calls, the police department. We had people who moved out of homelessness, out of street homelessness, up the spectrum into housing. We had people who got doctor and dental services for the first time in a long time. And the neighbors also found that it was totally unlike the unsanctioned encampments that were that continue to plague all of areas in our city, but particularly in District ten. So I think that the safe outdoor spaces are an amazing option that we've added to our tool belt here in the city. Before this piece of our sites opened, we had no solution for people who wanted to stay with their partners, no solution for people who wanted to stay with their their pets. And I don't know if I didn't have anything, if all I did was sleep on the street and I had a dog. I would not let that dog go. Just to. Get into a shelter. Sorry. So I think that the NSA websites are transformative, and I'm excited that there's $4 million set aside for its sites. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember Hines. Seeing other folks in the queue. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 20 1-1192, please.
Speaker 2: Sandoval. I. Sawyer? No. Torres, I. Black. I see tobacco. I Clark. Eye for an.
Speaker 0: Eye.
Speaker 2: Herndon, Hines. Cashman Canete, i. Madam President.
Speaker 1: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 2: 11 Ies one name.
Speaker 1: 11 ies council bill 20 1-119 to has been ordered published. That concludes the items to be called out. All other bills for introduction are ordered published. Council members remember this as a consent or block vote and you will need to vote. Otherwise, this is your last chance to call out an item for a separate vote. Councilmember Black, will you please put the resolutions for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor?
Speaker 2: I move that resolutions be adopted and bills on final consideration be placed upon final consideration, and do pass in a block.
Speaker 3: For the following items. All Series 21.
Speaker 2: 1204 1217.
Speaker 3: 1218 1178.
Speaker 2: 1191 1201 1203 1208 1214 1215 1211.
Speaker 5: 1216 1181.
Speaker 2: 1234 1147 1159.
Speaker 5: 1160.
Speaker 2: 1161 1162 1163 1164, 1165, 1166, 1167, 1168, 1169 1170 1171. 1172 1173. 1174 1175. And that's it.
Speaker 1: Thank you. You've got it. It has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, roll call, please.
Speaker 2: Sandoval. I. Black. I see tobacco. I Clark. I swim. I turned in Hines Cashman.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 2: Kenny. I. Sawyer. I. Torres. I. Madam President.
Speaker 1: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 2: 12 eyes.
Speaker 1: 12 eyes. The resolutions have been adopted and the bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass. Our pre recess announcement this evening. Tonight there will be a required public hearing on Council Bill 20 1-1020, changing the zoning classification for 250125152531 North Ogden Street in five points.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance amending Ordinance No. 591, Series of 2021, as amended by Ordinance No. 706, Series of 2021, as amended by Ordinance No. 1145, Series of 2021, to allocate spending in the American Rescue Plan Act Grant Fund for Recovery, Revenue Loss, and Administration.
Amends Ordinance No. 591, Series of 2021, previously amended by Ordinance No. 706, Series of 2021, to allocate a total of $100.1 million in spending in the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Grant Fund, including $25.3 million in the “Revenue Loss” category to accommodate the 2022 portion of the allocation approved in Ordinance No. 706, Series of 2021 that will continue to be supported by ARPA, $73.5 million in the “Recovery” category, $1.3 million in the Administration spending category, which will be reallocated from unspent dollars in the initial Revenue Loss category, and approves a capital equipment purchase of a van for the Wellness Winnie program. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 10-12-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11012021_21-1020
|
Speaker 1: Direct your comments to council as a whole and please refrain from individual or personal attacks. Councilmember Black, would you please put Council Bill 1020 on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 2: Yes. Council President. I move that council build 21-1020 will be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 1: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded and I'd also like to take a moment and welcome council member Ortega to the meeting this evening. The required public hearing for council Bill 1020 is open. May we please have the staff report? And we've got Andrew Webb here. We haven't seen you in a while.
Speaker 7: We have not. Yes. Thank you. Nice to see you all in person. Again, Andrew Web Community Planning and Development. Does that slide look like you would expect it to on from your review?
Speaker 1: It should be. Yep. You got it.
Speaker 7: Great. Great. Well, I'm here this evening to present this proposed rezoning of properties at 2501, 25, 15 and 2531 North Ogden Street from the current PWD 25 to Usou a103 And I'll explain a little bit more about what that is here in a few slides. This property is in Council District nine, represented by Councilmember CdeBaca. It is in the Five Points neighborhood. The proposed zone district. Here is the zone in the urban neighborhood context. It's a single unit zone district. So it would allow single unit detached homes. And they're also proposing to apply the you o three or use overlay three. That is the historic structure use overlay in order to make this property essentially have the same zoning as all of the surrounding properties. That zone district allows urban houses and detached accessory dwelling units in the rear yard with a minimum zone lot area of 3000 square feet. The subject property is just a little over half an acre and this request is to allow the development of eight single unit houses on this site, which is currently the site of a mortuary. So again, the former the current zoning is a PD 25 that is a planned unit development or custom zoned district for a former Chapter 59 or the old zoning code. The surrounding zoning of comparable properties to the east and west is usou a one you oh three the same district that's being requested here to the south along 25th Avenue where the zoning is. You are age 2.5 and to the north there is a park that has OSA zoning. So again, the existing zone district dispute 25 is based on the R four zone district from former Chapter 59 and it allows a mortuary use and the mortuary use is planning to move to a different location. So our data shows the current use for the site as industrial and surface parking and then the surrounding uses are residential. There's also a small church right across the street and then a park to the north. The next couple of slides show some of the existing development on and surrounding the property there. At the top right of the slide is the existing mortuary on this property and then the center photo there on the right hand side is residential uses directly across the street and the small church. And then at the bottom there is a townhouse development. On 25th, the slide shows the park to the direct north of the property and then single unit development directly west of the property across the alley. So this property went to a planning board on September 1st and received a recommendation of approval. It was moved forward by the Luti committee on September 14th. Public outreach included both of the registered neighborhood organizations representing this area, as well as direct neighbors and staff, has received written comments in support of this proposed rezoning from one neighbor and from the old San Rafael neighborhood organization. As you're aware, to approve a rezoning, the City Council must find that the proposal meets these terms consistent with these five criteria from the Denver zoning code. With regard to the first criterion, there are three plans that impact this site. Of course, the comprehensive plan and blueprint, Denver, as well as the Northeast Downtown Neighborhood Plan. This proposal would forward multiple goals in the comprehensive plan, including allowing new opportunities for residential uses, near mixed use and transit serve areas such as those found nearby on Welton Street. It is consistent with the context recommendation of Blueprint Denver, which does identify this area as within the urban neighborhood context. It is identified with a future place type in blueprint of residential low. So that is predominantly single unit houses and access and accessory dwelling units. The streets that serve the site are are local or on designated streets, and it is within the all other areas of the city growth area and blueprint, which is the area where we we expect some new growth but the least amount of growth moving into the future. The Northeast Downtown Area plan adopted in 2011 identifies the site for single family residential uses and identifies accessory dwelling units as appropriate in this location as well. With regard to uniformity of district regulations. This would establish the same regulations that would be found in any other area of the city with the you assume a103 zone district and it would further the public health, safety and welfare primarily by the implementation of our adopted plans like Blueprint in the Northeast Downtown Area Plan. With regard to justifying circumstances, the applicant cited the the existence on the site currently a former Chapter 59 zoning. And we also note that there has been a lot of new developments such as new mixed use on Welton Street, just a couple of blocks to the northwest. And finally, this request is consistent with the neighborhood context and zone district purpose and intent of the urban neighborhoods single unit, A1 Zone District. So with that, based on our finding that all the criteria have been met, staff recommends that the City Council adopt or approve application. 2020 1i0008.
Speaker 1: Thank you. All right. Thank you very much, Andrew. And we have. Let me see. Here are six speakers this evening for Council Bill 1020. And we're going to go ahead and start with Clay Amon in chambers.
Speaker 0: I had intended to just sign up for the question and answer and to use the word answers or the answers needed on behalf of the applicant. So I.
Speaker 2: Thought.
Speaker 1: Okay, great. Do you want to introduce yourself? I know I called your name, but go ahead and introduce yourself. And if you're representing them.
Speaker 2: Sure.
Speaker 0: My name is Clay. I'm in representing the applicant and I'm.
Speaker 6: Also joined by Bruce O'Donnell and not.
Speaker 7: Only it from my.
Speaker 2: Office.
Speaker 1: All right. Great. Thank you. Our next speaker this evening is David Hagen here in chambers, and then he'll be followed by Bruce O'Donnell.
Speaker 0: Thank you, counsel. My name is David Hagan. I would like to say that this should pass.
Speaker 7: Just think about 15.
Speaker 0: Amendments we just went over. Didn't. They should have passed two.
Speaker 7: But the white people are racist in that.
Speaker 0: I don't know. Maybe the black and brown people should apologize to their their community because that was fricking disgusting. Disgusting. Y'all should be ashamed of yourselves. Hines, come on now. Turn in your DSA membership.
Speaker 1: Speak directly to council members. All right, we'll go ahead. And our next speaker is Bruce O'Donnell.
Speaker 7: Good evening. Madam President, members of council, I am Bruce O'Donnell, 386 Emmerson Street in Denver. And it's nice to be here and see all of you in person this evening.
Speaker 0: So unusual. I'm out of practice.
Speaker 7: I just want to reiterate that there's tremendous plan support for this rezoning and there's a CPD recommendation of approval, planning board recommendation of approval and an R.A. letter of support. We have a good neighbor agreement with the R.A., which my colleague in a minute will explain some of the details. And the bottom line is, is a single unit zoned district is the only zoned district that has plan support and CPD support and also community support. In the last couple of years, there's been five prior attempts to raise on this property for slightly more density and none of them worked. And so we're delighted to have single unit zoning, which mirrors the surrounding zoning and is the way to put this property back to productive use. With that, I request the Council vote to approve Council Bill 21, Dash 1020, rezoning 2501, 25, 15 and 2531. North Ogden to you as one. Thank you. And I'm available to answer questions. Should members of council have any?
Speaker 2: All right.
Speaker 1: Our next speaker this evening is in chambers. Natalie sat.
Speaker 2: Good evening, counsel.
Speaker 3: Thank you for having me here. My name is Natalie. I live at 633 Pearl Street, and I am a development associate with Highland Development Company, the applicant for this rezoning. When we first started looking at this site, we encountered that there had been several failed rezonings and part of that was due due to a lack of plan support. And so when we looked at the plans, we knew right away that single family was the only thing that could be supported. And when we looked at the context of the neighborhood, it was the only thing that was appropriate. Another piece of the failure was due to a lack of neighborhood support. So in March, we started reaching out to Old San Rafael neighborhood organization and talked about things like building form, building height materials with the roofs we pitched were flat. A neighborhood representative also hosted us on a walking tour to point out some subtle details like how the porches are deep and you can look up and down the block and see your neighbors or how there are other subtle variations and very similar homes that create a very distinct rhythm in this neighborhood. And so we use all of this design feedback to inform our very conceptual designs, which, while they may change slightly, are indicative of what we would like to do when we build these 6 to 8 single family homes here. And it was also a big part of our good neighborhood agreement to solidify that trust and to set standards around things like height and material and porch proportions. So we feel that, you know, through these meetings, through some direct outreach to our neighbors on Ogden, we have gained the neighborhood's trust and been good neighbors ourselves. And with that said, I'm available for any questions if you have them. And I would request that you vote to approve Council Bill 20 1-1020 to rezone 2501, 2515 and 2531 Ogden to USC to A1.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Our next speaker, our next two speakers are joining us online. Our first speaker is Tess Dougherty.
Speaker 3: I can tell my name is sturdy and I live in District nine. In in 2020. In June 2020, in the wake of George Floyd's murder and the protests that followed here in Denver, Colorado. Stacy, Stacy Gilman, I'm not speaking to you directly. I'm just talking about a time that you were. That is about you. So it's this is not a direct I'm not directly addressing you here. There is a quote. There is I quote exactly her words. We need to see significant changes in the Denver Police Department's budget and how we're going to reinvest back into our neighborhoods. I'm just curious when we're doing rezonings, when we're doing amendments to the budget, how those words were said about a year ago, a little over a year ago, and yet there wasn't a single amendment from anyone other than Councilwoman CdeBaca. And she received notice of please from the.
Speaker 1: Bill that we're talking about tonight. It's a rezoning. We're not talking about the mayor's 2022 proposed budget. And so we're talking about a rezoning on North Ogden Street in five points. And so if you can please address that bill, we'd appreciate it.
Speaker 3: Sure. Stacie, if you could please address your words that you said last summer. We would really appreciate that, too. So, you know, again, if we're not speaking of accountable, this is one way that we can hold you accountable using your words.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Go ahead. And we're asking you to please speak again on the rezoning for 2501, 25, 15 and 2531 North Ogden Street, please.
Speaker 3: Okay. That's really all I have to say. I would just like to say that we would really like for you all to speak to your actions and words from last year that you said. And none of you have lived up to it except for Kewanee native. Thank you.
Speaker 1: All right. We're going to go ahead and move on to our last speaker for this public hearing, Jessie Parris, who is joining us online as well.
Speaker 7: Yes. Good evening. Members of council, those watching at home. My name is Justice. With some personal opposition for black sites, a move for self defense, positive action, command for social change was the Unity Party of Colorado, a front of black males? And I'll be the next in 2023. And I reside in District eight. And Christopher heard this district. I'm in favor of this is on. And I just wanted to echo what the previous speakers have said. This was appalling that you guys did not implement the amendments, but I'm a stick on the topic. At hand, which is the reasoning for the most. Mostly I'm sad to see the mortuary go thing. I've been to many funerals there throughout the years and I'm sad to see that is gone, but I'm happy to hear that it's going to be replaced with housing. Now, my question is, is it going to be housing that people can actually afford? Or is it going to be a market rate house? So the occupant to answer that question, I would greatly appreciate it. And it meets all five of the criteria. So I see no reason why I will not be passing to my.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. That concludes our speakers this evening. Questions for members of Council on Council Bill 1020. All right. And looks like we don't have any questions from members of council. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 1020. Council Member CdeBaca Thank you.
Speaker 5: This is consistent with the neighbor, with the surrounding units. I don't have a problem with this. It is a big parcel, so very curious to see it turned into one single family home. But it is what it is. It's consistent. So thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember CdeBaca. Next up, we've got Councilmember Kimmich.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. Unfortunately, I had to step out for a little emergency. I was unable to observe the hearing, so I will need to abstain because I don't have the.
Speaker 1: Appropriate.
Speaker 3: Background to be able to vote on the measure. I apologize. Thank you.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you for letting us know. Council member can reach seeing no other comments by members of council. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council. Bill 1020, please.
Speaker 2: Ortega. I. CdeBaca, I.
Speaker 0: Clark, I.
Speaker 2: Flynn.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 2: Herndon.
Speaker 7: I.
Speaker 2: I'm right. Cashman I can each obtain. Sawyer, I. Torres, I. Black I. Madam President.
Speaker 1: I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 2: One Abstention.
Speaker 1: 11 I's 11 I's Council Bill 20 1-1020 has passed. Thank you, Andrew, and the community members who joined us. Councilmember Black, will you please put Council Bill 1052 on the floor for final passage?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 2501, 2515, 2531 North Ogden Street in Five Points.
Approves a map amendment to rezone property from PUD 25 to U-SU-A1 UO-3 (planned development to urban single-unit with accessory dwelling unit), located at 2501, 2515 and 2531 North Ogden Street in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 9-14-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11012021_21-1071
|
Speaker 1: 12 I's Council Build 20 1-105 to has passed. Thank you, Libby, and our speakers who joined us. Councilmember Black, will you please put council Bill 1071 on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 2: I move that.
Speaker 3: Council bill 21 and.
Speaker 2: 71 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 1: Thank you. It has been moved. May we get a second? Thank you. The required public hearing for Council Bill 1071 is open and I see we have Fran here with us. So we'll go ahead and go with the staff report.
Speaker 9: Perfect. Thank you. Good afternoon, members of City Council. My name is Fran Beneficial Associate City Planner with Planning Services. And today we will be looking at the rezoning request for 50 South Steel Street. The subject property is in Council District ten, represented by Councilman Hines. In the Cherry Creek neighborhood. The subject property is located between Ellsworth Avenue and Bayard Avenue along South Steel Street. The site is about 1.4 acres and currently contains some ten story office structure. Built in 1973, with a garden level and approximately a thousand square feet, parking consisted of one level at great parking and two levels of below grade parking. The applicant is requesting to resign from CMCs 8 to 12 to facilitate mixed use redevelopment of the site. And there are tentative plans to build a mixed use building with ground floor retail and residential units above. The existing Sony IMX eight surrounding Sony includes the IMX five directly to enforce Jim U 1203 to the East Open space parking, public parks to the south and B3 to the west, where the shopping center is located. The existing existing CRM. X8 is very similar to the CRM X12 in that they both allow for the townhouse general and shopfront building forms. The minimum parking street setback is zero feet, except the townhouse building form, which is has a ten foot minimum primary street setback. Surface parking is not allowed between the building on the primary and side streets. Multi-unit dwelling required 0.75 parking spaces per unit are seen on the table, and the main difference between CRM, X12 and see mix eight is the height it allows for a 12 storeys or 150 feet. The current land use for the site is office use and the immediate vicinity of the area's land use are multi-unit residential. Other office uses commercial retail and some parking uses. You can also see the the corner of school and first avenue. There is some mixed use development, just like the one proposed here. Shown on these photos. The ten story structure currently on the site is located just across the street from the Cherry Creek Shopping Center parking lot north of the site. There is a two story office building and south of the site there is a public park with some tennis courts. He stood beside the 214 story multi-unit residential buildings with a ground level parking lot in between them. And then also just a block north of the corner of steel. And first. There is a total sturdy, mixed use building. Concurrent with the rezoning, the applicant has entered into a voluntary, affordable housing agreement with host. The terms of the agreement are the 12.5% of the all residential units will be dedicated as income restricted units for 99 years. Of those income restricted units 100% shall serve household earning up to 80%. The applicant has committed that at least 25% of all income residential units. We'll have two or more bedrooms. Throughout the rezoning process. Application modifications are being provided according to code requirements. Planning Board recommended approval unanimously on September 15th. Stub received a position statement from Cherry Creek East Association where they explained that the majority of Cherry Creek East constituents voted in opposition to the proposed rezoning for 50 South Steel Strip from the 8 to 12 stories based on a survey provided by the R.A. the survey. The survey results were shared with District ten and CPD and attached to Stuff Report. In their letter, Kia cites its role as an R.A. to communicate to the planning board and City Council how its constituents feel. The KIA Board voted unanimously to recommend that council oppose the rezoning. However, the letter goes on to note that the R.A. and the developer agreed that it is in the best interests of both parties to have a sign agreement covering the development and its construction. The letter described the applicant's willingness to enter into the agreement despite the unfavorable CC vote as a sign of good faith towards the community . The Good Neighbor Agreement addresses issues like exterior design, sidewalks, landscaping, lighting, access at parks and safety provisions, residential unit sizes, street level activation, onsite parking and storage. Outdoor amenities. Locations. Community meeting. Space security and staffing. Staff also received a letter of support from the Cherry Creek Business Alliance. Given that Steele Street, his ambition as a high capacity transit corridor, which will require density to make any transit, transit and hence enhancements work, and also given the high need for affordable and attainable housing options in the area. Other than that, staff has received one letter from a neighbor, mostly referencing the Terry Greek East survey and how the redevelopment of 50 still could impact neighbor neighboring views. It is important to note that rezonings approvals on district not a specific development proposal. Potential traffic impacts related to a particular development are not assess as part of the rezoning request because the development plan is subject to change at the time of the site development. Transportation engineers will identify what mitigation measures might be required prior to issuing a permit. Now moving on Denver's zoning code criteria, it must be found. The request map amendment is consistent with five criteria. In regards to criteria number one, there are three adopted plans that apply to the requested rezoning Comprehensive Plan 2040 Blueprint Denver and the Cherry Creek Area Plan. A stated on the staff report. The rezoning is consistent with several goals in the comprehensive plan. The rezoning is consistent with two key goals in equitable, affordable and inclusive vision element, as it allows additional housing in a rich mixed use environment. Near active transportation opportunities. The proposed rezoning would allow for mixed use development, including an increase in allowed housing density, while also enabling additional housing units close to services and amenities, some of which would be restricted to residents earning less on the area. Median income. It is therefore consistent with the strategies in the equitable, affordable and inclusive, inclusive vision element. Finally, the rezoning is consistent with two key goals in the environmentally resilient vision element. AC two will enable mixed use development at a new fuel location where infrastructure is already in place. The requested zone district broadens the variety of uses allowing residents to live, work and play in an area. Therefore, the rezoning is consistent with Denver Comprehensive Plan 2040 recommendations. Now moving on to a consistency. We'd look in Denver. The proposed 12th District is part of the urban center context and is intended to promote safe, active and pedestrian skill diverse areas through the use of building forms that clearly activate the public street edge. And the mixed use districts are focused on creating mixed, diverse neighborhoods, since the proposed district allows a mix of uses and allowable building forms that contribute to street activation, the proposed rezoning to a urban center context is appropriate and consistent with the plan. The Future Places MAP designates the subject property as a regional center and describes it as providing a mix of office, commercial and residential uses. Buildings are typically large in scale and orient to a street with a strong degree of urbanism and continuous street frontages. Heights can be generally up to 12 stories in the taller areas and should transition gradually within the center's footprint to surrounding residential areas. The CM x 12 zone district allows for a variety of commercial and residential uses in a pedestrian oriented pattern with an active street level. Therefore, the requested CM 12 is appropriate and consistent with future plan place plan direction. Blueprint. Denver directs growth to key corridors and centers and high density residential area certified transportation options. The subject property falls within the plan's growth strategy area of regional centers, which anticipates a 50% of growth, job growth and 30% of new housing by 2040. The proposed rezoning will achieve this goal. Now looking at the two Greek area plan. This plan was adopted by City Council in 2012 and applies to its subject property. Cherry Creek Area Plan notes that overall these areas benefit from new development, reinvestment and more intense use. The plan also recommends that the city modify land use policies, zoning regulations and design guidelines to encourage appropriate reinvestment to assure that these areas continue to mature in a possible positive ways. The requested rezoning to 12 is such a change in zoning regulations and would enable reinvestment and development in the subject property as expressed in the plan . Additionally, the future land use map for the Cherry Creek Shopping Center designates the subject property as a regional center, where the recommendation is to continue to support a mix of uses, including office retail, commercial use, multifamily, residential and hotels. The maximum building height recommended in the plan for this site is 12 stories. Therefore, the recommended scheme, X12, is appropriate and consistent with the Cherry Creek Area Plan recommendations. Stuff also finds that the requested Sony meets the next two criteria. The rezoning will result in uniformity of district regulations and will further public health, safety and welfare primarily through its implementation of adopted plans. The application identifies several changes and changing conditions as a justified circumstance under Denver's zoning code. Since the date of the approval of the existing Stone District, there has been a change to such degree. The proposed rezoning is in the public interest, specifically due to the adoption of the blueprint Denver in 2019, the Terry Creek Area Plan in 2012, both of which came after the last rezoning of the property in 2000 and. Both Blueprint, Denver and Area Plan were developed with extensive public input, and the proposed rezoning would ensure that plan's recommendations are adhere to and that the public receives the full benefit of their work. Overall, the proposed rezoning is consistent with the urban center neighborhood context that exists in the surrounding area and with ACM, X12 representing ten. Without government approval based on finding all review criteria has been met.
Speaker 1: All right. Very good. Thank you so much for the staff report, Fran. And this evening we have seven speakers signed up and our first speaker or first couple of speakers are here in chambers. Sean mainly is first followed by Mark Sabella.
Speaker 0: Good evening, Madam President. Members of Council. My name is Shaun Maley. Addresses 1137 Bannock. I'm here as part of the applicant team. Just addressing any questions regarding community outreach. Thank you so much.
Speaker 1: All right, great. Thank you, Mark Sabella.
Speaker 0: Good evening, Madam President, and members of Council. My name is Mark Saviola. I'm with the Barrow Real Estate Group and Steel Street Holdings as the applicant. Our address is 252 Clayton Street, Suite 400 Denver, Colorado. It's a pleasure to be here tonight with our rezoning application. We began this process in March of 2019 and with a short break for for COVID and some of the uncertainties of the market, we've been working with the neighborhood and the community for well over 18 months. As you've heard in the staff report, our zoning application is consistent with the Cherry Creek Area Plan and Blueprint Denver recommendations . It's located adjacent to a high capacity transit corridor, regional center and high growth location and is supported with the TMX 12 zoning. We've worked diligently with Host on an agreement for income restricted units as well as with the community on a good neighbor agreement as mentioned in the staff report. And we've also been in direct communication with covered senior life. There are neighbors directly behind us and trying to work with them on some party solutions for their employees prior to construction. So I'd like to thank city staff for their efforts. Councilman Hines and the Cherry Creek East Neighborhood Association for all their input, comments and involvement during this process. And we're really excited to move forward with this project and the design of this project. So thank you for your time tonight. Our team will be available for questions as they come up. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you. Our next speakers are all online and we're going to go ahead and start with Thomas Regnery.
Speaker 0: Good morning, Madam Chairman. Members of city council. This is Tom Reagan. Edie, I'm here representing the Applegate, and I'm available for questions as necessary. Thank you.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you. Our next speaker online is test.
Speaker 3: And so my name is Ted Sturdy. I live in District nine. And given that this rezoning is in Cherry Creek and we've seen a lot of rezonings in District nine this year, in other parts of the city, it's not not so often that we see rezonings in Cherry Creek as often as we do downtown. And so I think it's important to understand how discourse about gentrification helps the community address its goal of regeneration. This community is fraught with systematically distorted communication that uses power and language around economic and political discourse. And theoretically, gentrification is essentially the affirmation of dominant modes of spatial production at the expense of disempowered ones. So I would just encourage and hope that we could start digging into how we talk about these rezonings and how it how it plays a role in in gentrification and displacement and and the perpetuation of white supremacy in the city of Denver. Because I think that sometimes there are competing value systems in the city of Denver and especially in terms of these rezonings. And I think that the challenges can lead to, you know, public conflict that really gets in the way of finding solutions for housing. And I think we need to really start to dig in to exactly what we mean when we say, you know, things like affordable housing, things like urban redevelopment, revitalization and what that really means and whether or not it's coded for something else. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Our next speaker online is Michael Bell equipped? And I wanted to call his name because it doesn't look like he's in the virtual platform and wanted to make sure he wasn't here in chambers. All right. We're going to go ahead and move on then. Jason Schaffer. Doesn't look like Jason's on the virtual platform and we're not seeing Jason here in chambers. And so we'll go ahead. And our next speaker is Jessie Parris Online.
Speaker 7: Yes. Good evening. Member of the town hall. My name is Justin Wissam Paris, and I'm a physician for Black Sox and more of self defense. Housing has become a sizable party of Colorado and frontline black males. And I'll be the next mayor of Denver in 2023. I'm an honest man. I agree with everything that's said previous to me about how you go about these visa earnings. Um, I had a few questions. Um, I understand there hasn't been a traffic study done on. Has there been a parking study done? I'm glad to see that there was a neighborhood agreement signed. How many square feet are the apartments going to be? Mm. 82. Am I affordable, I guess for Cherry Creek, but, uh, for other areas of town that it's not affordable. Um. And see if I'm missing anything. The letters of opposition. What were those? And what was.
Speaker 2: The, uh.
Speaker 7: Letter opposition from the I.R.A.? What was that? So if someone could please answer those questions, I will greatly appreciate it. Thank you.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you. And sorry about that, Jason. We found you online there. And so our next speaker online is Jason Schafer.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Thank you. Pregnant. Remember the council?
Speaker 7: Now, I just wanted to speak in support of the development.
Speaker 0: Not only the neighborhood context, but out of as much needed housing. And I think one point I'd like to make is that when we when we think of housing.
Speaker 7: And we think of affordability, I think it's important to.
Speaker 0: Factor in transportation and housing together. Right. And one thing I like about this development is, you know, this allows an option.
Speaker 7: For people.
Speaker 0: To live, work and.
Speaker 7: Play near where they live and.
Speaker 0: Could help our household.
Speaker 7: Reduce it maybe from two.
Speaker 0: Parts to one or zero.
Speaker 7: You know, being that it's near transit, it's multimodal bike in.
Speaker 0: There and then also.
Speaker 7: Near jobs and education.
Speaker 0: And travel. So I'm excited to see the strong support.
Speaker 7: To.
Speaker 0: Support these meetings. Thank you.
Speaker 2: All right.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Jason. That concludes our speakers questions from members of Council on Council Bill 1071. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Madam President. Fran, I have a question. I don't know that you can answer it. And I don't know if the owner would be able or the applicant would be able to address it. But it's a ten story building, but it's CMC's eight. And it was built in 1973. So it was there when we resigned in 2010. How did how did a ten story building end up at CMC?
Speaker 2: Can you answer that question?
Speaker 6: That's because you're the applicant is just as confused as I am.
Speaker 0: There's two criteria with the CMCs eight and 12. One of them is number of stories and one of them is height, right? It currently is actually an 11 storey building with a little penthouse, but it's probably closer in the height context to CM X eight versus 12. So I don't know the history of how it got assigned, what it is, but that's what happened. Or that's what could have happened. Okay.
Speaker 6: I guess I'm still confused, but I guess no one can really answer that. Thank you. That's all I have in prison.
Speaker 1: Okay. All right. Thank you, Councilmember Flynn. Next up, we've got Councilmember Cashman.
Speaker 0: No, thank you, Madam President. I'm Sam bread. Wine. A gift from host i question for you, brand. Good evening. Good evening. So slide ten says voluntary agreement reached in principle with host and 12% of the units are IOUs. So the question is, is this. What I'm wondering is House Bill 1117, it changed the landscape for negotiations on affordable housing. I'm wondering, is that the context with which we're working here? I'm wondering how we got the 12 and a half percent, because it's not a number that I would like to see. Sure. Thank you for the question. Councilman Brad wining with housing stability, the department, the city and county of Denver. So a couple of questions in there. One. It's actually been executed by the sponsors. So we're beyond kind of agreement in principle that the sponsor of applicant has signed and executed their end of the agreement and is ready for process pending council action tonight. To your question about that, that the House bill that passed 1117 in May, it does change a bit about how we are attempting to negotiate these, again, voluntary agreements across the board. That said, as you've heard tonight, the sponsor has been engaged with my department for well over a year at this point and talking through terms. And it's fairly well represented about the tenor of agreements that we were negotiating at that time. We feel good about the number, especially given the scale of it. We did push them to consider Laura and I. We also pushed them to consider a larger percentage, or at least a floor of of larger format units, knowing that we don't get a lot of those, especially in areas like Cherry Creek. And so all in all, we are we do feel good about what's in here. If we were starting the conversation today on the negotiation, it might look a bit different. But we're honoring terms that we that we worked on with them over the course of the last 12, 18 months. The building that is. Being replaced. Are there any affordable units on site now? I think it's an offense. I'm not not aware of any. Yeah. Okay. Um. Okay. That's all I got.
Speaker 1: Sorry about that. Thank you, Councilmember Cashman. Up next, we've got Councilmember Hines.
Speaker 7: Thank you. Council president. Question for the applicant. Do you know when the existing structure was built? But was it before 2010?
Speaker 0: 79. Is helping me out there.
Speaker 7: So I was just to Councilmember Flynn's question about the ten or 11 stories and yet it is still eight. I wonder if it was an artifact of the 2010, um, you know, drawing. I mean, you know, we had tens of thousands of plots and maybe this one was just. Part of that. We've corrected other mistakes in the past, and I'm sure that there are other mistakes that we will continue to correct.
Speaker 0: And the other piece of that, too, is similar to a lot of buildings that were built in Cherry Creek at the time. It has that garden level lowest unit. And I believe that's not counted as a story for the zoning.
Speaker 7: Okay. And I guess since I'm already here, you do not currently have an agreement with Gabbard, correct?
Speaker 0: We have received signature from them and we are routing it internal with AMS within our organization for signature. So we have an agreement in principle for them to utilize 20 parking spaces until we start redevelopment work. Oh.
Speaker 7: Okay. And it's not in the package just because it's in principle not executed for you.
Speaker 0: We have an agreement. We just need to finalize the documentation. Okay.
Speaker 7: Thank you. No further questions.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Hines. The public hearing is closed. Comments from members of Council on Council Bill 1071. Councilmember Hines.
Speaker 7: Thank you. Council President. Um, I've got a few comments. Let's see. Um, I want to. First of all, I'm getting old. And this will be my first council meeting where I'm wearing glasses. I just started doing this a couple of weeks ago in my livestreams, you know. Anyway, okay. So I want to commend the applicant for the affordable housing provided in this agreement. We do have a housing crisis here in Denver, as has been well covered for the entire time I've been on council. What's more, Cherry Creek businesses have a worker shortage that has extended far beyond the recent great resignation. The biggest challenge is getting Cherry Creek workers to their jobs and back home, particularly considering many of the surrounding neighborhoods are unaffordable for people who work in Cherry Creek. I hope we can improve non card transit access to all areas of our city, including particularly a place like Cherry Creek and this specific plot that has lots of destinations that people want to visit. That said, I have some concerns about this rezoning and it isn't me. After all, you'll see in the packet the Arno has as the Arno in this area, the Cherry Creek East Association has conducted a survey, obtained 275 responses and ultimately received 64% in opposition to the rezoning. Some are answers are different than others. This particular R.A. has a track record of engaging the community and church produced, and I believe they are one of the better earners in District ten. Please don't ask me to rate Arnaud's anyway, so I place more weight on this Arnaud's comments. The majority of the concerns appear to be about public health, safety and welfare, particularly traffic, parking, sidewalks, safety, which by the way, is something that I consistently, consistently ask the developer to consider more strongly. When this was still in the pre-application process. I think I could strike this whole paragraph about being concerned that there wasn't a signed agreement with Covered. I would just say that the residents in Covered are older and often have disabilities and they will be even more impacted than most should. The pedestrian experience isn't, should the pedestrian experience not be broad and inviting? After all, many of these residents receive or achieve much of their joy by walking. Walking around this area in their walk around the block or neighborhood is often the only exposure they have to the outside world. However, let's talk about the alternative. What happens if we vote no? The alternative likely is an eight storey building used by redevelopment that could look like anything without any input from the neighbors. At least we have an option here that helps us better understand exactly what the neighbors will get. And we have quite a bit of input from the community that went into the Good Neighbor Agreement. And theoretically this almost executed agreement from code. Ultimately, this is a rezoning, not a completed site development plan. That means that that there are other checks along the way before something gets built. I hope the developer will continue to seek and obtain more engagement and and acceptance from the community. Sounds like there's been progress, but I urge both sides, the developer and the community, to push through the finish line. I want to thank all of those who completed the survey. I will continue to watch this specific plight as it continues through the process, and I hope the developer will again strongly consider the feedback in the survey and incorporate those comments as you move through the process. I did mention a public health, safety and welfare earlier, which is one of the five criteria which we should legally consider . That said, I believe this rezoning does meet the five criteria and and I will once again urge the developer to engage in the community so that the next survey has more yeses. The no's. Until. Until then, I will be a yes vote. And I encourage my colleagues also to vote yes. Thank you, Council President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Hines. And I was going to share that not everybody has the the pleasure of getting older. And so it's all right when you need those glasses, let me tell you, they're a life saver. A lot of times we'll go ahead and go to the council members.
Speaker 3: Lawyer Thanks, Madam President. I am a little bit concerned about this rezoning when it comes to consistency with adopted plans. I just I don't understand how it ends up at CMCs eight zoning after 2010, even though it was already in existence. That to me sounds like there was a conversation that went down and the decision was to limit this to CMC's eight and not 12. So I'm.
Speaker 2: I'm not.
Speaker 3: Sure that the lack of information around that is convincing to me, and I don't think that this is consistent with the adopted plan things.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Sawyer. And seen no others in the queue. I am going to go ahead and vote in favor of this one tonight. Given the information that was presented, I do believe it meets the rezoning criteria. And Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 1071, please.
Speaker 2: Ortega. I. Hines.
Speaker 7: All right.
Speaker 2: Cashman.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 2: Can each. So, you know. Torres. I am black. CdeBaca, I. Clarke.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 2: Flynn.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 2: Kremlin. Madam President.
Speaker 1: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 2: One name of a nice.
Speaker 1: 11 I's Council Bill 20 1-1071 has passed our pre adjournment announcement this evening and thank you, Fran, and the community members who joined us this evening. On Monday, November 29, the Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 21, Dash 1187, changing the zoning classification for 3600 North Cook Street in Clayton and a required public
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 50 South Steele Street in Cherry Creek.
Approves a map amendment to rezone property from C-MX-8 to C-MX-12 (extends mixed-use from 8 to 12 stories), located at 50 South Steele Street in Council District 10. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 9-21-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_10252021_21-1267
|
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember each. All right. Not seeing any other announcements. We'll go ahead and move on. There are no presentations this evening. There are no communications. We have one proclamation being read. Councilmember Cashman, will you please read Proclamation 20 1-1, two, six, seven.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. This is Proclamation 21 1267 celebrating Denver after school programs in the 2021 annual National Lights on after School Day. Whereas the Denver City Council stands firmly committed to quality after school programs because they provide evidence based learning experiences that are proven to help youth develop social, emotional, physical and academic skills. And. Whereas, afterschool programs have continued to serve youth and families throughout the COVID 19 pandemic and play an important role in helping Denver youth overcome pandemic challenges of learning, loss, social disconnection and trauma. And. Whereas, afterschool programs are essential to Denver's economic recovery efforts because they are a vital support for working families who need to keep their children safe and engaged once the school day ends. And. Whereas, Afterschool programs prevent youth violence by creating safe, welcoming spaces for youth during the key hours of 3 to 6 p.m. where they can connect with trusted adults and cultivate the social emotional skills needed to make positive decisions for themselves. And. Whereas, The Denver Afterschool Alliance has provided significant leadership in the area of community involvement in education and well-being of our youth, grounded in the principle that quality afterschool programs are key to helping our children become successful adults. And. Whereas, many afterschool programs across the country, in our state and in our city are faced with funding challenges that are forcing them to close their doors to youth and families in need. And the temporary influx of federal COVID 19 relief funds will only provide short term assistance and not address the most industry systemic funding crisis. And where, as the city and county of Denver and the Denver City Council are invested in the health and safety of all young people by supporting expanded learning opportunities that will help close the achievement gap and prepare young people to complete to compete in the global economy. Where, as the Denver City Council pledges to support afterschool providers so that Denver's youth and families have access to programs that support their success and strengthen our city. Now, therefore let it be proclaimed by the Council and the city and county of Denver, Section one, that the Denver City Council recognized the recognizes the outstanding leadership of the Denver Afterschool Alliance in bringing together all stakeholders to create a collaborative, long term plan for our city's after school system and recognizes the 2021 national lights on after school day. Thursday, October 28, 2021. Section two that the clerk of the city and county of Denver shall attest and affix the seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation and transmitted to the Office of Children's Affairs.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Cashman. Your motion to adopt.
Speaker 2: Yes, Madam President. I move the proclamation. Number 21. Does 1267 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 think the proclamation speaks for itself. At any time, no less, at a time of pandemic, you know, we know that idle hands and idle minds can be the devil's plaything, as the old expression goes. And by keeping our kids involved, giving them extra learning opportunities, extra opportunities to simply keep their minds working at a time when so many kids spend too much time on screens. So with that, I'd like to thank the Afterschool Alliance for the good work that they do and ask for my colleagues support and with this proclamation.
Speaker 0: Very good. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. And as a former environmental education provider who did a lot of those afterschool programs, I appreciate you shining a light on this, because the work that those providers do is invaluable, especially for our young people and families. And so happy to support this this evening. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 9: Sandoval.
Speaker 7: I.
Speaker 2: Cashman, I.
Speaker 4: Can each hire. Sawyer. I. Torres, i. Black, i.
Speaker 2: Clark I.
Speaker 1: Swin I.
Speaker 4: Herndon. All right. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 4: You have a nice.
Speaker 0: 11 eyes proclamation 21 dash 1 to 6 seven has been adopted. Councilman Cashman, do you have somebody that we should invite up to accept the proclamation?
Speaker 2: Yes, thank you. I'd like to call up MAXINE Quintana, the director of Out of School Time Initiative, the Office of Children's Affair.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Councilman Cashman, Cashman and to the rest of you for letting us shed light on the essential role.
Speaker 4: That afterschool programs and providers play, not only for our families and our children and our youth, but on our economy.
Speaker 7: As a whole. Despite all of the great work that we've done in the city to make sure that we have resources available to support programs, we still have a.
Speaker 4: Significant, significant funding.
Speaker 7: Challenge ahead of us that is really help long term systemic funding issue, I should say, ahead of us. Over the past year, we've really been working to make sure that our funding.
Speaker 4: Community and philanthropic community understands what's happening.
Speaker 7: In the city landscape. And I just wanted to share a quick video with you guys that brings to life a little bit more about what these funding challenges look like on the ground for our children and our families.
Speaker 4: So hopefully this works. Let's see. They said I.
Speaker 7: Shouldn't have to do is like playing at.
Speaker 4: Sea. My daughter attends the after school program because I work. I have nobody to help me take care of her. Simple as that.
Speaker 1: Johnson Elementary is a neighborhood school in southwest Denver. We really try to pride ourselves as being a true community school and really valuing community partnerships. Boys and Girls Club is a big part of that. I think the Boys and Girls Club has been here as long as I've been here, and really they are the center of what makes that community school program work.
Speaker 4: That cafeteria is full after school and it is loud.
Speaker 8: And fun and just.
Speaker 4: Filled with different choices for the kids to be able to make and learn new skills. And they just get so much more.
Speaker 6: Out of our school because.
Speaker 4: Of the after school program.
Speaker 7: Our afterschool programs are offered five days a week, and they provide essential.
Speaker 4: Support for working families where they're every day so that kids have a safe, stable, fun place to be while parents are at work. We offer a hot, free dinner every night and snacks available to.
Speaker 7: Every kid who comes through the club.
Speaker 6: Boys and Girls Club gives.
Speaker 4: Them so many opportunities to do the things that they wouldn't have access to.
Speaker 1: I think some of them need to come here for the kind of activity and care that we offer.
Speaker 4: We have a lot of students who come from incredible families but don't have the access to different programs or different extracurricular activities for their kids. And Boys and Girls.
Speaker 6: Club provides all of that, and it's here.
Speaker 4: They don't have to go anywhere else.
Speaker 1: Here we have something that we know works better than any of the alternatives to have things available in the school, in the center of the community. It just makes sense to do what we're doing, and it doesn't make sense that we have to beg to scratch and claw our way to to keep these programs up and running and available to our students every year.
Speaker 7: There's just such.
Speaker 4: A value to them and to us and our community and just uplift all of us.
Speaker 7: It's helped me learn and learn activities that help me.
Speaker 1: I don't see a way where Johnson is, Johnson where the school is, what we want it to be without this partnership.
Speaker 4: I don't know what I would do without it. So thankful that it's here. You know, when I could speak for a lot of parents that we're so thankful and grateful because if not, I don't think we could work. And then, you know, it affects our children.
Speaker 1: So families need this like the school hours and work hours. Don't don't line up all the time. And beyond that, it's just like they see the value in what's going to happen here. And they know that their kids are going to have their social emotional learning. They're going to become more confident. They're going to get more academic support. All these things happen after school. They're going to get another healthy meal and healthy snacks. All of these things are things that this program is able to provide that tilt the scale in terms of what you look for as a school, as a parent.
Speaker 7: It's really fun. I don't know what I'll do without it.
Speaker 4: So so what that last slide really says is that because of the influx of COVID relief dollars.
Speaker 7: We were able to save this program for two more years. But what happens in two years when that funding dries up?
Speaker 4: So we have a long term systemic funding issue.
Speaker 7: And again, I want to thank you guys for.
Speaker 4: The.
Speaker 7: Support that you.
Speaker 4: Have continued to give to our.
Speaker 7: School time programs year after year. And yet we still have an issue. So we just want to.
Speaker 4: Continue to include you in our advocacy efforts. I'm happy to provide each and every one of you with specific information on your.
Speaker 7: District and what's happening there. If that's something that would be helpful and you can continue to expect to hear from us with all the great things that are happening in that space. So thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Wonderful. Thank you so much for all your work that you do. All right. We're going to go ahead and move on here. Madam Secretary, please read the bills for introduction this evening.
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation celebrating Denver Afterschool Programs and the 2021 Annual National Lights on Afterschool Day.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_10252021_21-1193
|
Speaker 0: Nine I's. Council Resolution 1016 has passed. Madam Secretary, please put the next item on our screens. Council Pro Tem Taus, will you please put Council Resolution 1193 on the floor for adoption? I move that council.
Speaker 4: Resolution 20 1-1193 be adopted.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It's been moved and seconded. Comments by members of Council on Council Resolution 1193. Council Member Sawyer.
Speaker 4: Thanks, Madam President. This is a tech services on call contract, and I think I've said enough about uncalled contracts up until now, so I'm just going to be a no vote. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Resolution 1193.
Speaker 4: Sandoval.
Speaker 7: I.
Speaker 4: Sawyer? No. Torres, I. Black eye. Clark.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 4: Flynn.
Speaker 2: Hi.
Speaker 1: Herndon, I.
Speaker 4: No.
Speaker 2: Cashman, I.
Speaker 4: Can each. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 4: To name two names. Nine Eyes.
Speaker 0: Nine Eyes. Council Resolution 1193 has been adopted. Madam Secretary, please put the next item on our screens. Council Pro-Tem Torres, will you please put council bills 1056 and 1058 on the floor for final passage. I move that.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Third Amendment to On-Call Services Agreement between the City and County of Denver and TruePoint Solutions, LLC to extend the term and amend provisions for continued maintenance and support services relating to the Accela application.
Amends a contract with Truepoint Solutions, LLC by adding three years for a new end date of 12-31-24 for access to IT Staffing resources who specialize on the City’s enterprise permitting and licensing platform, Accela. No change to contract amount (TECHS-202160513). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 11-15-21. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 10-12-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_10252021_21-1019
|
Speaker 0: Direct your comments to council as a whole and please refrain from individual or personal attacks. Council Pro Tem Torres, will you please put Council Bill 1019 on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 4: I move that council bill 20 1-1019 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 1019 is open. May we please have staff report?
Speaker 9: Good afternoon, members of City Council. My name is Jumping FPL and I'm an associate city planner with Planning Services. And today we're going to be looking at the rezoning for five scope, five Cook Street from a period 22 CMCs eight. Subject property is in Council District ten, represented by Councilman Hines. In the Greek neighborhood. The property is located on the northwest corner of Hook Street and Ellsworth. The site is 6262 square feet and currently contains a two story building used as an alternative medicine office. The applicant is requesting to resign from Chapter 59 beauty to see him x eight to facilitate the redevelopment of the site. The proposed urban center neighborhood context means mixed use eight storeys maximum height allows for a mix of uses and it allows for the town house building. For the general building for the shopfront building for. Previously mentioned, the existing zoning is an old buddy. 20 established in 1979. Surrounding zoning includes eight directly to a North Sea IMX five to the east. A beauty to Israel and GMU 12th to the west. 20, was established in 1979 and converted the building to a business use in 2004. That structure was torn down and the current building was constructed on the existing foundations with the second floor building 2007. The beauty states that the business use is limited to those allowable under B1 Sun District regulations of former Chapter 59 of the Revised Municipal Code of the City and County of Denver. The B1 Zone District allows for uses such as residential use, banking and financial services office use, retail fire station, museum, police station. Church Childcare Center. Postal Facilities Library and parking of vehicles. Purity is very prescriptive and is and states in detail the land coverage and use for this 6262 square foot lot. The current land use for the site is office use and in the immediate vicinity the areas land use are multi-unit residential. Other office uses commercial retail and some parking uses. You can also see on this map some mixed use development at the corner of Steele Street and First Avenue. As shown on these photos. The two storey building currently on the site is surrounded by much bigger and higher buildings on all fronts. West of the site is a 16 storey multi-unit residential building. North of the site, there is an eight storey multi-unit residential building. West of the site, there is a ten storey office building, and south of the site there is a four storey parking garage structure and a 13 storey multi-unit residential building. Concurrent with the rezoning, the applicant is also facilitating a voluntary, affordable housing agreement signed and to be recorded by the property owner. The agreement will apply. To the entirety of the site and it will require the property owner to commit to at least 10% of the total units affordable. 75% of those income restricted units will be affordable to residents earning 60% of the area. Median income and 25% of the income restricted units will be affordable to residents earning 80% of the area. Median income. The income restricted units would remain at this level of affordability for a minimum period of 60 years. Throughout the rezoning process, application modifications have been provided according to code requirements. Planning Board recommended approval anonymously on September 1st. Today, staff has received comments from only two individuals opposing the rezoning. Three of those letters were received in January 2021, before the applicant voluntarily postponed his public hearing to allow for more community outreach. One of the letters refers to the potential for this project to ruin their views and negatively affect their building and reduce the value of their property. The other three letters of opposition were sent by the same community member and they mostly express concerns with setbacks and lack of on site parking or service loading area for the project . The applicants met with the R.A. and the stakeholders 11 times between June 2020 and May 2021 to introduce a project and develop a good neighbor agreement. In January 2021, Councilman Hines referred the applicant, the CCE, R.A. and the neighbors to a free mediation service performed by a third party neutral facilitator. All parties participated in good faith to work towards a memorandum of understanding or better known as a good, good neighbor agreement that is intended to mitigate the neighbors concerns over the rezoning and proposed development. For the draft good neighbor agreement. The developer has made several commitments to CCE including. To not exceed seven storeys in building height to comply with the setbacks required for the pending Cherry Creek East Commercial Overlay Plan. To take specific steps to minimize impact on the griffin the building to a north. To consider the effect on existing buildings and pedestrian experience in the architectural design of the project. To have the delivery trucks access the property between 7 a.m. and 9 p.m., not to block the alley for more than 15 minutes to ensure owners that city's required parking ratio is achieved through parking agreements with neighbors to ensure owners that construction has reasonably minimal impacts on neighbors. The Cherry Creek East Association sent out a survey to the Cherry Creek East constituents, who then voted in favor of the rezoning contingent on the execution of the Good Neighbor Agreement negotiated with the applicant. Informed by the survey, the GCA R.A. voted to support the rezoning. Just a quick note here on some of the early access traffic and parking concerns raised by the leaders of opposition. It is important to note that responding to a southern district, not a specific development proposal, potential traffic impacts related to a particular development are not assessed as part of the rezoning request because the development plan is subject to change. At the time of the site development plan, transportation engineers will identify if mitigation measures are required by intuition issuing a permanent. Okay. So now moving on to the Denver zoning code criteria, it must be found that the requested MAP amendment is consistent with five criteria. In regards to criteria number one, there are three adopted plans that apply to a requested rezoning Comprehensive Plan 2040 Blueprint Denver and the Cherry Creek Area Plan. A stated in the stuff report. The rezoning is consistent with several goals in the comprehensive plan. The rezoning is consistent with two key goals in the equitable, affordable and inclusive vision element. A seat allows additional housing in a rich, mixed use environment. Near Arctic transportation opportunities. The proposal. The proposed rezoning would allow for mixed use development, including an increase in allowed housing density, while also enabling additional housing units close to services and amenities , some of which would be restricted to residents earning less than the area median income. It is therefore therefore consistent with the strategies in the equitable, affordable and inclusive vision element. Finally, the rezoning is consistent with two key goals in the environmentally resilient vision element, as it will enable mixed use development at an infill location where infrastructure is already in place. The requested zone district broadens the variety of uses allowing residents to live, work and play in the area. Therefore, the response is consistent with Denver Comprehensive Plan 2040 recommendations. Now moving on to consistency with Blueprint Denver, the proposed TMX eight zone district is part of the urban center context and is intended to promote safe , active and pedestrian, skilled, diverse areas through the use of building forms that clearly activate the public street edge. Mixed use districts are focused on creating mixed, diverse neighborhoods, since the proposed district allows a mix of uses and allowable building forms that contribute to street activation. The proposed rezoning is to an urban center. Context is appropriate and consistent with the plan. The Future Places MAP designates the subject property as a regional center and describes it as providing a mix of office, commercial and residential uses. Buildings are typically large in scale and orient to a street with a strong degree of urbanism and continuous street frontages. Heights can be generally up to 12 storeys in the taller areas and should transition gradually within the center's footprint to the surrounding residential areas. The proposed mixed eight zone district allows for a variety of commercial residential uses in a pedestrian oriented pattern with an active street level. Therefore, the requested CMC is appropriate and consistent with the future places and direction. Blueprint. Denver directs growth to key centers, corridors and high density residential areas served by transportation options. The subject property falls within the plan's growth strategy area of regional centers, which anticipates a 50% of job growth and 30% of new housing by 2040. The proposed rezoning will achieve this goal. Finally between Denver on the land use and build for general section policy three encourages owners to rezone properties from the former Chapter 59 Zoning Code to new code so that the entire city is covered by the Denver zoning code. Now looking at the Cherry Creek Area plan. This plan was adopted by City Council in 2012 and applies to subject property. The plan notes that the area where the subject site is located should benefit from new development, reinvestment and more intense use. The plan recommends that the city modify land use policy, zoning regulations and design guidelines to encourage appropriate reinvestment to assure that these areas continue to mature in a positive way. The requested rezoning to see them exceed such change in zoning regulations and would enable reinvestment and development in such property as expressed in the plan. Additionally, the future land use map for the Cherry Creek Shopping District designates the subject property as a regional center, where the recommendation is to continue to support a mix of uses, including office retail, commercial use, multi-family, residential and hotels. The maximum building height recommended in the plan for the site is eight storeys. Therefore, the requested CMCs site is appropriate and consistent with Cherry Creek Area Plan recommendations. Stuff also finds the requested zoning meets the next two criteria. The rezoning will result in uniformity of district relations and will further the public health, safety and welfare primarily through the implementation of adopted plans. The application identified several changes or changing conditions of the justifying circumstance, the adoption of Denver's zoning code in 2010 and the retention of the former Chapter 59 Zone District on the subject property, including custom zoning during the property to a 1979 site plan, is an appropriate, justified circumstance for the proposed rezoning. Overall, the proposed rezoning is consistent with the urban center neighborhood context that exists in the surrounding area and with the CMC's proposal and intent. With that stuff. Requirements, approval based on finding or review criteria has been met.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, friend, for the staff report. And this evening, we have two individuals signed up to speak, both online. Our first speaker is Meredith Gabel.
Speaker 6: Hi. Can you hear me? Yes. Thank you. Good evening. I'm Meredith. Gabo and I live at two Adams Street across the alley from the subject's site. Last time I was in front of city council, actually, it was November 2018 for the historic designation of the his the Henderson House. Community Planning did an exceptional job preparing the application. But today I'm in front of you opposing the rezoning of five Cook Street. I regret that CPD has yet to develop small guidelines. The property's own p you date. It could have been part of the zone map overlay in 2010 or 2012. I forget when the adjacent block phase was being redeveloped as an apartment building, but both times they opted out. And now we have a 50 foot orphan lot asking for rezoning to see him exit with limited open space entry requirements. The proposal for the project is 30 units plus retail, with no onsite parking and no mechanism in place from either Doty or CPD to administer the adjacent buildings, use a common access and parking easements in their deeds. And this isn't a parking agreement. This is actually recorded. So. I know that the applicant is saying that in Cherry Creek East the there is a large availability of parking, especially at the seasons that Pudi has over 900 spaces, but those are required by the Pudi. So any type of parking agreement would have to be above and beyond the requirements for the PUDI. But the reason why there is so much availability in Cherry Creek is, is because apartment buildings charge $100 plus monthly for a space and folks are just parking on the street. A presentation to the Cherry Creek Steering Committee by Denver Police explained how the majority of car break ins come from these apartment buildings. COVID pandemic has made everything a little complicated. I know that there have been meetings and things like that. I do have 70 people who came to me to sign a petition in opposition to this rezoning, the neighborhood association, actually. Well, let me skip that real quickly and just go to say that that enclosing no small lot zoning guidelines, no onsite parking, no way to enforce this monumental change for parking requirements. I can only say no, and I hope that you take this seriously. I hope that there is an education component from that used to happen for neighborhood organizations so they understand how to work with the city so that we don't have things like that time.
Speaker 0: We have a lot of speaker. Our next speaker is joining us online as well, Jesse Paris.
Speaker 10: Any member of the council cannot be heard.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 10: Yes. My name is Jessica Sampras and I'm representing the Black Sox and will win for self defense, positive action committed for social change as well as the Unity Party of Colorado and frontline black males. And I will be the next mayor of Denver in 2023. I am against this rezoning tonight, even though it's supposed to be the consistency with adopted plans, the uniformity of district regulations for further public health, safety and welfare, justified circumstances, inconsistency with neighborhood contexts, zoned district purpose and intense. I had several questions. Um, I think during the presentation they said something about there had been a traffic study or it couldn't have a traffic study because it was still plan developments. I want to know if there was a traffic study done on this, if there was a parking study done. As the previous speaker has alluded to, there will be no on site. Parking. So this seems like a disaster just waiting to happen. These units are not going to be affordable. I mean, I guess it's affordable for Cherry Creek where the average income is 120% AMI level. But overall, this is not affordable. We have a housing crisis in the city and I guess Cherry Creek is not be exempt from that. By creating housing that is not affordable. Only 75% of units for them, we are 60% among and 10% of the units are only going to be affordable. Out of the only 75% of that, 10% are going to be 6%. 25% are going to be at 80%. This just seems like a disaster waiting to happen. 30 units plus retail. What exact retail is going to be here? What exactly units are going to be here? What is the square footage of the units that are going to be placed here? As the previous speaker said, she had a system fine with 7070 people signed a petition in opposition. There was mention of five letters of opposition from three neighbors. Like I said, this is a disaster waiting to happen. So I would urge Denver City Council to may not vote in favor of this rezoning. And seriously, developer, go back to the drawing board and rethink this because this doesn't make any sense. You have a property that's going to be eight stories with no onsite parking and there hasn't been a study done. There is one thing I'm glad about this neighborhood agreement. So the affordability will be in place for years to come. But outside of that, this is a disaster waiting to happen. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. That concludes our speakers this evening. Questions from members of Council on Council Bill 1019. Councilmember Flynn.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam President. Fran, could you describe the Cherry Creek East commercial overlay provisions that are referenced throughout the staff report and in the Good Neighbor Agreement? What are those provisions?
Speaker 9: So it's still not approved. It's still on the works. But there is some setbacks that are going to be in place. I don't have the details of it is because I know it's changed recently. So. We still don't know what's going to happen with the overlay, but the application has been in the conversations and he said that whatever comes from the overlay, he's going to he's going to comply. So he'll comply with whatever setbacks they require.
Speaker 5: And this is the overlay. It's being revised.
Speaker 9: So, Councilman Hines, I heard that you were like today. I heard that you're working on kind of like the revision of that. And it's. I don't know if you can speak a little bit too.
Speaker 0: Ahead, Councilman Hines, if you want to.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. Councilmember Flynn, the the Cherry Creek East Area neighbors is currently in the process of creating both a residential and commercial overlay in the jerker case neighborhood. That is not an approved plan, but it's something that they've been working on for, I think, two years now. So a considerable amount of time. So it's getting close to close to prime time. It's, you know, so we're still we're still in conversations. But but we should if the schedule moves forward as we're expecting it, we should see it in the next couple of months, you know, moving through the process.
Speaker 5: Okay. Can someone tell us what are some of the provisions that it is likely? To contain.
Speaker 9: So and again, I saw it at the beginning when he was like giving very you know, it's I know that it's changed a lot in the last months. So that's why I don't want to go in what I saw. There's a lot of details like in materials of the facades. What's going to be the setbacks required for commercial uses? There's there's a lot of details are going to look. I think that some of some of the issues that CBD is having is like figuring out what's more the best use like design guidelines and what's code. So because there was a lot of little details in like that, having certain materials in the facade or how high should the ground floor go up to where should be like the second story set but stuff like that. So.
Speaker 5: Okay. I'm a little concerned about having this before us before that as a before that's nailed down. But I understand that that's not always up to us. Does 55 cook? That's the eight story building that's just north of this property. As I looked at that, does that have a five foot setback from the street? The primary street.
Speaker 9: I'm not sure which one is 55 is the one on the Griffith.
Speaker 5: It's the, it's the eight storey building, the Griffith Griffith's apartments.
Speaker 9: I'm pretty sure they having the fifth because the code right now requires 24. I think it's 20 foot in the fifth floor, so I'm pretty sure they have it on the fifth floor. A as I said, back.
Speaker 5: From the from the street.
Speaker 9: I think so.
Speaker 5: Okay. So this would this would have a five foot setback. The property in question. We have a five foot setback from the primary and the side street. Yes. Okay. At least the ground floor.
Speaker 9: Yes. Okay. No, no, no, no, no, no. Sorry. Like in the ground floor, it's not going to have, like, cmcsa. It has zero setbacks.
Speaker 5: As what?
Speaker 9: Zero setbacks. See, I'm excited.
Speaker 5: Okay. Because when I looked at 55 Cook and the current building that's at five Cook, they are set back somewhat. And it looked to me like that could be at least a five foot setback. I'm just curious if it would if the new structure would match the Griffith's structure as far as the setback?
Speaker 9: Yeah, I think that that's also part of like the good neighbor agreement that they're going to match what's existing there. And I think that that's also guided in what's going to be on the overlay.
Speaker 5: Okay. Thank you. I do have I'm puzzled by when I looked at the site in question and the Griffiths Apartments that the eight storey building is literally this far from this, the building that occupies the site in question. So under this eight storey but limited to seven under the good neighbor agreement, if there is a seven storey building next to it, would the neighbors have balconies that where they could like a stranger, a cup of sugar on the seventh floor? Will they be that close together? Is there no set back from the lot line?
Speaker 9: So they have like five requirements that are going to I'm sorry, they have five requirements that make them have certain said there will be.
Speaker 5: Yes. Do we know what that would be?
Speaker 9: No, I'm not sure. But also, like in the Good Neighbor Agreement, part of the design that he's proposing is that the windows are not going to match. He's going to try to make it so that they have certain privacy, the apartment, so that the windows are not.
Speaker 2: Looking in.
Speaker 5: There. And when I looked at the Griffiths, I'm not quite sure how that would work because the entire side that would face this new building is marked by balconies and and windows and things like that.
Speaker 9: And again, like, that's the tricky part of like the rezoning process, you know, like it's we don't really look at the other project.
Speaker 5: It's like, that's unfortunate.
Speaker 9: I know, I know.
Speaker 5: I wish Councilwoman Ortega were here to back us up on that. Finally, there's no onsite parking for 30 to 36 units.
Speaker 9: So he has an agreement with the parking lot across the street. That's a parking structure. So he's going to have an agreement to provide the parking there because there's no way to make it feasible to have the parking like the biking requirements on site and the code allows to have an agreement. It's going to be in the deed. So it's it's it's recorded with the land. And he would provide I think he's required .75 parking spots per unit. So he'll provide that across the street.
Speaker 5: There's a building across the street. You mean to the east on Cook Street?
Speaker 4: South.
Speaker 9: South it's.
Speaker 5: Go south. Okay to see a parking.
Speaker 1: Structure like a.
Speaker 9: Five story structure.
Speaker 5: Okay. Do we know that the owner of that parking garages is willing to lease spaces for 30 to 36 units?
Speaker 9: I believe so.
Speaker 5: Okay. Is there someone here from the owner? The representative.
Speaker 9: Of the owner should.
Speaker 4: Be. Um.
Speaker 5: Is the owner all.
Speaker 9: Answer questions, I.
Speaker 1: Think. Okay.
Speaker 5: Because the way I read the good neighbor agreement before there could be a building permit obtained, there would have to be. Yes. Agreement for the part at the point 75. That's spaces per unit.
Speaker 9: Yes, that's correct. So he wouldn't get the permits to build like he wouldn't be he wouldn't get this ESDP approved unless he has that like that agreement already. So.
Speaker 5: So under this reasoning, the owner of this building could not redevelop it without getting a parking. Without leasing parking spaces from the folk across the people cross street. What? I wish I owned that parking garage.
Speaker 9: But then he wouldn't be able to develop it.
Speaker 1: That's correct.
Speaker 5: Correct. If I owned that parking garage knowing that the guy across the street couldn't develop it unless I leased him some spaces, I could set an interesting price for it, probably. All right. Thank you, Madam President. I think that's all I have.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Flynn and Fran, the owner, we had two companies listed. Could you give us a name of the owner or we can ask them to raise their hand.
Speaker 9: Canon law or canon law.
Speaker 1: Law. Family.
Speaker 0: Okay. Councilmember Flynn, did you want to restate your question?
Speaker 5: Yes. A couple of questions. Number one, about the parking. And is there have there been talks about leasing some of those parking spaces? Apparently, that will be a prerequisite to getting a building permit. And then as to the design of the building, how what are the anticipated setbacks? Side setback from the Griffis units, which I'm looking at here on line of that is covered that that side facade is covered with balconies and windows of the neighboring building. So I'm curious just how close your north wall can be to the south wall of the Griffis Building?
Speaker 1: I completely agree. It's definitely a design challenge. We do want to have offset windows, like I mentioned earlier. We're also actually included in the Good Neighbor Agreement. We have a requirement that would consider different ways to make that a facade is, as I guess visibly pleasing, is possible for the neighbors of the Griffiths. So that could include a green wall or something along those lines. But yeah, we're very cognizant of that challenge. Right now we're kind of focused on the rezoning, but we do know that that's going to be a challenge and something that we'll have to compensate for. Right. So the first designs kind of basic math things that we put together have at least a five foot setback, but that could change and be be larger in order to kind of allow more breathing space between the two buildings. So that's where we are with the facade on the north side. As far as the setbacks, that's also included in the Good Neighbor Agreement as part of the traffic use overlay that we, you know, agreed in principle to abide by, that's actually said within the agreement that will have five foot setbacks. So it would be a similar setback to what you see at the Griffis. So just think of, you know, you see the existing building, the new envelope would follow a pretty similar envelope to what exists on the site right now. That kind of gives you a good visual. As far as the parking, you know, we haven't had in-depth conversations with the neighbors, but, you know, we're just aware of there being, you know, low occupancy rates in parking garages in Cherry Creek. So, you know, we're confident our ability to move forward there and find some long term parking agreements. But like Fran mentioned, we're not going to be able to get our permits if we don't get those agreements in place anyway. So there's no way that there's not going to be parking accounted for in this project.
Speaker 5: Why is it that there's no parking on your site?
Speaker 1: Because of the dimensions of the site, it's extremely challenging to actually fit the required amount of parking and it's also extremely cost prohibitive. At a certain point, it's only 50 feet by 125 feet. Those types of dimensions make it really hard to try to build a ramp in there. And if we want to have ground floor retail, which is something that was also included in the Good Neighbor agreement that the neighborhood really wanted, we would in it would have two ground floor parking only. And then we wouldn't actually have the, I guess the cafe or the retail tenant that the neighborhood also requested of us. So it was just kind of, you know, the best way to move forward and to maximize the use of the site and this location and this kind of corner facing lot you want to have retail is to have the parking off site.
Speaker 5: All right. Thank you for those answers. I appreciate it. That's all right.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Flynn. And for the record, if you could please introduce yourself. I know we've got you listed as Canon Law, but we appreciate you introducing yourself for the record.
Speaker 1: Right. My name is Canon Law. I'm the son of the owners of the property. So the current ownership is through my property LLC. The members are my parents who have operated and own this property since 2003. As an acupuncture clinic, we've been neighbors in the neighborhood for a long time and just intend on continuing to be neighbors in this neighborhood in perpetuity. And I hope that that's reflected in the amount of time that we spent in negotiating this good neighbor agreement and the number of times we actually postpone this hearing so we could have our voices heard here.
Speaker 0: Great. Thank you very much. Next up for questions, we've got Councilmember Hines.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council President Minutes. Did you are.
Speaker 1: You aware of this?
Speaker 2: Miss Gable talked about 70 letters of opposition or of a petition. Are you are you aware of that?
Speaker 9: Well, we she was aware that she could have done a protest petition. And I sent Harold the documentation to do that. She told me multiple times that she had letters of opposition, but the only letters I received were from her. So, I mean, we have multiple ways through receiving everyone's comments and opposition and support, but I didn't receive any.
Speaker 2: Okay. So so that's I did notice a bit of a discrepancy between our packet and and and then the testimony from his that about the all the letters of opposition. So we, we don't have any way to verify that that all of those members, whoever they might be, are in opposition.
Speaker 9: No, but she has my email. She's emailed me multiple times. So like she could have sent them to me and of course there would have been part of the package if I receive them. So I everything that I included is everything that I received through the whole process. From the beginning, the public hearing was postponed multiple times.
Speaker 2: And you describe to her the process, should she want to submit letters and or collect letters or encourage neighbors to submit letters?
Speaker 9: Yeah. Or to request a protest petition as well.
Speaker 2: Okay. Um, can you can you briefly describe what a protest petition is for our viewers?
Speaker 9: I have never done one, so this would have been my first one. But I went through the process of asking like what it required. So I talked to our technician and he gave me a buffer of all the percentages of the buildings, how many signatures we required from each building. So I even got that map and then it requires I can't remember where the numbers because this was a few months back, but he was like us. I want to say.
Speaker 2: Here, let me how about I phrase it in the form of a question? So the idea of a protest petition as if many of the surrounding but some percentage of the surrounding neighbors disagree that they can come together and they can file a protest should they meet that certain threshold. So, you know, I'm not looking for specific numbers, but that's no, no, no, you're fine. And I don't understand why you're answering the way you are. But but just theoretically, there is a way to to lodge an official protest. And should that protest be lodged, then supermajority is required to pass the rezoning. Is that right? Correct.
Speaker 4: Okay.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Um. Yeah. I don't. I don't have any, um. I don't have any further questions. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Council member Hines. Next up, we've got Council member Cashman.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Thank you, Madam President. I'm not sure if this is for planning or for referral, but. So we've been talking about that it's a requirement to have parking spaces to get the building permit. Okay. What I'm wondering is, so how long does that what type of contract do we have to see? Because if it's a five year contract on spaces and they build, they're building it, what enforcement do we have that in perpetuity? They need to present parking. Oh. You're welcome, mate. Good evening.
Speaker 11: Members of Council Nate Lucero, assistant city attorney. Here's your question. What do we do when when a new owner comes in and they don't have the parking agreement.
Speaker 2: Or they they build the building? Well, in.
Speaker 1: One way or another.
Speaker 11: Whoever occupies that premises is required to provide whatever parking it is that the city requires. So even the owner that is requesting the rezoning now is required to provide parking, whether that's on site or via a shared parking agreement. The fact of the matter is the zoning code requires them to meet the parking requirement, whatever, whatever that is. So it could become a challenge at some point in the future, but that's not really the city's problem to solve.
Speaker 1: It's it's the developer or the property owner.
Speaker 11: It is their problem to solve. And they have to prove to the city that they that they meet the parking requirements, whatever they are at the time.
Speaker 2: So their certificate of occupancy would. Be invalidated if they cease to provide that parking. And I don't intend to beat this horse too much more, but I'm just wondering what our enforcement tool is. Well.
Speaker 11: So I think they would have to submit a site development plan. Right, that complies with the city's rules and regulations. And if they can no longer comply with that site development plan, then they would be in violation. Then they would be in violation of that and that would be a zoning violation and it would go to at least the Board of Adjustment hearing, possibly through the court process. So that's where our enforcement is.
Speaker 2: All right. Well, it sounds like it's not something you've dealt with thus far in your time with the city, but that you're confident that there are enforcement mechanisms. Yes. Okay. Thank you. That's all.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Cashman. And we've got Councilmember Sandoval. You're up next.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Madam President. My questions for neatly Syria as well. Who does the audit on the parking site parking program?
Speaker 11: I'm sorry, Councilwoman. Can you repeat that question?
Speaker 7: Guess who does the audit on the offsite parking program? So if they do offsite parking right now and that parking goes away, who audits that? Mike What agency does the audit?
Speaker 1: Well, I think it would be.
Speaker 11: It would come back to community planning and development whenever there is a change in the site plan. I think that might be a question for Fran, because I really don't know how they address that.
Speaker 7: And I mean, do you have an answer?
Speaker 9: I can look into that and get back to you for sure.
Speaker 7: Because this is an issue that keeps occurring in Council District one.
Speaker 4: And so I'm.
Speaker 7: Sure it's going to occur everywhere else and nobody seems to have an answer. There doesn't seem to be a program to do the audit for offsite parking that we allow in the zoning code. Nobody goes back and audits these type of parking permits. So Councilman Cashman has a very good point that what triggers an audit for the offsite parking program?
Speaker 9: Yeah, I can definitely look into it and get back to you with an answer, because if it's going to keep coming up, I think it's important that we clarify it. So thank.
Speaker 1: You.
Speaker 9: Thank you for the question.
Speaker 7: Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Sandoval. Seeing members in the queue. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 1019. Council Member Hines Thank you.
Speaker 2: Council President I, uh, I suppose I'm a little surprised to hear about the, the 70 letters in opposition. But since we can't find them, I don't know if they're for sure. I don't know how to reconcile that. The testimony by Mrs. Gable. And and so I just have to set it aside for right now because. Because there's no way for me to reconcile that. That having been said, the developer and the surrounding community as as as was already stated, had 11 meetings and they also took advantage of our we we offered a mediation session, which is something that the city offers at no cost to either party. And so they voluntarily entered into that mediation session. And after that, after all of those 11 meetings, they they came up with a signed Good Neighbor agreement, which was one of the requirements or one of the strong desires of the the R.A. that oversees this area, the Cherokee East Association . Ah, no. And and I don't know if you noticed, but the affordable, affordable housing component was 75% at 60% AMI. And that's something that we as a council and in our discussions for the Golden Triangle Text Amendment decided was very important that we re the standard of of affordable housing to 60% AMI whereas you know, most of the rest of the city it's 80% AMI. So I thought that was a great move on behalf of the developer to try to match some of the the value statements that we've made clear as a as a council that as I mentioned, it was a sign good neighbor agreement. And regarding parking, I I'm not sure that that. I'm not sure exactly where that might fit in the five criteria. But. But what I would say is that the last Cherry Creek steering committee meeting, we had a a robust discussion about parking in Cherry Creek. And several of the people who were there, including Nicole Masters, the head of the Cherry Creek North Business Improvement District, and and others, have talked about how there's plenty of parking in Cherry Creek, both Cherry Creek, north and east. And so while there might not be as much street parking anymore, there's plenty of parking in some of the structures. And as we already discussed, there's there are requirements, although we might not have all the details about exactly what the enforcement provisions for those requirements are. We have the requirements nonetheless. So as I said, we've got a letter of support from the R.A. and the letter references, a survey that they performed to to to their members. And the survey did ultimately result in a favorable recommendation, which the Reno factored into their letter support. So with I recognize that not any rezoning is unanimous or perfect for every neighbor. But but the the neighborhood spoke and and said that they agree and want this rezoning to move forward. I believe it meets the five criteria. And I hope that my colleague I will vote yes and I hope my colleagues will also vote yes. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Hines and I do agree that it does meet all of the rezoning criteria and happy to support it tonight as well and not seeing anyone else in the queue. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 1019.
Speaker 4: Sandoval. I. Hynes All.
Speaker 2: Right. Cashman I.
Speaker 4: Can. I. Sawyer No. Torres I.
Speaker 8: Black I.
Speaker 4: Clark.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 4: Flynn.
Speaker 5: I.
Speaker 1: Herndon, I.
Speaker 4: Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced the results.
Speaker 4: One May ten 810.
Speaker 0: Ies Council Bill 20 1-1019 has passed. Councilmember Torres, will you please put Council Bill 1021 on the floor for final passage? I move that.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 5 Cook Street in Cherry Creek.
Approves a map amendment to rezone property from PUD 20 to C-MX-8 (planned development to mixed use, 8-stories), located at 5 Cook Street in Council District 10. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 9-14-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_10182021_21-1230
|
Speaker 0: There are 12 members present. Council has a quorum. Councilmember Clark, we need a motion regarding the 2022 proposed budget and public hearing notice. Please.
Speaker 2: Yes, Madam President. I move that the clerk and recorder is instructed to publish a notice. That one? The Mayor's proposed budget for 2022 is open for inspection from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 pm Mondays through Fridays in the City Council Office Room 451 of the city and county building located at 1437 Bannock Street. Starting the week of October 18th, 2021 two, at its regular meeting on Monday, October 25th, 2021, which will begin at 5:30 p.m., the City Council will conduct a public hearing on the Mayor's proposed budget for 2022 and three. Any citizen may inspect the budget prior to or at the public hearing and register any objection to the budget prior to or at the public hearing on the budget. And the Council shall take any objections into consideration.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Clark, it's been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 4: Ortega.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 5: CdeBaca I.
Speaker 2: Clark, I. Flynn, I.
Speaker 4: Herndon. Hi.
Speaker 1: Hi.
Speaker 4: Cashman.
Speaker 2: Hi.
Speaker 4: Can I.
Speaker 5: Sawyer, I.
Speaker 1: Torres, i.
Speaker 4: Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting in, announced the results.
Speaker 4: 12 hours.
|
Communication
|
Mayor’s Proposed 2022 Budget and Public Hearing Notice
(1) the Mayor’s Proposed Budget for 2022 is open for inspection from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Mondays through Fridays in the City Council Office, Room 451 of the City and County Building located at 1437 Bannock Street starting the week of October 18, 2021; (2) at its regular meeting on Monday, October 25, 2021, which will begin at 5:30 p.m., the City Council will conduct a public hearing on the Mayor’s Proposed Budget for 2022; and (3) any citizen may inspect the budget prior to or at the public hearing and register any objection to the budget prior to or at the public hearing on the budget, and the Council shall take any objections into consideration.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_10182021_21-1112
|
Speaker 0: No items have been called out under pending. No items have been called out. Madam Secretary, please put the first item on our screens. Councilmember Clark, will you please put Council resolutions? One, one, one, two and 1118 on the floor for adoption?
Speaker 2: Yes, Madam President, I move that council resolutions one, one, one, two and 1118 be adopted in a block.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded comments by members of Council on Council Resolutions one, one, one, two and 1118. I'd like to offer up comments. I've asked that both resolutions are called out tonight in order for me to abstain from voting on both of these. Because Gilmore Construction is my brother in law's company. Seen no other speakers in the queue. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Resolutions one, one, one, two and 1118, please.
Speaker 4: Ortega. I.
Speaker 0: Well, there we go. Hi.
Speaker 4: And of all.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 4: CDEBACA No. Clarke.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 4: Flynn.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 4: Herndon. Hines.
Speaker 2: All right.
Speaker 4: Cashman. I can.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 4: Sawyer.
Speaker 5: I.
Speaker 4: Torres.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 4: Madam President.
Speaker 0: Epstein. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 4: One Nay. One Abstention. 11 Arts.
Speaker 0: 11 Ies Council Resolutions. One, 112 and 1118. Have passed. Madam Secretary, please put the next item on our screens. Councilmember Clark, will you please put Council Bill 1058 on the floor for publication?
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Amendatory Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Gilmore Construction Corporation to add compensation and two years for a new end date for on-call construction services citywide.
Amends a contract with Gilmore Construction Corporation by adding $5 million for a new total of $10 million and two years for a new end date of 1-27-24 for on-call construction services including roof replacement, mechanical upgrades, lighting retrofit, concrete and asphalt replacement, and other services for municipal building projects, citywide (DOTI-202160186-01; 201846016-01). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 11-8-21. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 10-5-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_10182021_21-1058
|
Speaker 2: Yes, Madam President. I move that council bill 1058 be ordered published.
Speaker 0: Thank you. We need it to be moved and seconded. Thank you. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 1058. Council Member Sawyer.
Speaker 5: Thinks Madam President, I called out this bill so that I can vote no on it. Before I say anything else, I want to recognize our incredible city staff who's worked so hard over the last 20 months under extraordinary circumstances. And I fully support the premium and hazard pay proposals that are also on first reading tonight. But our city doesn't have unlimited funds, and I believe that the taxpayers would prefer we use this money to invest it in our community. So let's talk about what else could be done with this money if we chose to use it differently. This money is $5 million. It could build five miles of sidewalks. It could install seven new stoplights, depending on the cost, renovate four city playgrounds, fill the funding gap needed to complete the renovation of the Downtown Central Library Fund , the city's financial commitment on at least three affordable housing developments through host. This is five times the amount of money that the city has set aside from ARPA funds for small business safety and security grants. With this $5 million, we could staff foot and bike patrols and implement community policing programs in ten unique neighborhoods in our city for a full year. As grateful as I am to our staff. I find it difficult, difficult to allocate money to bonuses when there are so many outstanding projects that need to be funded in our city. And for this reason, I'm voting no tonight. Thanks, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Sawyer. Next up, we have Councilmember CdeBaca.
Speaker 5: Thank you. I echo the sentiments of my colleague, Councilwoman Sawyer. I feel it's inappropriate to provide bonuses for people to do something medical with their body. It feels like this is something we should have thought about when we were forcing people to be deployed into shelters. Or we should have done other things to let our workers know that we appreciate them. This feels inappropriate. And so I'll be a no on this tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember CdeBaca. Councilmember Hines.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. And I want to thank my colleagues. They've said some of the things that I would already say. I'm very happy to support our employees and in Denver and intend to do so with the bill that is here in introduction tonight. This particular one was a confusing rollout. And in addition to the things my colleagues have already said, and even in the press release that the press release talks about how much our employees have sacrificed. I agree with that 100%. I'm not sure that we should have that in the press release, when in fact all this is meant to do is a reward for those who have already been vaccinated. So if we wanted to do a reward, I think that we should have announced that earlier. So it's just a very confusing rollout. Again, and in addition to all the things my colleagues have already said. Thank you. Council President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Hines. Next up, we have Councilmember Clark.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. I have tried to get there on this proposal, and I do want to thank the staff who worked on this to make it better than it was when it was first proposed. I also want to say that I'm fully supportive of the hazard pay proposal that separate from this. But a bonus for getting vaccinated, I believe, is missing the mark for many reasons. First, as I've stated before, giving a bonus for something that everyone should be expected to do furthers the idea that getting vaccinated is a bonus or an extra thing that people can do if they'd like. We should be focused on letting all residents of Denver know that getting vaccinated is not an extra. It is the responsibility of responsible citizens in our community to get vaccinated, to protect themselves, and to protect the rest of us. Hundreds of thousands of Denver residents have done their civic duty and have gotten vaccinated because it's the right thing to do, and they're not getting bonuses for that. Also, as I've shared before, I've been told by many of my constituent that Denver, my constituents, that Denver rewarding city employees for doing the right thing feels to them like a slap in the face. Furthermore, rewarding employees who got vaccinated only when they were required to. At the same financial level that employees are being rewarded who did the right thing the first day they were eligible to do so also feels like a slap in the face for thousands of Denver city employees who did the right thing the first opportunity they had and didn't have to be mandated to do it. I do think that is really important after a really rough over year to make sure that we tell our employees that we do value them. In the past year and a half has been really hard and that we appreciate what they have done and what they continue to do. That's really important. And I think that there are a lot of ways that we could have done that in a lot of ways that we could have structured this to reward employees without it being tied in the way that it is, to the same reward for people who voluntarily did this when they first could and provided months of extra protection for Denver residents and and folks who who didn't didn't do that and possibly got other people passed COVID on to other people before they were mandated to get a vaccination. So I think that this is ill conceived as proposed, not the intent, but in in the mechanism of how we're doing it. And so for those reasons, I will also be a know this evening. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Clark. Next up, we've got Councilmember Cashman.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. Unfortunately, we while the math is correct and the dollars would allow for a variety of other projects to be completed, mathematically, we don't have the employees to complete the projects that are on the books now. We were not picking up the trash in our parks as frequently as we would like to in the maintenance in our parks. Hasn't been up to the standards that I know our parks department would like were down. Police officers were down. Sheriff's. Every department is down. And we're in competition with in the industries across our city, private industries and across the country. So we're in a real world where we've got to stop the bleeding. This program, which I opposed when it was initially presented and as I've considered it, gave us a dual opportunity to stimulate, increase the percentage of our employees who did get vaccinated, to reward all people who got vaccinated, as well as those who met the criteria for legitimate exemptions. We've got to compete with industries that will offer our people more money than than we can offer them in our annual budget. So I'm willing to offer this thank you to to our employees. It is not. I wish it could be more. It could probably have been structured in a different way. But I'm going to say yes to this. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Cashman. Next up, we have Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Madam President. It's taken a minute for my camera to turn on. I'm not sure what's going on with that. So I also want to weigh in in support of this particular piece of legislation tonight. I appreciate the extra work that was done by our finance department after listening to input from members of the City Council. I think. Folks need to be reminded that our employees took 2020 a number of furlough days and we're scheduled to have furlough days in 2021. But those were canceled, but they took a huge financial hit in 2020 at a time that many of them were having to work at the vaccine sites and at the testing sites and at the food distribution sites. And some of the very families, some of our employees or some of the very families that were having to be in line at DPS and at our food banks because not everybody makes you know. Affordable living wages that works for our city. And so I think this is an important way to reward our employees, not only who have taken this. The hazard pay, I think, is an important element of this. And for those who have chosen not to and have not provided any kind of. Waiver that's been approved. Those are people who are lucky to get this. You know, this this extra pay. So I just appreciate the work that is being done and has been done by all of our city employees. And I'm going to be supporting this through. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilmember Ortega. Next up, we've got Councilmember Flynn.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. I would rather have all employees vaccinated. And if it means offering bonuses as incentives, the goal is to get people vaccinated and tamp down the virus. That's going to be with us for quite some time. We want to get our as many folks vaccinated in our city and our region and our state as possible. And I support this, as do numerous other entities American Airlines, Aldi, Kroger, Target, Wal-Mart are all offering their employees bonuses to get their vaccines so that we can beat the virus. It would be a Pyrrhic victory to say we're we're not going to pay bonuses. You should do the right thing and get the vaccine and then put up with the continued spread of the virus through our community. So I will support this measure tonight. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Flynn, Councilmember Clark, we have you back up.
Speaker 2: Yeah, thank you. Madam President. I just want to make a quick clarification. Totally. You know, all of the time we disagree up here and totally respect all my colleagues in all of our disagreements. That's part of democracy. I just want to clarify, we talked about this in committee, but didn't want this to go and end up in the media. I want to clarify that this is not a bonus for people to get vaccinated. In fact, in committee asked very directly, will this get one more person vaccinated, one more person with the vaccine closer to the end of COVID? And the answer was no. This is a reward for things that have already happened. This is not an incentive and it will not increase the number of people vaccinated one bit. So I just wanted to clarify on that point, which is again, part of why I'm. No, thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Clarke. Councilmember Hines, you're back up.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council President. The only thing I would add to Councilmember Clark's comment is that this was announced just a few days before the deadline for the end of vaccinations if there's really want it. If this was meant to be an encouragement and incentive, it would have been presented months before. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Hines. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 1058, please.
Speaker 4: Ortega. Sandoval.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 4: Sawyer.
Speaker 5: No.
Speaker 4: Torres. I see tobacco.
Speaker 0: No.
Speaker 4: Clark.
Speaker 2: No.
Speaker 4: Flynn.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 4: Herndon. Hines. No. Cashman. I can eat. I. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 4: For his eight eyes.
Speaker 0: Four. Nays. Eight. Ice. Council Bill 1058 has been ordered published. 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. Councilmember Clerk Will you please put the resolutions for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor?
Speaker 2: Yes, Madam President. I move that resolutions be adopted and bills on final consideration be placed upon final consideration, and do pass in the Bloc for the following items. 12291156. 1129113411351136111311141115111611171119112011211122112311241125112611461152122310251029113711441150115110851109106411111105. Should be.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Clark. It has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 4: Ortega, I. Sandoval, I.
Speaker 1: CdeBaca I.
Speaker 2: Clark, I.
Speaker 4: FLine.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 4: Herndon Hinds.
Speaker 1: All right.
Speaker 4: Cashman Can each I. Sawyer Torres, I. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results. 12 US 12 ays the resolutions have been adopted and the bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass. This evening Council will serve as a quasi judicial board of equalization to consider reduction of total cost assessments for two local maintenance districts West 44th Avenue and Elliott Street, Pedestrian Mall and Tennyson Street Skate portions of 38th to 44th in Council District one. Anyone wishing to speak on either of these matters must go online to sign up during the recess of council. Sign up. Opened online at 4:30 p.m.. If you've already signed up to speak, please do not sign up again as we've already received your submission. If you have not already signed up to speak, sign up remains open until the end of recess. If there are no objections from members of Council, we will take a ten minute recess.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance modifying Article II, Chapter 18 of the Revised Municipal Code of Denver by adding a Division 5 titled COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate Bonus Program for the purpose of providing a one-time $400 bonus to eligible employees who complied with the vaccine mandate on or before the September 30, 2021 deadline, or were exempted from the mandate and have not been disciplined or had discipline proceedings initiated against them for violating their accommodation requirements through December 10, 2021.
Amends Article II, Chapter 18 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code by adding a Division 5 titled COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate Bonus Program for the purpose of providing a one-time $400 bonus to eligible employees who comply with the vaccine mandate on or before September 30, 2021, or receive approved exemptions for medical or religious reasons. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 10-5-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_10112021_21-1127
|
Speaker 0: Ten eyes. Council Resolution 1084 has passed. Madam Secretary, please put the next item on our screen. Councilmember Steuer. Go ahead with your questions on resolution one 1 to 7, please.
Speaker 4: Thinks that a president I believe host is here. Thanks for being here, you guys. Just a couple of questions about this. So it's a it's an amendment to a contract that already exists, this contract. What is the original? How much is the original contract for? So the original contract and the amendment are the same amount. So this amendment is a no cost amendment just to extend the term. And the total cost is $932,358. Okay, great. And so it's a it's just a term extension. How long is it being extended until? Seven months total. So going from a previous end date of January 31st of 20 to out until August 31st of 22. Okay. And does is maintenance of properties included in this contract? No, this is just a contract for the provision of integrated health supports as part of our COVID response under the Emergency Solutions Grant Coronavirus Relief Fund. So this is particular to the Coalition for the Homeless Provision of Integrated Health Services at one particular shelter location. Okay, great. So do you know how much we have contracted with CCH over the course of just this year? I don't have that number. But through many contracts throughout the Department of Housing Stability. Okay. Do you know how many partnerships, separate partnerships we have with CCH in the city? Contracted partnerships. I don't have that number either, but could work to get that to you. Okay. Appreciate it. Just so we have several properties in District five that and CCH has failed to maintain them, has struggled to be responsive or accountable to the residents, to residents of the buildings themselves, residents of the neighborhood that the buildings are located in. Resident failed to be responsive to the council office. It's it's a little bit concerning. We have to have six month check in meetings with the residents of the buildings, the two neighborhood organizations, the council office, the police, the Department of Transportation and Infrastructure host as an invited the city attorney's office has been invited. And so I'm just a little bit concerned about the number of contracts that we have and with CCH and how many, you know, that we are giving them extended responsibility when they are not maintaining the current agreements that they have with our community. Thank you for sharing that feedback. I think that's something I definitely want to talk with the Coalition about. I know in our space of homelessness resolution they are really vital partner, particularly around the the efforts we have around street outreach, the efforts we have around supportive housing and the efforts that we have around integration of health care . And so the I, I just want to say, you know, they're a really crucial partner to the city of Denver. And so it sounds like we have some work to do to work on that partnership, particularly around your concerns of property management. And so I will absolutely bridge a connection back there and see how we can work to to improve communication and feedback about the efforts that they're doing. I really appreciate that. Thank you. And I recognize that they are, you know, really important partner to our city. But I do think it is concerning that they are not held accountable for their existing contracts, that we continue to extend contracts and create new contracts with them. Does this contract cover the Coliseum? No. This is particular to the shelter at 4600 East 48th Avenue. Okay. So who then is in charge? Which of our partners is in charge of management of the Coliseum? So our contract for operations at the Coliseum is between the Salvation Army and the Department of Housing Stability. Okay. There's also additional staffing provided through Bayard Enterprises. And then overall, many of the overall maintenance issues related to the Coliseum are actually handled directly by the city through arts and venues and our city facilities teams. Okay, that's good to know. Our office received some really concerning emails regarding an. Elderly gentleman who is currently residing in the Coliseum, who is wheelchair bound and who has purchased his own shop vac to to clean up the sewage that is backing up underneath his bed. Can you explain why that is happening and what steps have been taken to ensure that that is no longer going to continue to occur? Yes. So we'll work to provide some more formal feedback as we get all of the resolution worked out. But I also received that email on Friday afternoon and we sprung into action with our partners at arts and venues getting plumbing on site immediately. They have since dealt with the backflow issue and I understand as of today's report that everything is back to functioning normally. Ultimately, this emergency COVID shelter that was set up at the Coliseum is providing residential spaces in a building that was never designed for that, with infrastructure lacking to handle the amount of human waste that that it's seeing every day. And so we're working with our partners at arts and venues and city facilities to work on some regular clean out of that. But definitely. Appreciate that that issue is flagged to us and we're working to resolve it, as well as working to address where folks are situated, if there are ongoing concerns around this particular backflow. Okay. I appreciate that and would really appreciate an update because how many seats does the Coliseum have? Seats? Yeah. Do you know? No, I don't know. I think it's somewhere around 10,000. So that's a. That should have capacity. How many people are staying at the Coliseum right now? So we have a capacity of 425. It's a mixture of the you know, during an event, you might have up to 10,000 people at once. But it's the all day, every day where and here's how it's explained to me as well as I sometimes folks flushing things that don't belong in toilets. So there's there's often some infrastructure. Part of what we put forward in our ARPA requests around helping to support for infrastructure improvements are things like waste grinders in the in our plumbing at big buildings like this to help handle in the future if we have to repurpose buildings for residential shelter that can help handle that load. Okay. I really appreciate that. Thanks for bringing into action and sorting that out. It's an incredibly concerning report and I hope we don't ever hear anything like that again, but thank you for being responsive to it and thanks for your partnership and all of your hard work and everything you're doing to oversee all of our shelters right now. Thanks, Madam President. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, council members, for your for the record, do you want to go ahead and introduce yourself and share what agency you're with?
Speaker 4: Yes. I'm Angie Nelson, deputy director of the Department of Housing Stability, overseeing homelessness resolution and Housing Stability Division.
Speaker 0: Very good. Thank you, Angie, for being here. All right. 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.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Amendatory Agreement between the City and County of Denver and The Colorado Coalition for the Homeless to provide emergency shelter activities and integrated health services for people experiencing homelessness and housing instability due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Amends a contract with the Colorado Coalition for the Homeless by adding seven months for a new end date of 8-31-22 to provide emergency shelter activities and integrated health services for people experiencing homelessness who are experiencing housing instability due to the COVID-19 pandemic. No change to contract amount (HOST-202157443-01). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 11-1-21. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 9-29-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_10112021_21-0939
|
Speaker 0: Please wait until our meeting. Host Promote you to speaker. When you're 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 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 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. 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 Sawyer, will you please put Council Bill 939 on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 4: I move the Council Bill 20 1-0939 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 939 is open and we have Fran here and we have the staff report, please.
Speaker 5: Great. Um. Great. Good evening, members of City Council and associate city planner with Planning Services. And tonight we're looking at a rezoning request for 3428 West Moncrieff Place. The subject property is in Council District One represented by Councilmember Amanda Sandoval. In the West Highland neighborhood. The property is located mid-block between Julian Street and Laurel Boulevard along Moncrieff Place. The site is 4625 square feet and currently contains a single unit home. The applicant is requesting to rezone from U.S., U.K. to U.S. U.K. one to allow for an EU at the rear of the property. All other forms and new standards will remain the same. The property is currently in the urban single unit Asian district, which allows for a minimum zone lot size of 3000 square feet. As you can see on the map, the surrounding properties are also shown us a to the east, north and west of the property. But south you can see some GM you eight zoning and you may see three to the southwest. The current land use for the site is single unit residential and in the immediate vicinity. The area's land use are mostly other residential uses with a parking lot right next to the property to the west and a multi-unit residential building to the south. Shown on these photos. The character of the neighborhood is mostly residential. The subject property can be seen on the top right image of the slide. Throughout the rezoning process, application modifications had been provided according to Code Requirements Planning Board recommended approval analysis on August 18, and to date, staff has not received any letters from the public or any. Now moving on to the Denver zoning code, we have five review criteria that we must find. The request map amendment is consistent with the five with you. The first criteria is consistency with the adopted plans. There are two plans applicable to his rezoning. The first one is comprehensive plan 2040. The second one is Blueprint Denver. 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. Now moving on to the consistency with Lupe in Denver. The subject property is mapped as part of the urban neighborhood context. The future places map designates the subject property as low residential place like this place types have predominantly single and two unit uses and accessory dwelling units are appropriate. Moncrief Place is designated as a local street, which is mostly characterized by residential uses. The growth area in in Denver is all other areas of the city. This area is anticipated to see 10% employment growth and 20% housing growth by 2040. Finally 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. Stuff also finds that the requested signing meets the next two criteria. The rezoning will result in uniformity of district relations and will further the public health, safety and welfare primarily through its implementation of adopted plans. The justified circumstance for this rezoning is clear. The plan sees the approval of the existing U.S. UAS en district. The city has adopted the Comprehensive Plan and Blueprint Denver, a 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 districts and the you as a one zone district. With that, a recommend approval based on finding all review criteria has been met.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, friend, for the staff report. And this evening, we have two individuals signed up to speak and they are both joining us online. And our first speaker is Simon, Toronto.
Speaker 2: I suspect that these are.
Speaker 1: Hello, everybody. My name is Simon Taranto and star daughter Luna. We're the property owner and applicant of the change. We recently welcomed our second and third kids as twins to our family and we love our house and neighborhood and are looking for ways to help our family come help us. So our main motivation for the ADA expansion is that we can stay here and have our family come help, help us. We gathered input from our neighbors through this process and we're requesting that the City Council vote to approve Council Bill 210939 and rezoning 3428 West Moncrief place to usou a a1 to allow for an 80. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you very much, Simon, and your little helper there. Appreciate that. Our next speaker is also joining us online, Bruce O'Donnell.
Speaker 1: Hello there. Madam President, can council hear me?
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Good evening. Bruce O'Donnell and I've been helping the applicant on this application and consistent with staff's recommendation for approval and planning board's recommendation for approval and the consistency with adopted plans. I also asked the City Council to approve Council Bill 20 1-0939 Rezoning 3428 West fifth place to you sue A1 to allow for you and I'm available to answer any questions that count. Members of Council have it. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Bruce. That concludes our speakers for this first hearing. Questions from members of Council on Council Bill 939. And we have first up, Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Madam President. So I'm not sure who to direct this to. But first of all, these are very narrow lots. And I. Can you clarify what the minimum size is that can actually squeeze another building on a lot? Or is this intended to be an addition to the existing structure?
Speaker 5: The applicant didn't specify if he was going to build a detached edu or an attach, but I mean, he could do either the Lord would allow it be sure that the lot is 35.5.
Speaker 7: So is there a minimum size then that the building. If it's a detached. Does it have to be significantly smaller than the structure in the front assuming it's in the back?
Speaker 5: Well, it's going to have to comply with the setback. So it's going to have to comply with the I don't know if it's three or five would set back on the side and then in the back. So as long as it complies with the setback, that's what the building can as wide as it can go.
Speaker 7: So let me ask the applicant if he'll come back on to just let us know if he's looking to do a separate structure or just add on to the existing structure. Simon, would you mind coming back on?
Speaker 2: Hi.
Speaker 1: Thank you for the question. We would be planning to do a detached fracture. Were you able to hear me? Sorry, but I'm sorry. Could you repeat the question? I lost the first few words.
Speaker 0: Go ahead, Councilwoman, if you want to restate your question.
Speaker 7: Simon, will your structure that you're requesting this rezoning for be attached to the existing building, or are you looking at a separate building on the site?
Speaker 1: Got it. Thank you for the question. Can you can you hear me?
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Perfect. Thank you. It would be a detached building.
Speaker 7: I'm just curious how big of a structure you're able to get on such a small lot?
Speaker 5: It doesn't allow more than 645. I'm pretty sure that the number four.
Speaker 7: Is that square feet 645. Okay. So that's not a big structure then?
Speaker 5: No. So it has different tiers. So depending on the lot size. So if it is smaller than 6000 square feet, I think it's 650. And then if it is between seven 6007 thousand, it's 845. And then anything bigger than 7000, it's like a thousand square feet. So it has tiers depending on.
Speaker 7: The size of the loft, depending on the size of one. Okay. Thank you. I have no further questions.
Speaker 0: Uh, Councilwoman Bruce O'Donnell has his hand up virtually. Did you want to hear from him? Sure. Okay, you can go ahead.
Speaker 4: So, Bruce.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. I was just going to explain exactly what Fran just explained, that the zoning code on a lot of this size has a maximum limit of 650 square feet for an 80. A detached 80.
Speaker 7: You so much.
Speaker 0: All right. Great. Thank you, Bruce. And thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. We don't have anyone up in the queue for any other questions from members of council. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 939. And we'll start out with Councilmember Sandoval.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Simon. This application meets all the criteria, so I would ask that my colleagues support it. My office has met with the West Highland Neighborhood Association, which this property is located within, to see if they would like to go within legislative rezoning or to allow accessory dwelling units throughout the neighborhood.
Speaker 4: They are still deciding that.
Speaker 7: So until that time, we will continue to see one offs throughout this neighborhood. Thank you. And I ask my colleagues to support this this evening.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Sandoval, and I agree with you. This meets all of the rezoning criteria and happy to support it this evening. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 939.
Speaker 5: Sandoval.
Speaker 2: I. Yeah.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 5: Torres.
Speaker 7: Black eye color.
Speaker 1: Eye.
Speaker 5: For an.
Speaker 1: Eye.
Speaker 5: Herndon.
Speaker 2: Eye.
Speaker 5: Catching I.
Speaker 1: Can.
Speaker 5: Each eye. Ortega, I. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 5: 11 Eyes.
Speaker 0: 11 Eyes Council Bill 20 1-0939 has passed. Thank you, Fran. I we'll go ahead and move to our second hearing. Councilmember Sawyer, will you please put Council Bill 944 on the floor for final passage?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 3428 West Moncrieff Place in West Highland.
Approves a map amendment to rezone property from U-SU-A to U-SU-A1 (allows for an accessory dwelling unit), located at 3428 West Moncrieff Place in Council District 1. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 8-24-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_10042021_21-1141
|
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Flynn. All right. There are we're going to go ahead and move on. There are no presentations this evening. There are no communications. We have three proclamations being read this evening. And the first one, Councilmember Hines, will you please read Proclamation 21, dash one, one for one, please.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council President Proclamation 20 1-1141 titled Opposition to Initiative 303 and the Extraordinary Taxpayer Liability It Would Create. WHEREAS. Whereas, in all cities across the US, unsheltered homelessness and encampments have grown invisibility in numbers not seen in almost a century, exacerbated by the COVID 19 pandemic, with at least 1000 people living on the streets of Denver . And. Whereas, the voters of Denver and the city agencies have recently dramatically expanded shelter, hours and services, hotel and other transitional housing innovations and funding for permanent housing with services. But permanent housing solutions take time to implement, and the people of Denver are frustrated and want the city to do more, better and faster. But managing street homelessness and associated public health and safety risk is far more complicated than a sledgehammer approach can deliver. And. Whereas, in July 2021, a signature gathering effort that would become known as Initiative 303 was deemed sufficient by the Denver clerk recorder after the campaign paid signature gatherers over $100,000 from a source of unknown origins. And. WHEREAS, Initiative 303 would require the city to enforce the unauthorized camping ordinance, section 3880 6.2, within 72 hours of receiving a complaint, with no exceptions. And. WHEREAS, Unauthorized camping is already illegal in the city of Denver, and the 72 hour requirement runs counter to a federal court legal settlement and a federal judicial order requiring the city to provide seven days notice of large scale encampment cleanups and. Whereas this initiative would require the city to set up four sanctioned homeless camps but does not lay out how the public does. Designated camping locations would be acquired or determined and provides no comprehensive service standards. And. Whereas, the city already has the legal authority to establish and has already established several highly regulated and staffed safe outdoor spaces for unsheltered individuals, and has done so with extensive health, mental health, housing and other services that go far beyond the barebones and unfunded approach called for in this measure. And. Whereas, this initiative would require the city to allocate millions of dollars more to the Denver Police Department to attempt to comply with the 72 hour enforcement requirement. Fails to include material terms, but authorizes authorizes on a word. Of course, the attorneys fees for each individual action against the city to enforce the ordinance and provides for undefined and vague injunctive relief that may bind the city and unforeseen waste. And. Whereas this initiative establishes a nebulous and vigilante like private enforcement for any unauthorized encampments after 72 hours, with no exception for court orders or processes designed to protect constitutional rights that would result in taxpayer liability of millions of dollars. So now therefore be 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 opposes initiated. Ordinance 303 on November's hour, Denver's November 2021 ballot and urges voters to reject Initiative 303 and the extraordinary taxpayer liability it would create 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.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you. Councilmember Hines, your motion to adopt.
Speaker 2: I moved to adopt proclamation number 21, dash 1141.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded comments by members of Council Councilmember Kenny.
Speaker 7: Thank you. Council President I would like to thank my colleague, Councilman Hines, for reading the proclamation so that I didn't have to do two in a row tonight and to demonstrate the breadth of the interest in this topic. I have to review the law of the land a little bit, because as we've heard from people about these initiatives, there is confusion in our community. It is not illegal to be homeless, but it is illegal to camp on the public or private spaces in the city of Denver without a permit. And it is illegal to block the right of way, such as a sidewalk or a place where people go. It violates our public health code to have conditions that are unsafe or unsanitary. So many things about encampments in Denver are illegal today, and there's a big debate about that. The second thing that is a fact is that camps are being cleaned up every day in Denver. I have notice after notice required under a federal settlement and a federal court order. Such notice is required and so council receives copies of those. I have six from just the last few days where the conditions were verified as being in violation of the law and the camp was cleaned up. We have people who come and testify every day and we heard some of them today who don't like those laws. But that's not what this initiative is about. This initiative has nothing to do with whether it's legal or not legal to camp or block the right of way in Denver. Those things are the law and they will remain the law regardless of what happens with Initiative 303. So what is it about? It's about massive taxpayer liability. That's what it's about. It's about whether or not a city initiative can override the federal Constitution and federal court orders. And I have a preview for you. It cannot. The city of Denver is bound by the highest law in the land, the Constitution. And that has been interpreted by federal courts to say that we have to give notice before we clean up large encampments. We are headed for liability. And I want to be really clear. We councilmembers don't pay for those lawsuits. The mayor doesn't pay for those lawsuits, except to the extent we are taxpayers of the city and county of Denver. So every lawsuit that would be filed under 303, it won't allow us to go any faster and violate the Constitution. It will simply require us to pay lawyers fees and pay for litigation. And what else will it do? It will disappoint the people of Denver who thought they were maybe voting for a faster, easier solution. So we have invested in those solutions. The mayor's budget, to his credit, continues to expand investments in many of those solutions based on priorities that we as a council set and based on their own prioritization, safe outdoor spaces and other things, none of which none of which are meeting this initiative to be expanded. So this initiative. As as I stated during committee, exploits the sincere desire for residents for an easy solution, and it delivers false promises that the taxpayers will be paying for. We cannot override federal law with city initiative, so we will be spending court costs trying to sort all that out. Instead of focusing on helping folks. So I want to be clear, there are folks who are opposed to this who are also opposed to the camping ban. There are many people who are so opposed to this who supports the camping ban. This is an area where both sides can agree. Right. That either way, whether you like or don't like it, it is the law. It is being enforced on a daily basis. And 303 simply confuses and creates expensive liability. So with that, I will ask my colleagues to please respectfully join in supporting the message to the voters of Denver that this proclamation is intended to send. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Kenny. Next up, we have Councilmember Hines.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council president on its face. Three or three looks promising for demarais. Denver writes I know that when I first saw it and I read the ballot language, I thought, Hey, this makes a whole lot of sense. However, the devil is in the details, and the details here will create a legal quagmire. It's an unfunded mandate, and ultimately it will hinder, not help the city's approach to housing and homelessness. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember Hines. And I'll go ahead and chime in here. I'm happy to support this. I think it's important that Denver City Council comes forward and speaks out on initiatives that may, at the end of the day, cause more harm than good and cost taxpayers more money around this issue. And so I am happy to support it. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 4: Can each.
Speaker 7: I.
Speaker 4: Ortega. I. Sawyer. I. Black. See the Barca. I can't.
Speaker 0: All right.
Speaker 4: Flynn.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 4: Herndon. Hines.
Speaker 2: All right.
Speaker 0: Cashman, I.
Speaker 4: Madam President.
Speaker 1: I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced the results.
Speaker 4: 11 Eyes.
Speaker 1: 11 Eyes. Proclamation 20 1-1141 has been adopted. Councilmember each We have 5 minutes for a proclamation. Acceptance. Is there anyone you'd like to invite up?
Speaker 7: Respectfully pass. Thank you.
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation in Opposition to Initiative 303 and the Extraordinary Taxpayer Liability it Would Create.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_10042021_21-1185
|
Speaker 1: 11 Eyes Proclamation 20 1-114 to has been adopted and we are not going to have any proclamation acceptance and so we are going to go ahead and move forward on the agenda. Councilmember Black, will you please read Proclamation 20 1-1185, please.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam President. A proclamation honoring and thanking Sara Tracy and the Central Park Conservancy for its support of the Denver Park Trust in Denver Park System. Whereas, Denver Parks and Recreation, as stewards of a legacy park system, is dedicated to enhancing the health of residents and the environment through innovative programs and safe, beautiful and sustainable places . And. Whereas, Denver Parks and Recreation, guided by a game plan for a healthy city, its 20 year strategic plan for Denver's parks is committed to investing its resources in an equitable manner so that every resident in every neighborhood has access to a quality park. And. WHEREAS, The Denver Park Trust is the official nonprofit partner of Denver Parks and Recreation with a mission to help provide historically underserved neighborhoods with quality parks through fundraising for land acquisition, capital project and community grants. And. Whereas, the Central Park Conservancy stewards of Central Park in New York City, have created the Institute for Urban Parks to draw on their long history and expertize as a leader in the field of urban park management to empower, inform, connect and celebrate organizations that support urban parks and. Whereas the Institute for Urban Parks has selected the Denver Park Trust as one of our four. One of the for national nonprofits to be a member of the 2021 Partnerships Lab cohort and be part of a collaborative process of mentorship and engagement for organizations and agencies that care for parks and public spaces. And. Whereas, the Denver Park Trust and its 11 member Board of Directors will use the financial support, guidance and knowledge gained from participation in Partnerships Lab to engage, support and partner with communities to grow and improve Denver parks where they are needed most. 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 thinks and acknowledges Sarah Tracy and the Central Park Conservancy's Institute for Urban Parks, where their efforts to grow and mentor the Denver Park Trust in support of Denver Parks Section two that the Clerk of the City and Denver shall affix the seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation, and then a copy be transmitted to Sarah Tracy.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you. Councilmember Black, your motion to adopt.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam President. I move that proclamation 21 just 1185 be adopted.
Speaker 1: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Comments by members of Council. Councilmember Black.
Speaker 5: Just a few comments. Do you know that most cities have a nonprofit supporting their park system, while Denver is one of the few cities that did not have a nonprofit supporting it? And in in 2019, the Denver Park Trust was established with a mission to help correct historical inequities in our park system by increasing park land and improving those parks in our highest needs neighborhood. I'm honored to serve on the Denver Park Trust Board with some of my friends over here, and some of the projects we've worked on recently include St Charles, Place Park and Madam C.J. Walker Park. And as a new nonprofit, our team continues to learn, grow and evolved, and we are thrilled to have received this mentorship from the Central Park Conservancy. An interesting, fun fact is that the Central Park Conservancy was formed in 1980 at a low point in New York City's history. They did such an outstanding job fundraising that today Central Park is a safe, active and love park. The Central Park Conservancy has almost full financial and maintenance responsibility for Central Park in the tens of millions of dollars. So they share their bounty with other cities through this partnership lab. And Sara Tracy sitting over here with the blue mask and the blond here is the director of national programs for the Central Park Conservancy Institute for Urban Parks. And she has been mentoring the Denver Park Trust through this partnership lab. And it has been incredibly meaningful. And we have learned so much from you today. We had a day long board retreat and we learned so much. And through your mentorship, Sara, we are going to be a stronger organization and do more good for our own park system. So thank you very much. We really appreciate you coming here and helping us. So thank you.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Black. Up next, we have Councilmember Kenny.
Speaker 7: Thank you so much, Madam President. Just two quick things. One, this is so cool. I love learning from other people. And to learn from a city that has been through park provision for such densely populated areas, I mean, it's just really great. The second thing I just want to say is thank you to Councilwoman Black. She is infamous for being a fierce advocate for District four and more for for if you haven't heard, the mantra is one that we often hear. But, you know, behind the scenes, she is an advocate for every corner of the city and the force of nature that she was working with. The partners who are here today to create this park. Trust is a testament to just her love for the entire city. And so she doesn't do it for the recognition, but it sure is impacting, especially like Northeast. Denver has really benefited from a lot of the efforts where that last dollar is the hardest one to get and the Park Trust has come in. So thank you to you and thank you to the volunteers, all of whom are, you know, really dedicated and serve on multiple boards, often the Park Trust being just one of them to help our parks in Denver. So thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Canete. And thank you, Councilmember Black, for sponsoring this proclamation as one of the founding board members of the Park Trust with you and working with Frank Rowe and Darrell Watson and the great folks with the Park Trust. I just really appreciate your passion and work on this. And we are starting to see some of those dollars flowing into neighborhoods in the far northeast and other parts of our city as well. And so really happy to support this and look forward to see where this partnership goes. Madam Secretary, Roll Call, please.
Speaker 5: Black Hi.
Speaker 4: CdeBaca, High Clerk Hi.
Speaker 0: Flynn Hi.
Speaker 4: Herndon.
Speaker 2: Hi. Hi.
Speaker 4: Cashman Hi, Kenny Ortega. Sawyer, I. Madam President, I.
Speaker 1: Madam Secretary, close voting and announce the results.
Speaker 4: 11 Eyes.
Speaker 1: 11 Eyes Proclamation 20 1-1185 has been adopted and we are going to go ahead and keep moving forward with our agenda this evening. And so congratulations to folks from the Park Trust. This evening, we had a late filing or a need.
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation Honoring and Thanking Sarah Tracy and the Central Park Conservancy for its Support of the Denver Park Trust and Denver’s Park system.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_10042021_21-1184
|
Speaker 1: 11 Eyes Proclamation 20 1-1185 has been adopted and we are going to go ahead and keep moving forward with our agenda this evening. And so congratulations to folks from the Park Trust. This evening, we had a late filing or a need. Councilmember Flynn, we need you to please make a motion to suspend the rules of council to allow for the introduction of a late filing.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam President. I move that the rules of procedure be suspended to allow for the introduction of Council Resolution 21 Dash 1184.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded comments by members of council.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Flynn Oh, you don't want to hear the comments I had when I first found out that this didn't make the deadline. This was supposed to be on the agenda last week. And frankly, it could have been on the agenda as early as August or even before that. This is a Tier three encroachment permit from the city, that it will allow something that's been happening for 174 years to keep happening. When Loretta Heights is developed, this involves the agricultural ditch, which is a an irrigation ditch that is run through south what is now southwest Denver for 140 days. 174. I mean, 147 years. My apologies. The agricultural ditches run from Clear Creek all the way down through Jefferson County and on into what is now my council district and where it drops into the storm sewer system and then back into the Platte River for 147 years with the layout of streets on the campus for development. The city decided that instead of us asking the ditch, which has been there for 147 years, if I hadn't said that already for permission to put our road over top of the ditch with its water rights, we said no. The ditch needs our permission to continue running under the road that we have yet to build there, but will soon build. Well, this seems like a simple matter, and it could have been taken care of a long time ago. As I said, it should have been on the agenda last week when it failed to make the deadline. We were assured it would make it for this week's agenda. It was filed by the administration. One hour and 53 minutes after the noon deadline. 22 minutes before the deadline. One of the persons whose signature is required to move it. To council by the noon deadline was well, I was sending an email to another reviewer basically complaining that some of the files had been transferred to city council prior to everyone signing off on it. Instead of that person signing off on it and getting it to us by the noon deadline. Madam President, I ask for unanimous consent to permit this to go on the consent agenda so as not to reward continued foot dragging by our administrative agencies. And I have offered to work with with those agencies to find a way to improve these procedures. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember Flynn, happy to support you tonight in this. And council members, just a reminder that we will need a unanimous affirmative vote of all those present in voting for this motion to pass the pass for which it would allow for the introduction of this late filing. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 4: Flynn.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 4: Herndon.
Speaker 2: Hines, i.
Speaker 4: Cashman. I can change. I. Ortega. Sawyer. I. Black. I. CdeBaca. I.
Speaker 0: Clerk. I.
Speaker 4: Madam President.
Speaker 1: I. Madam Secretary closed the voting and announced results.
Speaker 4: 11 Eyes.
Speaker 1: 11 Eyes Council Resolution 20 1-1184 may be introduced. Madam Secretary, will you please read the resolution title.
Speaker 4: From Land Use, Transportation and Infrastructure 21 1184 A resolution granting a revocable permit to Loreto Heights Metro District Number one to encroach into the South Penn Street, West Francis Place and South Florida way right of way near 3001 South Federal Boulevard.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Resolution 20 1-1184 has been placed on consent. Madam Secretary, please read the bills for introduction.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution granting a revocable permit to Loretto Heights Metro District No. 1, to encroach into the South Pancratia Street, West Frances Walsh Place, and South Loretto Way rights-of-way near 3001 South Federal Boulevard.
Grants a revocable permit, subject to certain terms and conditions, to Loretto Heights Metro District No. 1, their successors and assigns, to encroach into the right-of-way with seventy-one (71) linear feet of eighteen (18) inch PVC pipe to pass under South Pancratia Street and one hundred three (103) linear feet of thirty (30) inch by nineteen (19) inch horizontal elliptical reinforced concrete pipe to pass under South Loretto Way at 3001 South Federal Boulevard in Council District 2. Councilmember Flynn approved late filing this item on 9-30-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_09272021_21-0849
|
Speaker 1: 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 eight for nine on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 3: I move the Council Bill 20 1-0849 be placed upon final consideration.
Speaker 0: And do pass.
Speaker 1: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. The required public hearing for Council Bill 849 is open and I see we have Jason here and so we'll go ahead and get the staff report.
Speaker 3: Great. Thank you. Council President Gilmore. Good evening. Members of Council Jason Morrison, senior city planner with Community Planning and Development. I'll be presenting the proposed rezoning at 5350 leads. Dale Drive with a request is from B one with waivers to smx3. The Post rezoning is located in Council District five, which is Amanda Sawyer's district. It's in the Washington, Virginia, Vail neighborhood. The proposed rezoning is intended to facilitate redevelopment of the site. The applicant is interested in reusing the existing building, which was formerly a drive through bank to develop a drive thru coffee shop. The proposed zone district S-Max three, which is suburban mixed use up to three stories, allows for a mix of uses in building forms, including drive through services, general and shopfront building forms up to a maximum height of three stories. The current zoning of the subject site is B one with waivers. The B-1 Zone District is a former Chapter 59 Zone District, and it is a limited office district other than banking and financial services, retail uses are not permitted. The approved waivers restricted building heights to a maximum of 35 feet and limit gross floor area of the structures. Surrounding zoning in the area includes a mix of commercial office and multi-unit zoning districts. The existing land use on the subject site is commercial. It's surrounded by mostly multi-unit, commercial and office uses. This slide shows the existing context surrounding the subject site with the proposed rezoning on the top left. Nearby, you see examples of multi-unit and commercial uses, as well as the existing office complex to the south and east of the subject site. The Map Amendment application was unanimously recommended for approval by Planning, Board and Forward by committee. Since the staff report was published, we received two letters of support from community members who are excited to see this type of use and building farm improvement on the retail corridor. I'd also like to note that this particular application was reviewed for large development review, and because any redevelopment on the site does not trigger complex infrastructure planning and or additional level of coordination beyond our existing site development and permitting procedures, an LDR is not required. As you know, there are five review criteria when analyzing the appropriateness of a request. The first criteria is consistency with adopted plans. There are two plans applicable to this rezoning. That's comprehensive plan 2040 as well as Blueprint Denver. The rezoning is consistent with several strategies of the comprehensive plan, and it can be found and detailed in the staff report. When switching to blueprint the future neighborhood context is suburban as this rezoning would allow a variety of building forms in a suburban setting. The proposed district is appropriate and consistent with the blueprint. Denver Context Description. The future place of this area is called Community Corridor, which typically provides some mix of office, commercial and residential. And heights are generally up to five stories. The proposed Smc's three district is consistent with this classification because the Zone District is in a mixed use district that allows a mix of civic, residential and commercial uses and buildings up to three stories served by both a local street and a commercial arterial. The subject property is located within the community centers and corridors growth area. These areas are expected to see 20% of new employment growth and 25% of new housing growth by the year 2040. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the growth strategy mapped in this area. Blueprint also has policy language around rezoning properties from the former Chapter 59 zoning code and out of custom zoning such as the site plan specific condition on a subject property. Therefore, staff finds that this proposed rezoning is consistent with Blueprint Denver. Staff also finds that the requested rezoning meets the next two criteria. The rezoning will result in uniformity of district regulations and will further the public health, safety and welfare primarily through the use of implementation of adopted plans and through improved design outcomes. This rezoning would bring the property from bar after 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 a zone, district purpose and intent of the S-Max three zone district. And based on the review criteria, staff recommends approval of application 2020 i-00201. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Jason. We have one speaker this evening, Jessie Parris.
Speaker 3: He. Good evening. Numbers for those watching at home. My name is Jessica Sampras. I'm representing for black star self defense as the best in command for social change as well as the Unity Party of Colorado and for a long black nose. And I'll be there next November and 2023. Shame on you. Denver City Council for allowing five white supremacists to speak against our unhoused neighbors. That is just shameful. In regards to this rezoning, tonight's. Um. I was initially against it because I thought it was going to be more redevelopments, more development, market rate development that people could not afford to live in. I'm seeing that now. That is going to be a coffee shop. I'm in favor of the rezoning. It meets all five of the criteria. So there's nothing I can tell you that's going to change your mind on this. So go ahead and do what you do in both. I as usual. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. That concludes our speakers questions from members of Council on Council Bill 849. Councilmember Sawyer.
Speaker 4: Thanks, Madam President. Just want to get a couple of quick clarifications on the record. So this is the front piece of the parcel. It's not the entire parcel, is that correct?
Speaker 3: Correct. So it is it is the entire parcel, but it's the smaller parcel on the corner of forest. And we'd still.
Speaker 4: It's not the entire passel that's there. They're not two separate parcels.
Speaker 3: They are. So there's the larger parcel has the existing office structures. Yeah. So that is a separate parcel. And then this is a parcel that has that old bank building.
Speaker 4: So the bank is just a separate front.
Speaker 3: Correct. Right. Sorry if I didn't understand it.
Speaker 4: No, no, that's great. I just I don't I didn't understand because originally when we looked at it on the zoning map, it is one person.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 4: So. Okay, cool. So that's two separate parcels. So we are not done rezoning only half or the front third of a parcel out of chapter 59.
Speaker 0: Correct.
Speaker 4: Okay, great. And then in terms of the kind of discussions around the surrounding area, because there are somewhere between four and 500 units going in between next door and across the street into large developments that are being built. There weren't infrastructure improvements that you know of. Have them. Have there been any that have been planned along the way? It's still quarter.
Speaker 3: It's off the top of my head. I don't have an idea of what has currently been planned. I do know that across the street, I believe it's at 5301 we'd still drive. That is an older application. And so I know that CPD staff is looking at kind of the holistic, you know, kind of 30,000 foot view of how that will impact we'd still drive including that for and these intersection. I also know that and working with our colleagues and Dottie there is an existing study that's out there. It's a ghost spirit still study. And so I know that that's always kind of at the forefront of our thinking and daddy's thinking as well as we're , you know, we're looking at leads still avenue. And so I know that that was brought up during the initial concept meeting with the applicants. And then I think finally I as you know, there is the near southeast area plan which is currently underway. And so we will also be kind of looking at we'd still drive in terms of improvement, any improvements that could be made along the corridor.
Speaker 4: Okay, great. And then as I understand that, the applicant is also going to be doing some safety upgrades, because the the way this parcel works, the, the drive through bank is on kind of like the northwest corner and there's a parking lot behind it where people access the building behind that. Is that are they have they committed to doing some kind of safety upgrades for those pedestrians, given the number of cars that they expect to be going through this area?
Speaker 3: Yeah, great question. This is something that we've talked to them about and I believe it came up during the concept meeting with them as well. And they do have a, you know, for lack of a better term, I guess it's like a pedestrian plan. And so looking at improving the safety for pedestrians that are on the site as well as how they kind of interact with the vehicles that are going to be queuing in line to get their coffee in the morning and in the afternoon. So there is a plan and that involves, I think, better signage, improved striping and I think a couple other items as well. So very, very happy to see that from the.
Speaker 4: Yeah, definitely. Thank you. Thanks so much, Madam President. No further questions.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Hoyer. Next step we have Councilmember Flynn.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam President. Jason, I'm trying to understand the waivers on this site, 5350 leads to the waivers that from the staff report. It looks like the waivers are. You can only have banking and financial services and no retail uses are permitted. Is that correct?
Speaker 3: Correct, yes. And as I mentioned, there's also the height limitation, right?
Speaker 0: Yes, 35 feet. Now, that applies to the entire. PASSEL They're correct. The B-1 with waivers also applies to 50 to 50 lead still drive, which this is part of the same overall site.
Speaker 3: Right. So it's you're correct. So the B one with waivers will still apply to the larger the larger parcel that's to the east and to the south, the existing office buildings.
Speaker 0: Right to the south and to the east, correct of it. So do are there retail or non-banking and financial services uses in those office buildings or are they all.
Speaker 3: They're all office offices.
Speaker 0: As in banking and financial services.
Speaker 3: You know, I don't know. Okay. Hundred percent.
Speaker 0: All right. I'm just curious why the entire site wouldn't be brought out. Now, the justifying circumstances, I sometimes have an issue with using the fact that it's not. It's an old chapter. 59 is a changed circumstance. It's always been in Chapter 59. I'm I'm prepared to to support this because of the waivers issue and the changing nature of Leach Dale Drive. But to use the fact that it's not in Chapter 59 alone as a justifying circumstance, I'm not sure that I would would support that on in other instances. But in this one, I will. Thank you, Madam President. That's all I have.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you. Councilmember Flynn. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 849. Councilmember Sawyer.
Speaker 4: Thanks, Madam President. I appreciate the conversation and I appreciate Councilman Flynn's question. This is a bank that has been closed for a decade. It's an empty building where nothing has been going on. The idea of bringing some some new and changing commerce to the area and providing a service to the residents who live around the area, particularly with residential apartment complexes directly to the west, directly to the north, directly to the east, and then single family homes directly to the south behind that office building. This is, I think, a great adaptive reuse, and it's something our community supports and I support it as well. I think it does meet all the criteria and I would request that my fellow council members find that as well. Thanks.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Sawyer. And see no one else up in the Q. I do agree that it does meet the rezoning criteria and I'm happy to support it this evening. Council Bill 21, Dash 849 is on the floor for final passage. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 849, please.
Speaker 4: Sawyer, I.
Speaker 5: Torres.
Speaker 6: I.
Speaker 5: Flack I set about that. I.
Speaker 3: Clark I.
Speaker 0: Flynn High.
Speaker 5: Herndon, High, High.
Speaker 3: Cashman All right.
Speaker 5: Kenny Ortega.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 5: Sandoval, I. Madam President.
Speaker 1: I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results. 13 Ies 13 Ies Council Build 20 1-849 has passed. Councilmember Hines, will you please put Council Bill 881 on the floor for final passage?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 5350 Leetsdale Drive in Washington Virginia Vale.
Approves a map amendment to rezone property from B-1 WVRS to S-MX-3 (former chapter 59 to suburban mixed-use), located at 5350 Leetsdale Drive in Council District 5. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 8-10-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_09272021_21-0881
|
Speaker 1: I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results. 13 Ies 13 Ies Council Build 20 1-849 has passed. Councilmember Hines, will you please put Council Bill 881 on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 3: Yes, Council President. I move the council bill 20 1-0881 be placed upon final consideration and pass.
Speaker 1: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded the required public hearing for Council Bill 881 is open and I see we have Fran here for our staff report.
Speaker 5: Good evening. Members of City Council, beneficial associate city planner with Planning Services. And tonight we're going to be looking at the rezoning request for 4545 West 35th Avenue. Subject property is in Council District one, represented by Councilwoman Amanda Sandoval. In the West Highland neighborhood. The property is located mid-block between Green Street and Utica Street along 35th Avenue. The site is 5800 square feet and currently contains a single unit house. The applicant is requesting to rezone from UCB to UCB one to allow for an EU at the rear of the property. All other forms of your standards will remain the same. The property is currently in the Urban Single Unit Business District, which allows for a minimum download size of 4500 square feet. As you can see on the map, all the surrounding properties are also zoned useable. The Korean line used for the site is single unit residential and in the immediate vicinity the areas land use are mostly other residential uses. Shown in 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 on August 4th, and while the applicant provided 14 letters of support from neighbors as an attachment to application, staff has not received any further letters of support of or opposition from the public or ordinance. Now moving on to the Denver zoning code, it must be found that the requested MAP amendment is consistent with the five criteria. The first criterion is consistency with adopted plans. There are two plans applicable to this rezoning. The first one is comprehensive plan 2048. The second one is Blueprint Denver. Stated in the staff report. The rezoning is consistent with several goals in 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 moving on to the consistency with Blueprint Denver the subject properties mapped as part of the urban neighborhood context. The future places map designates the subject property as low residential place type. Displaced types have predominantly single and two unit uses, and accessory dwelling units are appropriate. 35th Avenue is designated as a local street, which is mostly characterized by residential uses. The Growth theory and blueprint. Denver is all other areas of the city. These areas are anticipated to see a 10% employment growth and 20% housing growth by 2040. Finally blueprint also includes specific policy recommendations. Housing Policy Forward focuses on diversifying housing choice through the expansion of accessory dwelling units throughout all residential areas. Staff also finds that the requested zoning meets the next two criteria. The rezoning will result in uniformity of district regulations and will further the public health, safety and welfare primarily through its implementation of adopted plans. The justified circumstance for these rezoning. Is a key part of the plan is the approval of the existing U.S. based on district. The city has adopted a comprehensive plan and blueprint, Denver stated throughout the presentation. The proposed rezoning meets the intent of those two plans. Overall, the proposed rezoning is consistent with the urban neighborhood context residential districts and the UCB one's own district. With that stuff recommends approval based on finding or review criteria has been met.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you for the staff report, Fran. We have one individual signed up to speak this evening. Jesse Perez.
Speaker 3: Yes. Good evening. Most accounts for those watching at home. My name is Just Blossom. Paris and I represent the Black Sox. A move for self defense positive actually coming out the sausage chains was the Unity Party of Colorado, the front line black nose. And I'll be the next mayor of Cameron 2023. Once again, shame on you. Denver City Council for allowing 4 to 5 white supremacy could guest star on House Neighbors this evening saying that they don't want housing and they don't want help at all. But it's a blatant lies and they need to stop telling these lies and people need to stop believing these lies. In regards to this rezoning, I'm in favor of it. I support assisted dwelling units all across the city. We have a housing crisis. And we need more attainable, accessible housing. So I'm it's the full support of society going unit. I would love to see accessory dwelling units all over the city in every district, not just district one, but it seems district one is leading the way with the best unit. So good job. Councilwoman Amanda Sandoval. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. That concludes our speakers this evening. Questions from members of Council on Council Bill 881. Give it a moment. All right. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 81. Councilmember Sandoval.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. I believe that this application meets all the criteria and asks that my colleagues vote to approve it.
Speaker 1: Thank you. And likewise. This meets the review criteria, and I will also be supporting this this evening. Members of Council Council Bill 21, Dash 881 is on the floor for final passage. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 81, please.
Speaker 5: Sandoval, I. Sawyer.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 6: All rise.
Speaker 4: I. Black I.
Speaker 5: CdeBaca, clerk. Flynn.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 5: Herndon. I. Hines. I Cashman.
Speaker 2: Or.
Speaker 5: Kenny Ortega. I. Madam President.
Speaker 1: I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announce results. 13 813 highs Council Bill 20 1-881 has passed our pre adjournment announcement on Monday, October 25th. Council will hold the required public hearing on Council Bill 21, dash 1019, changing the zoning classification for five Cook Street in Cherry Creek and a required public hearing on Council Bill 21, Dash
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 4545 West 35th Avenue in West Highland.
Approves a map amendment to rezone property from U-SU-B to U-SU-B1 (allows for an accessory dwelling unit), located at 4545 West 35th Avenue in Council District 1. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 8-10-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_09202021_21-1003
|
Speaker 6: And probably most disturbing of all, menthol cigarets are cheaper in the African-American community. But it's not just African-Americans. Let's be clear. Women disproportionately smoke menthol cigarets. The folks in the LGBTQ community disproportionately smoke these products. Native Hawaiians, Puerto Ricans, folks with behavioral health issues, Filipinos, the marginalized people in society are using these products. There are numerous cities all over the country that are taking this up that we're working with. We want Denver to step in line with this. I know we've all been hearing about the FDA is going to do this about menthol and that about menthol. And that's been 12 years in the coming and nothing has been done. Even if they've begun the rulemaking process process in April, it will take them years to do something. Put Denver's health above that of the profits of the tobacco industry. As was said before, we should be getting rid of all flavors, all products at all locations. No, we don't want to end the sale of all tobacco. We just want to end the sale of flavored tobacco, whether it's sheesha, whether it's e-cigarettes, or whether it's menthol cigarets. With that, I want to thank you for your time and your effort. We will be sending you a letter about this, and I wish you all the best this evening. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is David Hagan.
Speaker 1: And I mean. Good evening, counsel.
Speaker 0: Thank you for allowing.
Speaker 1: Me to speak tonight. I'm going to start out. Maddie was talking about prepared comments. I was just curious if she was prepared, that last statement she said. But I also wanted to thank her for talking about the white power comment, because that was made clear to you all that that was stated by them, by us. Over the last two weeks, DHS has not made a single change. If anything, they've gotten worse than they were before. It's almost like they're they're mocking us for getting they got the contract and they're not going to have any. There's nothing going to happen because they got it. Whoever is pulling the strings, they made sure they got that contract is. Is going to keep going straight. We're going to continue doing what they do, which is treating unhoused folks like garbage. And let's see here. So real quick on the flavored nicotine stuff, I just want to state that I quit smoking years ago using e-cigarettes and I rarely even use e-cigarettes anymore and I use the flavored tobacco. So please don't nicotine. Please don't get rid of those. It was a lifesaver for me and Cigarets are disgusting and I'm glad I was able to quit and onto Chief Payson and his minions, I guess. You know, last summer, a few of you, most of you, I think, said to defund the police when the protests were going on. I doubt when did. But I'm pretty sure everybody else might have mentioned those words. I just listened to a comment of Hines telling Stacey that he wanted to is right there with her to defund the police. And then in the budget meeting the other day, he's got nothing that he's upset about and they're getting a shit ton
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Agreement, between the City and County of Denver and Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. concerning on-call airside and landside engineering services at Denver International Airport.
Approves a contract with Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. for $3,000,000 and for three years, with two one-year options to extend, to provide on-call airside and landside engineering services at Denver International Airport (202055624). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 10-11-21. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 9-8-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_09202021_21-0985
|
Speaker 1: Pestering people. So it's just the lies need to stop and you all need to do what you said you were going to do. But again, we probably know that you won't, because right after that, you know, you gave all that money, the millions of dollars for the the the cameras and the uniforms. So I don't know I don't know where your integrity is when it comes to what comes out of your mouth. Oh, and then and then to top it off, you are adding eight park rangers and and they're going to the only thing they're going to do is go, you know, police unhoused folks, camping van camping bans, you're putting the police money in. Other departments need those boosted up. And it's like the same stuff that was done with the airport and and and DPD where they were mixing and matching their money.
Speaker 0: Our next speaker is Michael Liquid.
Speaker 1: Hello, counsel. Uh, landlords are so important to affordable housing that they get two public comments in a row. Last time we talked about how landlords thrive in a seller's market and only make home ownership more expensive. In a buyer's market, though, this isn't the case. So how do we make it a buyer's market? Well, we build more housing. When you look at that, it's exactly what I've been advocating for. What a coincidence. We are not out of the woods yet, though. What happens when we can't build anymore? We've run out of land. Landlords continue to buy property and slowly start to tip the scales in their favor. Now they own a majority of the property in Denver. Home ownership is out of the question again. But there are still a ton of rentals and not enough people to fill them. What do they do? Well, they could sell the properties that aren't making money. But then they risk housing prices going down, potentially even rent going down. That doesn't seem like a good option. That'll lose money. Well, some of these properties are really cheap to hold on to and maintain.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving the Mayor’s reappointment to the Denver Health and Hospital Authority board of directors.
Approves the Mayoral reappointment of Patricia Dean to the Denver Health and Hospital Authority board of directors for a term effective immediately and expiring 6-30-26, or until a successor is duly appointed. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 9-7-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_09202021_21-0967
|
Speaker 0: Thank you. We're going to go back and try to get Mariana Thompson in the queue. And so I believe we have you moved over to the panelist, Mariana, and so we just need you to unmute, please. Mariana. Okay. It looks like we. Didn't have you accept the promotion. And so. We've tried a couple of times here and it doesn't look like. You're accepting it. Okay. All right. Well, unfortunately, we couldn't get Mariana in the queue. And so that concludes our general public comment session this evening. The next session will be held on Monday, September 27, sine it begins at 12 noon on Friday, September 24th. We look forward to hearing from you all again. Thank you for attending. And please stay with us to attend the Denver City Council meeting. It will begin shortly. Thank you.
Speaker 7: Well, go to your Denver City Council. Please stand by. Full coverage of your Denver city council begins now.
Speaker 0: Good evening. Tonight's meeting is being interpreted into Spanish. Alejandro, would you please introduce yourself and let our viewers know how they can enable translation on their devices?
Speaker 1: Of course. Thank you very much for having me here today. My name is Alex Sandro. Please be patient with me as I give these instructions in Spanish. One of those which is the rest is protected status nominates. Alejandro Arbeit. Elizabeth Nuland The other way to stand escuchar in a legal matter so preference here where they click and globo el mundo was apparently the supreme value they ran up on it and are the original in modo system wasn't the only Tallulah on O'Connell stressful business case. There must have been more. Chuck Grassley, thank you very much.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Alejandro. Welcome to the City Council meeting of Monday, September 20th, 2021. Council members please rise. Are you, as you are able, and join Councilmember Canete in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Speaker 8: And experience on hand to reflect and proud.
Speaker 0: Council members please join Councilmember Kimmage as as the leaders and the Denver City Council land acknowledgment.
Speaker 2: The Denver City Council honors and acknowledges that the land on which we reside is the traditional territory of the Ute, Cheyenne and Arapaho Peoples. We also recognize the 48 contemporary tribal nations that are historically tied to the lands that make up the state of Colorado. We honor elders past, present and future and those who have stewarded this land throughout generations. We also recognize that government, academic and cultural institutions were founded upon and continued to enact exclusions and erasures of indigenous peoples. Me This acknowledgment demonstrate a commitment to working to dismantle ongoing legacies of oppression and inequities and recognize the current and future contributions of indigenous communities in Denver.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Canete. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 4: Black here. See tobacco here.
Speaker 7: Clark, here.
Speaker 6: Flynn here.
Speaker 7: And in here.
Speaker 4: Here.
Speaker 1: Cashman here.
Speaker 4: Can eat here. Ortega here. Sandoval. Here. Sawyer.
Speaker 2: Here.
Speaker 4: Torres. Here. Madam President. Here. 13 members.
Speaker 0: Present. There are 13 members present. Council has a quorum approval of the minutes. Are there corrections to the minutes of September 13? Seen none the minute stand approved council announcements. Are there any announcements this evening? Council member.
Speaker 2: Sawyer Thanks, Madam President. Just wanted to let the community know our annual mailer, which is which looks like this, dropped late last week and should be in District five resident mailboxes by now. So please take the time to fill out that 2021 resident survey. It's really important. That's how we know what our residents want us to advocate for over the course of the next year. District five also has a fun family event this weekend. We're looking forward to District five neighborhood night with the Colorado Rapids. So it's a picnic starting at 430 and the games at six, and then there'll be fireworks after.
Speaker 0: And you can purchase purchase tickets at bit .ly/d5 soccer night.
Speaker 2: And one last quick announcement. The District five cabinet in the community with the mayor is going to be this coming Tuesday, September 28th. Not tomorrow, but next week. And you can sign up to watch it.
Speaker 0: At the dot.
Speaker 2: L y slash cabinet in the community. I hope everyone will join us. Thanks so much. Madam President.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Sawyer. Next up, we have Councilmember Flynn.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Madam President. Just briefly, I want to publicly express gratitude to several people for handling a situation over the weekend that could have been very bad. A constituent notified me just yesterday of a a friend who had just had a baby by a C-section and was being discharged from the hospital but had lost her living situation . And I want to publicly thank Lieutenant Rad quality from District four police Karen via Grana from a district for civilian outreach team British Fisher from host and an and DNA from host and the Volunteers of America for on a weekend and on a during a Bronco game as well by the way, jumping on this and making sure that this woman and her new baby have a place. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Flynn. All right. Seen no one else in the queue for announcements. Will move on. There are no presentations this evening. There are no communications. And there is one proclamation being read this evening. Councilmember Sandoval, will you please read proclamation? 20 1-1086.
Speaker 9: Thank you. Council President Proclamation 1086 Bike to Work Day in Denver. Whereas Denver City The City and County of Denver partners with the Denver Regional Council of Governments, local biking, bicycling organizations and cycling enthusiasts each year to plan activities and events intended to promote awareness of the benefits of bicycle day bicycling.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance approving an agreement with the University System of New Hampshire for $599,072 and through 8-31-24 to provide training and consultation for the development of a Systematic, Therapeutic, Assessment, Resources and Treatment (START) clinical team for a crisis intervention system for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities with mental/behavioral health needs (IDD/MH) and their families or caregivers (SOCSV-202159628-00).
Approves an agreement with the University System of New Hampshire for $599,072 and through 8-31-24 to provide training and consultation for the development of a Systematic, Therapeutic, Assessment, Resources and Treatment (START) clinical team for a crisis intervention system for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities with mental/behavioral health needs (IDD/MH) and their families or caregivers (SOCSV-202159628-00). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 10-4-21. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 9-1-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_09202021_21-0851
|
Speaker 6: Okay. So what you just responded to comes from can each that is not it is not a timing issue to delay this a week or because yet you want to get started in October. How is that how does that jibe?
Speaker 4: So I want to be really clear. We've talked with our partners and they understand the process by which our contracts get approved. That said, we would really like to be able to pass this companion piece this evening so that we can start services as soon as possible.
Speaker 6: Mm hmm. All right. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Madam Secretary, roll call on the postponement.
Speaker 4: See tobacco. I Clark.
Speaker 7: No.
Speaker 4: Flynn. No. Herndon?
Speaker 1: No.
Speaker 4: Hi.
Speaker 1: Hi.
Speaker 4: Cashman. Can I. Ortega. No. Sandoval.
Speaker 9: I.
Speaker 4: Sawyer, I. Torres, I. Black Madam President.
Speaker 0: Name, Madam Secretary. Close voting and announce results.
Speaker 4: Six or seven eyes.
Speaker 0: Seven I's final consideration of Council Bill 20 10967 has been postponed to Monday, September 27. That concludes the items to be called out. All bills for introduction are ordered published. Council members remember this as a consent or block vote and you will need to vote i. Otherwise, this is your last chance to call in an item for a separate vote. Councilmember Kenney, will you please put the resolutions for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor?
Speaker 2: Yes, I move that resolutions be adopted and bills on final consideration be placed upon final consideration and do pass in a block for the following items. 1083099009940995100610120986098709880989099610130980087710011002100. I'm sorry. 10220904094309530942. All series of 21.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 4: Black. I set about that. I. Clark.
Speaker 7: I.
Speaker 1: When I. Herndon, i. Hi. All right.
Speaker 4: Cashman. I can h. I. Ortega, I. Sandoval, i. Sawyer, i. Torres, i. Madam President, I.
Speaker 0: Madam Secretary, close the 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. Tonight, there will be a required public hearing on Council Bill 21, Dash 822 changing the zoning classification for 1544 South Emerson Street and Platt Park. A required public hearing on Council Bill 21, Dash 851 Changing the zoning classification for 3625 West 46th Avenue in Berkeley and a required public hearing on Council Bill 21, Dash 855 Changing the zoning classification for 36453655366536753685370137393745380138113815. West 46th Avenue in Berkeley. Anyone wishing to speak on any of these matters must go online to sign up during the recess of council. Sign up. Opened online at 430. If you've already signed up to speak, please do not sign up again as we've already received your submission. If you have not already signed up to speak, sign up remains open until the end of recess. If there are no objections from members of council will take a 15 minute recess. Council members please return to your seats by 6:23 p.m..
Speaker 7: Hey, Denver. Here's what's happening in your city now.
Speaker 10: Seeing strong people of color coming into their own fighting for what they believe in, unapologetic being who they are, that type of stuff that translates into a really authentic photo. And I just try to capture them as honestly as I can. My name is Armando Genaro. I am a photographer here in Denver and I put on for the city as best as I can. Chin up a little bit and just look over me. Yeah, I grew up in California. I was the son of a jeweler. That's really where I got my creativity from. That desire to always be creating cameras was always just around when I was growing up. So I was always kind of comfortable with like taking photos of, like, large groups of people or just taking, like, intimate portraits. But it was never something that I thought could be a creative outlet for me, much less, you know, as a career. And, you know, to tell stories through photojournalism, I took a photojournalism class at the end of my time at Metro State. You know, before I was just taking photos to be creative. But then when I finished that photojournalism class, I kind of found the direction that I wanted to take my photography in clean. Let me switch lenses up just to tell those stories that I wasn't seeing being told here in Denver, not on a big scale. And so I kind of took that into my own hands. And it's been an honor to be able to like, document and really tell the stories of people here. It's sort of me. Chin up a little bit. Nice. You know, before I moved here, before I decided to stay here. I was very ignorant to what Colorado was all about. I didn't know that there was a huge, deeply rooted lowrider scene here. You know, being from California, being around that all my life, and being influenced by lowrider culture as a kid, it made you want to go out and learn more about the lowrider culture here in Denver. And so, you know, meeting the people and being in the streets here, I was able to learn the history, the deep roots that are here in Denver. You know, there's hints everywhere and it should be celebrated more. And, you know, we're getting that opportunity now. Jeremy from History, Colorado Museum was telling me that they have a exhibit going on. He asked me if I was willing to have some photos that kind of celebrated the built environment in Denver and also connected the built environment to the human element. And so they were looking for photos of people just like out in the city, kind of giving life to these lifeless buildings. I was toying around with the term brick and mortar, and then I wanted to tie the physical aspect of my photos to the kind of like spiritual and emotional aspect of my photos. You know, the soul has a lot to do with how we interact with with the environment around us. And so at first it was like in between brick and soul and concrete and soul. But I just like the way brick and soul flowed better because in the exhibit there's photos of people celebrating, like I said, and there's also photos of people mourning their mourning, the loss of a loved one. It's really dedicated to everybody in Denver who grows up here and lives here and celebrates here and dies here. And ultimately, you know, people are mourned here. It's my way of paying homage to the people who have built the city. This exhibit is from the perspective of an outsider. You know, I'm not I'm not from here, but it's dedicated to the people in the places that have made my experience meaningful here in Denver. A lot of them have people that took me under their wing, taught me a lesson in one way or another. A lot of them are taken in neighborhoods that are meaningful to me that I've spent a lot of time in. One would be lost jazz, and it has my friend Wes Watkins in it, who's a local musician, playing the trumpet inside the legendary rock sounding hotel. It's called Lost Jazz, because if you know the history, you know that the greatest jazz players of all time would perform and stay there for so long. The building is just sat there. And so there's this real ethereal sense to the photo. When you look at it, it's like he's summoning the greats of the past. I also have photos that are from protests because it's my way to voice how I feel about certain issues and certain topics and how I want to lend my support when it comes to advocating for those for those issues, when you see those photos of some some young girls in front of the Capitol protesting for stricter gun laws, I see what the effects that gun violence has on our youth for me to be able to cover those type of events, to help amplify the voices of our young children of color that are affected the most, usually by gun violence. You know, it's important to me being a brown man myself, you know, a Latino son of immigrants growing up on it, have anybody to say, hey, photography is something that you could do.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 3625 West 46th Avenue in Berkeley.
Approves a map amendment to rezone property from U-SU-C to U-SU-B1 (allows for an accessory dwelling unit), located at 3625 West 46th Avenue in Council District 1. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 8-3-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_09202021_21-0855
|
Speaker 10: our young children of color that are affected the most, usually by gun violence. You know, it's important to me being a brown man myself, you know, a Latino son of immigrants growing up on it, have anybody to say, hey, photography is something that you could do. Photography is something that you can make a career out of. You know, it's something that you could use as a tool to inspire other people. I didn't have that with this camera and with what we're doing, I'm seeing the impact that we're able to make. And I just think it's important for the next generation of Latinos that are are coming up to be able to document their own stories in the future, because they have to be in a museum, too. They have to be in a fine art gallery to keep preserving our culture and keep telling these stories. You know, to me, it's it doesn't get any more important than that.
Speaker 7: For more stories, check out Denver's YouTube page or tune in to Denver eight Doc TV. Hey, Denver, here's what's happening in your city now. A day at Sun Valley Kitchen in a community center begins long before the doors open to the public at dawn. Donations arrive. Meals are prepped. Anticipation builds for another busy day for Glen Harper, founder of Sun Valley, the services provided by the community center. We're always meant to be well. I moved into Jefferson Park on the north side of the stadium in 1999. I had been in this space before. I was driving home from work one night and I came to the corner of 13th and Decatur and it was in a complete blizzard. And I said to myself out loud, You should make a left and go check out that building. And I did. And it appeared to be vacant. And that's how everything started. I don't think it was by chance. Actually, I think it was destined. Opening the restaurant was a was part of the plan. Having a commercial kitchen was also part of the plan. We have been doing concession work for the last 20 years and selling fresh cut fries at festivals. So Fries bought this building as we were doing improvements to the building and started to meet neighbors. Became really clear that there was a sense of ownership of this space by people in the neighborhood and that we had a real responsibility to do something that serve the community with this space. Vivi Lemus is programing operations manager. She moves about the building alongside Glenn meeting with the public, addressing needs and developing projects for the community.
Speaker 4: So Sun Valley Kitchen and Community Center was born out of the need to have that gathering.
Speaker 2: Space.
Speaker 4: And also food.
Speaker 2: For the youth.
Speaker 4: And the families and the kids that.
Speaker 2: Live in the Sun Valley area. I feel like we are.
Speaker 4: Situated in a community that.
Speaker 2: Is very diverse. It's a community filled with young families. We are.
Speaker 9: Surrounded by Denver Housing.
Speaker 4: Authority.
Speaker 2: Housing as well. So it's an area in the city that's.
Speaker 4: Like a little pocket that's kind of isolated from this major roads around. I started.
Speaker 9: As a cooking instructor in 2016, coming on Saturdays and teaching cooking classes for.
Speaker 2: Kids in the kitchen. And it was beautiful and.
Speaker 4: Controlled chaos and.
Speaker 2: Those we had up to 20 some kiddos when the pandemic hit. I've been here full.
Speaker 4: Time as the.
Speaker 2: Manager for operations.
Speaker 4: For about a.
Speaker 7: Year. At one time the facility was open to the public. It was a kitchen, grocery and community center. But then COVID. While the rest of the city shut down the doors to the Sun Valley Kitchen remained open. Health concerns closed the community center to the public, but the food pantry remained a bright source of salvation to the neighborhood. Now, with COVID, we have primarily been focusing on our food pantry. That has grown dramatically since COVID. We have had amazing support from our youth employees that help facilitate our low cost grocery program.
Speaker 2: Which we just to meet people where they are. And we not only.
Speaker 4: Provide groceries, but we also provide hot.
Speaker 2: Meals and healthy options for meals.
Speaker 3: We are not aware of it. And I think we set up a little bit of the pandemic a minute ago, yet they get in there that they don't have anything.
Speaker 4: Left in baby. And I think they have a friend who is keeping them.
Speaker 1: Coming from a homeless situation. Path Glenn has reached out to help many people in many ways. One of our sayings is Being your community is being like a family. We're all joined together.
Speaker 7: Creating this space has really been an incredible honor, and it's just an honor to be a part of this neighborhood. It is a incredibly connected neighborhood. Nearly everyone knows everyone. We have kids that run freely throughout the neighborhood and everyone is watching out for all of the kids that are here. And it's just been an amazing experience. By 2 p.m., it's 86 degrees outside, but the staff never slows down. None of the incredible kindness provided by Sun Valley Kitchen could be achieved without the charity of everyone involved. Neighbor helping neighbor is central to the success in providing care to the community.
Speaker 4: Our youth employees are an essential part of what we do here.
Speaker 2: They are used that.
Speaker 4: Have grown up in the Sun Valley.
Speaker 2: And most of them are high schoolers, you know, just 13, 16 and.
Speaker 4: Learning.
Speaker 2: How to just have your first official job.
Speaker 7: We are opening our space up to have more volunteers help with the North Coast grocery program and with our meal prep. We're kind of selective. We do require vaccination and still masks for to protect our youth employees as well as our community members.
Speaker 2: If there's one thing that I really would like for people to know about our community and our kitchen is how that sense of community has not wavered through the pandemic.
Speaker 7: I think it's something that a lot of people would love to be able to have an opportunity to have a space in a neighborhood that they are a part of. And it's been a magical. For more stories, check out Denver's YouTube page or tune in to Denver eight Doc TV. Explore your imagination and reconsider what's possible. After three years in the making, Meow Wolf is now open. This four story exhibition is home to 70 plus unique installations. Rooms and portals go to meow wolf dot com for information and tickets. Here's the event you've loved celebrating for 51 years now with an elevated experience. Denver Oktoberfest has improved music production, full bars, less lines and seamless payment for all food and drink. We can't wait to show off what we've done. The Mexican Cultural Center with the Colorado Symphony presents Latin beats. So Negros de las Americas a free concert which celebrates Hispanic Heritage Month. EDM fans get ready as Rowdy Town nine brings yet another mindblowing lineup to the stage as big, gigantic and Nightmare joined forces at Red Rocks Amphitheater. The nonprofit organizations are Lego Foundation proudly presents Triple Threat Comedy Night with Frank Caliendo, Sal Vulcano and David Spade. This is your last chance to immerse yourself in Van Gogh alive. A large scale COVID safe multisensory digital art experience. Hundreds of bulbs, perennials and plants grown at the gardens are offered, along with expert advice from our horticulturalists take home beautiful bulb bag designs and large custom seed mixes. The sale is located under the tent at the UAB bank Ampitheater. And that's a quick look at what's happening in Denver this week.
Speaker 0: Public hearings tonight for those 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 participating virtually when called upon. Please wait until our meeting. Host promoted 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 they feel comfortable doing so, their home addresses. If you have signed up to answer questions, only state your name and know you are available for questions of counsel. Speakers will have 3 minutes. There is no yielding of time. If translation is needed, you will be given an additional 3 minutes for your comments to be interpreted. We will alternate between in-person and virtual for efficiency by calling in-person participants and then alternating to virtual participants. Speakers must stay on the topic of the hearing and must make their comments to the council members. Please refrain from profane or obscene speech or comments to council as a whole, and please refrain from individual or personal attacks. Councilmember Teenage, would you please put Council Bill 822 on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 2: Yes, I move that council bill 20 1-8082 to 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 822 is open. May we have a staff report? Good evening, members of City Council. I'm an associate city planner with planning services. And tonight, we're going to be looking at the rezoning request for 1544 South Emerson. Emerson Street. The subject property is in Council District seven represented by Councilman Clark. In the Plat Park neighborhood. The property is located mid-block between Florida and Iowa Avenue along Emerson Street. The site is 4160 square feet and currently contains a single unit home. The applicant is requesting to resume to U.S. U A1 to allow for an 80 U in the rear of the property. All other forms and your standard will remain the same. The property is currently in the urban unit, urban single unit business district, which allows for a minimum of 4500 square feet. As mentioned before, the subject lot is only 4160 square feet, which means that to allow for the construction of a detached to you, it needs to be reason to us. You A1 that allows for a minimum of 3000 square feet. As you can see on the map, most of the surrounding properties are also zoned UCB with some UCB one to the West and some U.S. you see to the east. And so. The current land use for the site is single unit residential and in the immediate vicinity. The area's land use are mostly other residential uses. As shown on these photos. The character of the neighborhood is mostly residential. Subject property can be seen in the bottom left image of the slide. Throughout the rezoning process, application notifications have been provided according to Code Requirements. Planning Board recommended approval and not mislead. On July 21st, an a m No letters of support of opposition from the public have been received by staff. Moving on to the Denver zoning code review criteria, it must be found. The request map amendment is consistent with the five criteria. The first criteria is consistency with adopted plans. There are two plans applicable to his rezoning. The first one is comprehensive plan 2040, and the second one is Blueprint Denver. Stated in the stat report. The rezoning is consistent with several goals in the comprehensive plan. The MAP Amendment will promote equity by creating a greater mix of housing options in every neighborhood, and it will lead to an environmentally resilient Denver by promoting infill development where infrastructure and services are already in place. Now moving to the consistency with Denver the subject properties map is part of of the urban neighborhood context. The future places map designates the subject property as low residential place type displaced types have predominantly single and two unit uses, and accessory dwelling units are appropriate. Emerson Street is designated as a local street, which is mostly characterized by residential uses. Blueprint. Denver also provides guidance on when it's appropriate to rezone to a second district, which with a smaller minimum lot size is appropriate when a pattern of smaller loads with similar uses is present in the surrounding blocks, while the block with a subject site only shows a few loads that are smaller than 4500 square feet, we can see to the west of Clarkson Street where the zoning is used to be one higher percentage of smaller lots in the single unit residential uses more consistent with the proposed US-EU A1. The growth area in Blueprint. Denver is all other areas of the city. These areas are anticipated to see 10% employment growth and 20% housing growth by 2040. Finally, blueprint also includes specific policy recommendations. Housing Policy four focuses on diversifying housing choice through expansion of accessory dwelling units throughout all residential areas. Study also finds that the requested signing meets the next two criteria. The rezoning will result in uniformity of disregarded regulations and will further the public health, safety and welfare primarily through the implementation of adopted plans. Justified circumstance for this rezoning is a key part of the plan. Since the approval of the existing U.S. Sub Zone District, the city has adopted the Comprehensive Plan 2040 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 neighborhood context. Residential districts and the U.S. view a one zone district. With that stuff recommends approval based on finding already criteria has been met. All right. Thank you, Fran. This evening, we have one individual signed up to speak and he's joining us online. Jesse Paris.
Speaker 1: Yes. Good evening. Member of the council. My camera's off for some reason. My name is just with Sampras. I'm representing the Black Sox. A more self defense positive to memories of the Chinese was the Unity Party of Colorado the frontline black north and I'll be the next my member in 2023. I just want to say I'm in favor of this rezoning tonight. I need more. It's just a growing unit and we have a housing crisis. So the CSU darling units are most needed at this time. So any time this council is approving of accessory dwelling units, I'm all for it. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. That concludes our speakers this evening for this hearing. Questions from members of Council on Council Bill 822. Not seeing any questions. I was going to give it a second there, Councilmember Flynn.
Speaker 6: They ram presidents. It appears to take a few seconds after you hit the button to do that.
Speaker 7: Is there a.
Speaker 6: There's a minimum width for a lot in the zone district. And that is what.
Speaker 0: On which district?
Speaker 6: I'm sorry.
Speaker 0: Which one?
Speaker 6: For this rezoning to A1 in the urban context.
Speaker 0: I'm pretty sure we were just talking about that. We? Where is that? I think it's 37.5. She'll be.
Speaker 3: Great.
Speaker 0: I mean, she might need you to come up to the mic so you can introduce yourself. Oh, sorry.
Speaker 6: Okay. I just looked up here. It's 25 feet. Okay. And is there a minimum depth? I haven't seen a minimum lot depth on any of these other than in the suburban context for F1.
Speaker 0: That's correct.
Speaker 6: So this lot is about 125 feet deep.
Speaker 0: I am not sure. But okay.
Speaker 6: All right. Thank you. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Flynn. Not seeing any other questions. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 822 Council member Clark.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Madam President. I'd say thank you to staff for putting this all together, and I think that this clearly meets the legal criteria for rezoning, and I'll be supporting it and encourage my colleagues to do the same. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Clark, and agree that the rezoning criteria have been met and happy to support it as well. Council Bill 21, Dash 822 is on the floor for final passage. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 8 to 2, please.
Speaker 7: Clark, i.
Speaker 4: Flynn.
Speaker 1: I. Herndon, I.
Speaker 4: Paint.
Speaker 1: All right.
Speaker 4: Cashmere. I can eat. Ortega, I. Sandoval. I. Sawyer, I. Torres, I. Black. I. See tobacco, i. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results. 3913 Eyes Council Bill 20 1-822 has passed. Thank you, friend. Next up, Councilmember Kimmich, will you please put Council Bill 851 on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 2: Yes, council president. I move that council bill 20 1-0851 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 851 is open. May we have the staff report from. It's going to be very similar. Mm hmm. Good afternoon. Jump in, if you like, in planning services. The next case we're going to look is a rezoning request for 32, 36, 25 West 36th Street. Four 3625 West 46th Avenue. Subject property is in Council District one, represented by Councilwoman Amanda Sandoval. In the Berkeley neighborhood. The property is located between Loa Laurel Boulevard and Osceola Street along 46th Avenue, right at the corner of the alley . The site is 5090 square feet and currently contains a single unit house. The applicant is requesting to rezone from U.S. you c to us ub1 to allow for an 80 u in the rear of the property. All other forms and U standards will remain the same. The property is currently in the urban single unit season district, which allows for a minimum standard of 5500 square feet. As I mentioned before, the subject load is only 5090 feet, which means to allow for the construction of a detached you. It needs to be a reason to use you. Be one. That allows for a minimum. So a lot of 4500 square feet. As you can see on the map, most of the surrounding properties are also shown you, as you see with some others, you see one, two or so and a public park to east. The current land use for the site is single unit residential and in the immediate vicinity of the area. Land use are mostly other residential uses. 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 on July 21st and a present. No letters have received from the public or a have received by stuff. Moving now to a Denver zoning code review criteria. It must be found that the request map amendment is consistent with the five criteria. The first criteria is consistency with adopted plans. There are two plans with rezoning. The first one is comprehensive plan 2040, and the second one is Blueprint Denver. As stated in the staff report, the rezoning is consistent with several goals and comprehensive plan. This MAP amendment will promote equity by creating 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 blueprint the subject properties mapped as part of the urban neighborhood context. The future places map designates the subject property as low residential place type. Display stops have predominantly single and two unit uses, and accessory dwelling units are appropriate. 46 Avenue is designated as a residential collector. Street Street. Blueprint. Denver also provides guidance on when it's appropriate to rezone to us on districts with a similar minimum so lot size. It's appropriate when a pattern of similar loads with similar uses is present in the surrounding blocks. The block with the subject site shows a large proportion of properties that are under 5500 square feet, which would be consistent with the US be one district and a few lots that are larger than 5500, which would be consistent with the existing song district of us, you see. Therefore, Stuff.co.nz considers there is a pattern of smaller loads with similar uses and the applicant's proposal to respond to a district with a smaller load so lot size is consistent with the future places map and blueprint guidance for applying the no residential future place type. The growth area in Blueprint. Denver is all 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 expansion of accessory dwelling units throughout all residential areas. Stuff 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 implementations of adopted plans. The justified circumstance for this rezoning is so severe that the plan, since the approval of the existing U.S., you see some district the city has adopted the Comprehensive Plan 2040 and blueprint, Denver stated throughout this presentation. The proposed rezoning meets the intent of this plan's. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the urban neighborhood context residential districts and the you as you be one zone district. That's a frequent approval based on finding already criteria has been met. All right. Thank you, Fran. We have one individual signed up to speak this evening joining us online. Jesse Paris.
Speaker 1: Yes. Good evening. Watching at home. Those in the council members. One name is just represent for blacks strong symbol for self defense positive action can work for social change as well as the unity party of Colorado and front black males and I will be there next November 2023. I'm in favor of this rezoning tonight for the reasons I stated on the previous rezoning. We have a housing crisis, so any time that this council's approving zoning increases, the housing stock, whether it's special units to granny flats, however you want to call that, I'm in full support, so please pass this to my good councilwoman, Amanda Sandoval , for leading the way with these accessory dwelling units. I would love to see these in all areas of the city, not just in District one or just that simple. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. That concludes our speakers questions for members of Council on Council Bill 851. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Madam President. Friend. Our next hearing involves a lot of properties on the same block asking for the exact same thing. And this one is broken out separately. And I'm curious, why are we hearing this separately?
Speaker 0: Well, as you know, these are application driven applications. So this applicant had applied first. It just happened that they ended up in the same timeline. And also, they're a little bit different because this one has early access. The others don't. So we figured that. That makes a difference.
Speaker 6: So this applicant had the option of being bundled with the others, but chose not to because of different circumstance.
Speaker 0: Yes, I know he could, but also he had applied before, so he wasn't sure that the other group was going to be able to coordinate everything. He's in a hurry to get the rezoning, so it just happened that they ended up being together. But he had applied earlier in the process.
Speaker 6: Okay. And I think, Madam President, that was it. Except for. Let me. This is from C to B1 and ah, do you know what the minimum width and there is no minimum lot depth.
Speaker 0: No that's only an F1.
Speaker 6: Only F1. And there is no F1 in the urban context. No. Okay. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Flynn. The public hearing is closed. Comments from members of Council on Council Bill 851. Councilmember Sandoval.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Madam President. I believe that this application meets the criteria, and I ask my colleagues to offer support.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Sandoval and I agree that it does meet the rezoning criteria and we'll be voting in favor tonight. Council Bill 21, Dash 851 is on the floor for final passage. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 851, please.
Speaker 4: Sandoval, I. Sawyer, I. Torres, I. Black. I see the bucket. I cut.
Speaker 7: My.
Speaker 4: Friend.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 4: Herndon. Hines All right. Cashman. I'm Kenny Ortega. I. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 4: 13 Eyes.
Speaker 0: 13 Eyes Council Bill 20 1-851 has passed. Thank you, Fran. Thank you. We're going to move on here. Council member, can we please put council bill 855 on the floor for final passage.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 3645, 3655, 3665, 3675, 3685, 3701, 3739, 3745, 3801, 3811, 3815 West 46th Avenue in Berkeley.
Approves a map amendment to rezone property from U-SU-C to U-SU-B1 (allows for accessory dwelling units), located at 3645, 3655, 3665, 3675, 3685, 3701, 3739, 3745, 3801, 3811, and 3815 West 46th Avenue in Council District 1. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 8-3-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_09132021_21-0982
|
Speaker 0: 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 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 refrain from individual or personal attacks. Councilmember Ortega, will you please put Council Resolution 982 on the floor for adoption? I don't know. I think we might need your mike on again. Is it? Is it on? Huh? Okay. Okay. We might be having some wiring difficulties or something. Go ahead, please.
Speaker 6: Council Resolution 21 980 to be adopted.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded the 30 minute courtesy public hearing for council resolution 982 is open. May we please have the staff report? And I see we have Wolf in here.
Speaker 2: Good evening, Madam President. I just want to quickly recognize a 50 year resident of the city who's making his first appearance in these chambers, Bill Fenton Senior, who said he appreciates all the work that you all do. I tell him to expect some tough questions and conversation, and he said he'd expect nothing less. So good evening, everyone. Watching in attending. I'm Will Fenton from the Denver Department of Public Health and Environment, the kind of a truncated presentation compared to a few weeks ago, but certainly happy to address any questions as they come up. The proposal before you is a resolution approving amendments to a contract with Environmental Hazmat Services Inc. for the collection of discarded and abandoned hazardous waste on city owned property and other public spaces and the cleaning of these impacted areas citywide. DDP is the sponsoring department for the contract for this agreement is extremely important to the other agencies represented here because of the protection it provides to the public health of all residents and visitors that we serve. And also two city employees who are not trained or equipped to safely collect hazardous waste and clean impacted space. The scope of work also includes the collection, safekeeping, storage and return of possessions temporarily relinquished by persons experiencing homelessness. The current agreement expires on October 10th, 2021. In 2020, this agreement was amended to include rapid response services, whereby the contractor must provide onsite services within a 1 to 2 hour window of time at all hours of the day or night in facilitation of the arrest of individuals whose possessions or wastes require storage or disposal. Quickly, what is hazardous waste and where's it collected? And what public spaces are cleaned? Hazardous waste can be household waste included. Abandoned and misused propane canisters. Hazardous waste is chemical and medical waste. Discarded sharps, drug paraphernalia and drug making materials present a hazard to city staff and the public and are also collected by us. Hazardous waste can also be human and animal waste, food waste, soil, bedding, hazardous consumer goods, camping, fuel, industrial chemicals and other materials. Public spaces, like some of these pictures here that you've seen. Some of them. Include alleys, sidewalks, public buildings, parks and adjacent areas, as well as riverbanks and similar greenspace. On the left here, we have HHS employees cleaning the area behind the restaurant, Skyline Park. An area next to a park trail, an impacted space by a roadway, and the fountain outside city offices of Colfax and Broadway. And finally, an oil drum dumped in an alley. Resolution 2109 82 extends this agreement for an additional two years to round out the maximum five year term contract language has been added that require DHS personnel attend and pass sensitivity training. Language has been added that clarifies that DHS employees are not to engage with or negotiate with members of the public on behalf of the city and on site cleanups, always deferring to city representatives. In conversations with DHS directly that I've been a part of, we emphasized that we will not and we will not tolerate inappropriate comments or any inappropriate behavior from HHS employees. We hear your feedback and we've made adjustments. We're requiring DHS to participate in structured onsite performance review. With city staff after site cleanup for requiring clarified invoice practices to break out onsite cleanup from offsite storage operations, charges and other expenses. We've added to the contract that each of us comply at all times with the household when we're relevant to their tasks. The city has the right to terminate this agreement with cause upon written notice, effective immediately and without cause. Upon 20 days. Prior. Written notice to written notice. IHS. We also heard feedback that these cleanup efforts involving IHS were not sufficient. City staff will collaborate and are collaborating with DHS to sign off on DHS work completion after their work is completed. Their work is focused on removing hazardous materials and cleaning public spaces so that they're safe for residents. Dottie is also coordinating internally to create a checklist for completion of additional site cleanup by city personnel. Then city staff are also reviewing storage site locations and hours, almost none. We also heard your feedback about more contract expenditure details. On the left of this screen is a table of expenditures by agency and on the rate by year, the total approximate expenditures used for equipment cleanup for this contract are between 750,000 and $900,000. The city currently receives. 400 or 500 citizen complaints of encampments per week. That volume has been consistent for the past two and a half months. Parks and Recreation has also spent more than $350,000 to date on removing hazardous materials from and cleaning our city's parks. The purpose of this contract is protecting public health for everyone. Protecting public spaces for all of us. And protecting city employees by contracting with hazardous waste management personnel to adequately provide these protections, this very necessary service to the city. We ask that you support extending this agreement. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Will, for the staff report. And this evening, we had 22 individuals sign up to speak. I want to give folks a reminder. This is a half an hour, 30 minute courtesy, public hearing. And so we will most likely not get through all of the speakers, but we want to give folks an opportunity to voice their opinions. But knowing this is a contract and it's either for or against vote, we want to limit duplicative testimony. And so I'm going to call up the first few speakers in person so that we'll go through about five of them and then we'll go ahead and transition online. So if we can have a ready to go, our first speaker is Tim Savas and then we will follow with Katie Blakey, Lauren Echo, John Stockton and. You see here. Things will work here. John Stockton. Let me see. Oh. And then been done in. All right. We can go ahead, sir, and get started.
Speaker 2: Hello. I'm Tim Sabers. I'm here to support the renewal of the.
Speaker 5: Hazardous.
Speaker 2: Materials contract for the large scale and encumbrance clean ups. These cleanups are critical in and for Denver. They are saving neighborhoods and are creating much needed peace.
Speaker 5: For everyone.
Speaker 2: On those blocks. The hazmat crews that are involved do impressive work and are.
Speaker 5: Crucial for the successful.
Speaker 2: Completion of these cleanups. I would like to commend the police officers, daddy personnel, again, the houseman contractors and all of the other city contractors that perform their work at these clean ups in a consistently professional manner.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Katie Blakey.
Speaker 3: Hello, council members. My name is Katie Blakey. I live in District ten, and I'm asking you to please end this contract with us. Understand that this is a tough topic. So let's break it down a little bit. You have a contract before you with a vendor who over the last three years has habitually failed to adequately provide the services for which they're contracted. They're supposed to leave sites of encampments free of hazardous materials and debris after displacement. They leave them filthy. Community members like me, like Headwaters, are forced to clean up after them. They're supposed to provide storage services, but DHS frequently trashes belongings. Residents have told them they want to keep her store. By his own admission, and from the data you've seen from DEO, very few people ever recover their belongings. Twice in just the past week and a half, DHS was not even at the storage facility during its hours of operations when someone tried to retrieve their belongings. They failed to show up frequently. This violates the legal settlement, opening the city up to further litigation. When they were first awarded the contract as a storage hours were from 12 to 4 p.m. Monday through Friday, a total of 20 hours per week, and the city would be billed for up to 20 security hours per week. Now they've changed their hours to 6 to 8:30 a.m. on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday and from 12 to 6 p.m. on Thursdays. Though the facility is now only open for 16 hours per week, they charge the city for up to 28 hours of security per week. What more does it take to show that DHS has no business partnering with the city? How much incompetence is too much? How many times is too many when it comes to not performing the services contracted? How far can IHS implement creative scheduling to overcharge the city by tens of thousands of dollars before you say enough is enough ? How much litigation are you willing to subject the city to because they can't be bothered to show up? Where do you draw the line? On top of all of that, they're abusive to unhoused residents and frequently get into verbal and sometimes nearly physical altercations with housed residents. Why should host who is responsible for solving one of the most urgent crises in our city have to redirect their limited resources to train a private company as employees? It's not the spirits. People talk about getting shitfaced while working or getting fights with the public while they're doing their job. This is a failure of leadership, and the city is in no way responsible for remedying that failure. The services outlined in this contract are crucial. And in the case of storage ones, the city is court ordered to provide. We need a trustworthy, competent and reliable partner to help the city address one of the most challenging issues it faces. IHS is not that partner. City departments have known about issues with IHS for a long time. You have other options. Use the existing regulated hazardous waste contracts with custom, environmental and ajuste until she is able to find a new vendor. If Headwaters Protectors can form in a matter of weeks to provide excellent sanitary waste services, surely you can find a vendor to pay that will do the same. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Lauren Eko.
Speaker 9: Her counsel. I'm here to speak against this resolution. As we've already discussed this previously in the Safety Committee, I mostly wanted to address a sort of strawman argument that the city has put forward against any sort of criticism against this contract, that this is these public health conditions are a problem and that we need to address them . Nobody is saying that we don't need to address them. In fact, what people have mostly been telling you is that we aren't addressing them, that this is what DHS is doing, is not effectively resolving these hazards in any way. The massive amounts of trash and hazardous actually discarded syringes, etc., that have been found by head water protectors and other community members after sweeps demonstrates that they're not even necessarily very effective at cleaning. Out to mention that this contract has been going on for three years now. The public health conditions in encampments aren't getting better. If anything, they're getting worse, which seems like ample evidence that this isn't working. And I'm invoke your pain and do three things right. It's cleaning storage and comporting themselves with decency around vulnerable members of our population. I mean, the cleaning clearly isn't working. The storage part is laughable. I mean, at the Arc and Sweep last year, which was, I would remind you, the largest sweep in the city's history, displacing 300 people. Exactly. Two people had their belongings stored with the city as a safety committee. Your own employees said themselves that almost nobody is ever able to retrieve their property, which the D Hall survey data from last year. There's that out that almost nobody tries and even fewer are able to. Which makes sense, because if you've ever tried, it's a huge pain in the ass. I have seen one man attempt to retrieve his property. It took him a week, which he was only able to eventually do because he was able to get a ride from an activist back and forth across town because the storage facility wasn't even reliably accessible during its posted hours, which apparently continues to be the case. Nonetheless, DHS is overcharging the city for it, exploiting the four hour minimum payment for its security contractors to apparently charge a lot of money for a service that it's not even effectively providing. And then, I mean, countless people have told you about the egregious disrespect and unprofessional behavior by your employees, which I'm glad that you're attempting to address with sensitivity trainings. But it seems extremely naive to think that that will fix this problem because you just doesn't have a staffing problem. The city has created a staffing problem by the job that you have have given them to do is one that positively attracts cruel and callous people as well as unprofessional people. Because, you know, those are the only people who are going to be willing to do this job as it's put in place, and particularly the only ones who will be comfortable enough to not burn out doing it, you need to to start addressing these public health issues in a more preventative way by providing trust services and things and service boxes, etc..
Speaker 0: Next speaker is John Stockton, followed by Ben Benjamin.
Speaker 1: Hi. My name is John Stanton. I live in Denver, Colorado. I am here to speak against the renewal or the extension of this contract. I was also at the super committee meeting about a week, two weeks ago, and I was curious to hear a lot of people speak with a lot of authority about how the sweeps are executed, including city officials that do not actually attend the sweeps. I've been to more than 75 sweeps this year alone, and I document that I show up at between five and 530. So I'm there before many of the city officials, before the city officials, before the mayor's office. And the architecture and the culture of the sweep is something that you can't understand until you're there. They can put a very pretty face on it. They can put a very sterile explanation of what they do. But the actual trauma that is inflicted during these sweeps is indescribable, unless you've seen it. I know that there's a few council members who have been here at a sweep. I would encourage the rest of you to go down to one. And there was there was two last week. There's going to be another two this week when they describe how you just behaves. It is. The most sterile explanation of what they do. In fact, when I arrive at five or 530 is often residents already in distress because the only people on the ground are NHS officials and a single employee. And those groups of people are there every morning. They work together. They have a very abusive, almost gang like culture in the way that they act, the way that they address unhoused advocates, the way that they address unhoused residents. And as soon as someone pulls out a camera or as soon as someone shows up with any sort of authority, that changes on a dime. But these individuals and this company shows up at 5 a.m. before there's accountability.
Speaker 2: And also in some of the.
Speaker 1: Addendums to this contract, some of the shifts that they say they're going to make improvements upon. I'm very curious where that accountability system is going to come into place. If you have three or four DHS contractors who work with a single DOD employee as their overseer. I'm not sure why Adam Abeyta was able to speak so confidently last week, when Adam has only been to one sweep in the last four months versus the single DOT employee who would likely be the contact point of confirmation that the area is clean, that everything is being handled very well. The culture of abuse, that the sweep also means that people protect each other's backs. And when you have the same individuals committing the same egregious verbal abuse, physical stealing of objects, destruction of property without any real concern for people's autonomy, they are going to protect one another. So some of those fixes in the contract are far too vague. There's far too many loopholes where the same people will be able to sign off and say, Well, you did a good job. You did a good job, wink. And that's very worrisome. And the fact that that hasn't been considered shows a real lack of consideration for who this affects. There are up to 1500 unhoused people on the streets every night in Denver. These sweeps have been happening at an incredible rate, 300% stronger, greater than they were happening last year. And it is your responsibility to make sure that those vulnerable populations are protected. You have the opportunity to choose a new contractor. It is not the most convenient option. It is not the easiest. It will require more work. But that is what you.
Speaker 2: Are here to do. You are here to serve your people regardless of whether they have a home or not. And IHS has not.
Speaker 1: Been doing their job. They have not been fulfilling their contract obligations. And I feel like you also would not if you continue this contract.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Ben Dunning.
Speaker 1: Hello. My name is Benjamin Denning.
Speaker 5: I've been a resident here in Denver.
Speaker 1: For 55 years since I was three.
Speaker 5: Currently live in five.
Speaker 1: Points.
Speaker 5: And I'm one of the original founders of Denver. Homeless out loud.
Speaker 2: Every week, week in and week out.
Speaker 1: Everyone seems to be complaining.
Speaker 5: About homelessness in front of this.
Speaker 1: Body. The misinformed call them drug addicts and thieves.
Speaker 2: And the truth is, it's not any more so than.
Speaker 5: The lot of us here in this room, the better informed call for solutions.
Speaker 2: Which are often presented with unnecessary roadblocks. Even from this esteemed body, a couple of examples of that are roadblocks that this body has done. In 2019, there were several budget amendments.
Speaker 1: That address the biggest.
Speaker 2: Concerns that our communities have trash removal.
Speaker 1: And.
Speaker 2: Access to bathrooms. And then several other things that could help. This body didn't pass a single one of those last year.
Speaker 1: In addition to those things like that.
Speaker 2: This body did not pass an amendment that could have housed a thousand of the folks that are currently out on the streets. That would made a huge impact standing in the way. Now, tonight, we're talking about renewing a contract with a body that's been, frankly, abusive.
Speaker 5: To our homeless community. So the agencies go out there, they're learning, they're doing better.
Speaker 2: But DHS, it's almost as if they don't care. They want to get away with anything.
Speaker 1: They can make as much money.
Speaker 5: As they can and they do a poor job.
Speaker 2: You've heard examples of that.
Speaker 1: Tonight for examples of them leaving trash behind. The community groups have to clean up. Now, last time we were here talking about this subject, some folks inside the city.
Speaker 2: Told you the process for.
Speaker 1: Getting somebody else in here and what would need to be done. Like John was saying earlier. So I'm going to be easy, but you need.
Speaker 2: To do it.
Speaker 1: Because the damage that these people are causing into people's lives.
Speaker 2: Is going to just it's going to continue to escalate. And at.
Speaker 1: Some point, this body is going to need to not be passive and to just allow things to go along and take serious.
Speaker 2: Action in order.
Speaker 1: To protect our communities. Because by doing this right, we're not only protecting the homeless, but we're protecting people in.
Speaker 2: Houses and.
Speaker 5: In our communities.
Speaker 2: But what happens is you get real estate folks who stand to.
Speaker 5: Profit from this, and they want to put a big wedge into two communities that need to learn how to get there.
Speaker 1: Earlier this evening, you heard real estate agent talk about the financial incentives during.
Speaker 2: General public comment. He described to you how the.
Speaker 5: Finances work and.
Speaker 1: What the motivation is there.
Speaker 5: The number one thing that's going to drop the value on on their properties is visible homelessness.
Speaker 1: And if they call the police.
Speaker 2: And pay off enough.
Speaker 5: Council members or real.
Speaker 2: Estate lobbies or however they do it.
Speaker 1: They can get them timely moved. Like what we did up over there by the Arkin's camp not too long ago in order to make their contract. And then they don't.
Speaker 5: Care because they've already made their sale.
Speaker 2: But that's not what's important.
Speaker 1: What's important is the.
Speaker 2: Health of our community. And because we are.
Speaker 1: Not taking active things to keep these camps from getting dirty, that's.
Speaker 0: The time we have allotted for each speaker. We're going to go ahead and move to our online hearing participants. Our first one is Terry.
Speaker 3: Told the board.
Speaker 1: HILDEBRANDT And I'm a resident small business owner and property owner for over 25 years in the Golden Triangle neighborhood of District ten. I'm asking that you vote to extend the contract the city has with environmental hazmat services. This contractor is essential to the city's efforts to address dangerous, unhealthy homeless encampments. The extremely important that we have contractors available to remove hazardous waste such as feces, urine, discarded needles and rotting food. Where would our city be without this essential service provided by environmental hazmat services? Who has the expertize to safely remove these hazards from our streets, restore our sidewalks and public spaces? We can't imagine if this was left to an already overloaded city workforce that doesn't have this specialized expertize. I have witnessed encampment cleanups and have found this company doing this difficult job in a respectful, kind, patient and thorough way. In the last year and a half, I have witnessed 11 I repeat 11 serious camp mats within two blocks of my home. Many of these had so many needles that we were afraid to even go close for fear of stepping on these needles. And we have seen trash. The sidewalks were completely blocked. In the encampment there was right outside my front door. I was able to witness the entire cleanup from my front door. And I am genuinely grateful for Dottie and the environmental hazmat services group. I look forward to hearing from you and your support.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker online is Matty Hughes.
Speaker 3: Hi. Sorry. Can you hear me?
Speaker 0: Yes. Yes.
Speaker 3: Hello. So I am speaking tonight to urge all of you to please vote no to the renewal of the city's contract with us. And as someone who has attended many sweeps and seen with my own eyes the inhumane way that DHS workers and DPD engage with the unhoused population, I believe it would be a senseless, cruel and counterproductive move to renew this contract. I attended the presentation of the survey by D Hall a few weeks ago to City Council, and although I already knew while that the sweeps do not help anyone in the city, if that presentation made it even more clear how detrimental these suites are. Safe. Outdoor spaces are an excellent solution. Continue trashing of human beings belongings multiple times a week or not. If you know any people experiencing homelessness in Denver or at all. Sorry, you know how traumatic the sweeps are. People lose essential belongings daily, including their ID, cellphones, wallets, few remaining photos of family and friends, their bikes, blankets, tents , which are their homes and more. They often have no way of preventing this, as the city is not following the guidelines set by the settlement of the wildfires Denver case. There is not appropriate signage giving notice for the sweeps, and often they do not give the required advance notice at all. The sweeps leave behind trash anyway. They should not even be referred to as clean ups. Please watch. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm reading off the email I sent, but I also wanted to say that I think it's also worth noting that the Council president should recuse themselves from voting on contracts that directly benefit a department led by their spouse. That's a direct conflict of interest, and it would be disrespectful to their constituents, the whole city, and show a complete lack of integrity and responsibility otherwise. And I also just wanted to say to some of my fellow Denver residents who showed up to speak that it's a harmful and uninformed narrative when they say that people experiencing homelessness are leaving needles all over the place. Sometimes they are. But we should note that a lot of those needles are needed for conditions like diabetes. People in homes have the privilege of being able to throw those things away, and the city is simply not providing the trash services that they need to clean up their messes. That people want them to do, but it's simply ignorant, uninformed and harmful to continue this narrative that unhoused people are only drug addicts and criminals. There are people going through incredible hardships that we could never understand unless we were going through the same thing. And I beg of you, this.
Speaker 0: Time we have a lot of. Our next speaker is Wendy. He sent.
Speaker 3: Her ammo. Nine. Thank you for your service to our city. Every day, Denver residents, businesses and visitors look at the homeless encampments spread out across our once beautiful city, from downtown to neighboring communities, our parks and trails. The trash and hazardous waste from these encampments and neighborhoods on the trails from overnight camping and even in our parks after curfew, sweeps have way surpassed any level of order. Our city is full of an unsustainable amount of trash, needles, drug paraphernalia, human feces, urine, gas, propane tanks, rotten.
Speaker 6: Food, etc., etc. causing the spread of disease.
Speaker 3: Infestation of rodents and bugs. Jeopardizing the health and safety of our citizens. Environmental Hazmat Services is a critical contractor.
Speaker 6: That has been professional.
Speaker 3: Conscientious, and provides a service that is absolutely essential in the removal of the hazardous waste associated with these encampments. 83% of us voted against urban camping to begin with, and now we're relying on your leadership to deal with the hazardous waste produced by these encampments. Renew this.
Speaker 6: Important.
Speaker 3: Contract to ensure the safety.
Speaker 6: And health of our citizens and our local environment. Where would we be?
Speaker 3: Where would our city be without this essential service provided by us? With the expertize to restore public spaces, we can't have a gap in service or expect an already overloaded city workforce to successfully complete this specialized service. Protein advocates say DHS employees need sensitivity training. Really, we are tasking this company with a hazardous and dangerous job. While the protest protesters verbally insult them as they literally cleaning up urine and fecal matter.
Speaker 6: Throw up rotten food, trash and drugs. Thank you to our.
Speaker 3: Police officers for being on location and keeping us and our city workers safe. Know that the majority of citizens of this city support you. Leaders should be redirecting.
Speaker 6: Sensitive sensitivity funds for.
Speaker 3: Training to the citizens of this city living in this film and their mental and physical well-being.
Speaker 6: I have been to several.
Speaker 3: Encampment sweeps and have found IHS doing this difficult job in a respectful.
Speaker 6: Kind, patient.
Speaker 3: And thorough way. Please extend this contract, enforce the camping ban, and.
Speaker 6: Let's eliminate the sweeps altogether.
Speaker 3: Thank you so much for your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker online is Tess Dougherty.
Speaker 3: For having me tonight, so to speak. I just want to address some of the things that have been said. I've never seen a single person who claims to having been having come to a sweet, bittersweet. Just to start that off. These people who keep saying that they come to all these sweeps, I've never seen them there. And there are mutual aid partners that have been there. Also agree that I've talked to them about it. They've not seen them there. So that's just curious as to where that claim is coming from. I also want to point out that you notice how every person supporting this contract extension support starts their comment with something like, I'm a long time homeowner, homeowner and resident of district whatever, and I'm a I'm a business owner as well. Do you know why they do that? They do that because they think that that saying that qualifying their comment like that somehow gives their voice greater superiority over people experiencing homelessness. People living on the street cannot be here tonight because they're protecting their things. The things that could be swept, could be stolen, could be taken from them. That is why we do not have people expressing homelessness here. That is why the contracted hour, I mean, the hours that are open for residents to retrieve their belongings are between 630 and 830. When does sweeps happen? That's when they happen. It's absurd. It's so disrespectful. And, you know, just just to also point out, we're not protect we're pro housing. We believe that people should have the autonomy to choose where they live and to do it in a safe manner. The shelters are not safe. 37 people came down with COVID at one of the 48 street shelters. One of the 43 shelters kicked out a woman experiencing homelessness and she was found dead in her tent a week later at the edge of the property. A Catholic Charities last week. Her name was Carlotta Ross. And so, you know, that is what we are here to say, that we're not protect. We don't think anyone should be living on the streets in a tent. We think they should be given affordable housing that is free of mold and roaches. But let's go back to us. When we're talking about expertize, according to their website, self training is all that is required to acquire the licenses that people keep claiming. DHS is the sole company holding these these license needles. Give people sharps, boxes, feces, give people bathrooms, trash, have solid waste, pick up and provide services. These are the things that will prevent all of these things that people keep saying that DHS is doing, each as there were £2,000 of trash found and not even even since we had the committee meeting with you guys, they have done abusive things. They don't they have no they have no. They're just like they don't care. They they they're doing these things without any remorse, even even after we brought these things to you. So I'm really concerned about the accountability as well, like John was talking about. I don't think that there will be accountability. Where's the checklist from Dottie? That was that was so clean. Where is that? You know, where's the checklist? Have you been seen the checklist since you're going to be voting on this? And I also think the council president should recuse herself from this vote, given that her husband explicitly said in that in that committee meeting that he was single handedly responsible for the contract with DHS. It's a conflict of interest. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker online is Dave Howard. Right. I thought that we had Dave Howard. All right. Okay. We're going to go ahead and move on then because that was our only they've age online that we have that they're speaking for. The item. So I don't believe.
Speaker 1: Excuse me, but I'm asking for.
Speaker 0: All right. We'll go ahead and bring David Hagan up and then we're going to go ahead and ask the rest of the individuals who are in person be ready to come up as well. Shannon Hoffman, Harmonie Cummins, Hannah Sinise are additional people in person. Go ahead.
Speaker 2: Hi.
Speaker 1: Thank you for letting me speak. I did put four because I'm for a clean encampment and for a clean city and for not being on the streets. I am not for people screaming white power to indigenous folks. I'm not for the abuse, the stealing of property and the continued treatment that we see at the encampments. I'm not for what happened just this last week after the committee meeting. They're still treating people like they're worse than trash. They don't care. And again, the folks on that said that they have been to several encampment sweeps. I doubt it. People behind me been to 77 this year, 80 I've been to, I don't know, quite a few more than 11, maybe 20, 30. I've never seen any of them. So when people get up here and lie to extend its contract, another thing we are not saying nobody nobody's clean up. We want clean air. We want stuff clean. There are countless other companies in this city that can do the job and do it well. These guys are not good.
Speaker 2: They are terrible at their job.
Speaker 1: Or they just don't care. Maybe they're good elsewhere. They're not good here. And they. They're just not good. Plain and simple. There's got to be somebody else in the city that could do a better job. When, like the lady came up a few weeks ago, said that she wanted to keep the contract, but then she said that she had to clean up the encampment with.
Speaker 0: Her friends after they left.
Speaker 1: That doesn't make sense. We're spending millions of dollars. I think this year we've already spent close to $500,000 with them. A half a million dollars already been spent this year. Really?
Speaker 2: To do what? For headquarters to get a bunch of.
Speaker 1: Volunteers to come clean up afterwards, because that's what happens after every sweep. Volunteers kind of clean up. So they get a half million dollars and then we come in and clean up afterwards. I don't I just don't understand what is going on and why this contract is so important for everybody to keep. Like, what is it? Whose pocket? I just don't understand, because if anybody else was doing this bad of a job, you would fire them. I can guarantee it. If anybody went to these sweeps and saw this, you would be fired immediately. There's no refrain. Reform. They're trash. They're not good. So ask yourself why it is that this contract must be passed to a company that was built in 2017 and then gets a $6 million contract in 2018. That doesn't make any sense to me.
Speaker 2: Established companies get those contracts, not new ones. So who's who's who's behind this?
Speaker 1: Who's behind this? Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker in person is Shannon Hoffman.
Speaker 3: Good evening. My name is Shannon Hoffman. I live in District ten. There is no white supremacy in the future. There is no white supremacy in the future. I say this today because I was recently in a class where this was the writing prompt and it was really hard for me to imagine that statement. So I just had to write that sentence several times. And I believe what's happening tonight is that it's really hard for us to imagine not having this VHS contract. But I'm here to tell you, there is no NHS contract in the future. Because everyone will be housed and everyone will have access to a bathroom and water to drink and to wash themselves. So that's what we all say we want, right? So how do we get to that future? We start by working now toward the horizon of abolition. And you have already done this for almost a year ago. This council turned down a $25 million contract with allied security. You said they have a credibility problem. Does IHS not have a credibility problem? We have outlined for you the multiple ways IHS has been disrespectful in word and action to unhoused neighbors. Much like we provided for you a list of incidents of violence from allied security. We are suggesting just don't contract with IHS. They upcharge the city and thus citizens. Just as this chart shows $1.5 million in the past five years with the bulk from Doddy close to 900 K for Sweets. This council says, well, IHS is going to do some trainings to improve their behavior. That's what Allied said. They said they'd hire a diversity coaching company and we all said, all of us. We said, that's not good enough. Based on their past behavior and another company was hired, can we not do the same thing here? Is it not our duty, your duty to approve contracts when a company meets the standard of the contract? But in this case, DHS does not do what they are contracted to do. They leave trash everywhere after a sweep. So what is the difference now in 2021? Is it that less people are watching? Because that by definition is a lack of integrity. So please have the integrity with how you voted on the Allied contract a year ago. Use your imagination to dream beyond these circumstances. These same funds and this contract could be repurposed for trash, service and toilets, making the cleanup services of DHS obsolete and actually cheaper. As was mentioned that last year there was a proposal for trash service that would only cost $300,000. So we're meeting you all where you are, but we're standing in our integrity. Please vote no on this contract and let's start fresh with a new vendor. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, we have Harmony Cummins.
Speaker 3: Hello. Whose job is it? To be sure, contracts are well managed and asked of contractors are providing a quality service for a fair price. To be sure, we are not wasting taxpayer dollars. I think some of you guys got a handout. You guys got a handout? Perfect. It just has a practice. They're required to pay their employees a four hour minimum, but they have a practice of scheduling people in two hour shifts. So an example that you've been given on seven two, Tony Martini is scheduled himself from Tell Out the two. Then a different guy from 2 to 4, then schedules himself again from 4 to 6. So each of these shifts are now paid 4 hours each. Instead of one person getting paid 6 hours. In addition, the person who's doing the schedule scheduled himself for the first shift and the third shift so that he now makes the 4 hours on the first and the 4 hours on the second. I wonder why he's doing that. That sounds very advantageous to him. And then I ask, I do accounting. Well, why isn't someone from HHS looking at this and being like, Huh? What's going on here? Well, that's because they add a 36% upcharge to what they do. So it's advantageous for them to have these these billing hours be like this because it's more hours for them to add a 36% upcharge on and then to bill it back to the city. I spend a lot of time in District one, nine, ten and three, and our city is disgusting, as many people who said that today. And if you guys have walked around on these streets, so if we're doing such a good job with this, why is our sitting so disgusting that we're afraid to go to certain places? I know it's a problem for all of us. I've been part of the people who go up and pick up trash after a cleanup has happened. I see a lot of problems with what's happening here. This scheduling issue I described above is for security guards, so this isn't even for anyone picking up the trash. So all this scheduling, the upcharge all goes for dollars that don't do a single thing to remove anything, a needle, a piece of trash or feces from the city. At what point do we look? Should we be doing something better? It was mentioned that maybe we schedule like this because the work is so traumatic. Well, if the work is so traumatic, shouldn't we be looking at doing something more holistic at a whole? We've talked about bathrooms. We talked about trash services. It's each it's actually been and it's a whole lawsuit that the city would provide sharps boxes and some of these things. And we're not doing it. And by definition, by keep doing the same things in the same status quo stuff and expecting a different outcome. That's called insanity. So to extend.
Speaker 6: This contract.
Speaker 3: And think that our city is going to be cleaner and things are going to be better. I don't see it. And I hope you don't see it either.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our last speaker, we have hit the 30 minute courtesy public hearing time. And so we'll go ahead and have our last speaker, Hanna Stein Streisand's. And I might have mispronounced that, HANNAH. So you can correct me when you come up here.
Speaker 6: You were very close.
Speaker 3: Strange. Thank you. Thank you for having me this evening. My name is Hannah. Strange is. And I'm here to urge all of you to vote against extending the contract tonight. Extending this contract as a continued step towards normalizing the dehumanization of our unhoused neighbors. In a past forum, testimony has been made specifically about tent poles being snapped by DHS personnel, personal items such as a pair of golf clubs being stolen by US workers in order to put in front of the unhoused person and community while their shelters were being torn down. You heard even more this evening. Dehumanization has historically been used as a tool of oppressive classes to build negative public views of social groups to fuel division between communities, as well as wear down the self-respect of those people being targeted. As Denver committed to continue to move in this direction, our tax dollars need to be placed towards wellness programs to support and uplift those in need. The treatment of the unhoused community by the city of Denver is getting nowhere. The non solutions Denver has implemented are harming our community as a whole. Our entire city suffers while traumatizing behavior continues to be normalized. I urge you to vote against the renewal of this contract and move in a new direction. I also urge you to get on the street and meet the people who you are, affect who you have the power to change their lives by changing your decisions. Help them volunteer your time and your perspective will change. You have this power in your hands tonight to make us shift toward a healthier, happier city. Please do so. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Appreciate the community members who are both joined in-person and online and appreciate the individuals that testified tonight. And we're sorry that we didn't get to hear from anybody, but we had half an hour to make sure that we weren't duplicating folks testimony. And so now we want to go ahead and move to questions from members of Council on Council Resolution 92. And we're going to start out with Councilmember.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Council President. I'd like to ask the Department to respond to the second to last speaker regarding the four hour minimums, but the use of two hour shifts by the contractor one has it true to have you fixed it? Three Are they? What are we doing about this?
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman. I believe online is Commander Ron Thomas. If we could have him promoted, I think he can address this question directly.
Speaker 0: All right. I believe we already have him promoted, so. Go ahead, Chief Thomas.
Speaker 5: Good evening. Division Chief Thomas. And to address that question. DHS basically charges. Well. They're paying each officer that works a shift $200 per shift, which is essentially a two and a half hour shift. So they are there working at two and a half hour shift. Their place, Sergeant, is scheduling those shifts. He's invoicing the company once a week and then they're paying those officers for basically about two and a half hour shift.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Thomas. First of all, the paper we have in front of us shows a number of two hour shifts, not two and a half hour shifts. And if you can address how it is that. If can you explain where it is that the speaker is is seeing that they are being paid $400 rather than $200. For each of their two and half hour to two hour shifts. We have several discrepancies between what you described and what we were given. So I want to understand both of those discrepancies.
Speaker 5: Certainly, I can attest to what I have seen within the last several months that has entered into our 12 staff record, which is our basically our record keeping our record management system relative to two time worked. And those officers are entering a two and a half hour shift generally from 6 to 830 on Monday through Friday, with the exception of Thursday, where there's some different shift hours and then four, they're essentially two and a half hour shift, which is entered into our telegraph system. They're being paid $200 through 1099.
Speaker 3: Okay. Okay. I appreciate you are reporting what you have seen. I guess let me just I'm going to ask the speaker who testified on this to come up, please. Can you just share what source of information you use to construct this? These are from IHS invoices that have been carried. And so on. The bottom line of the handout that I gave to you, that came straight from an invoice. It says, officers are paid a minimum of 4 hours per shift. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Fenton. Has your agency audited or compared the invoices which apparently say something potentially different than what Commander Thomas can see in his system? And it appears we may have a discrepancy. Have you audited to compare the two?
Speaker 2: I know the DPG it for our invoices. I don't know that that it covers the service provided by the officers. I wonder if if you can address that point, you know.
Speaker 3: The question is whether we are paying DHS for the billing that they do to do for off duty officers. Is that what we're clarifying?
Speaker 1: Yes. Perhaps I can have some clarity. My name is Paul, Madame. I'm the manager with public health and Environment. Will is correct. We have not audited those invoices because they're not invoices for services to our department. The invoices that have been displayed recently are for dodgy Department of Transportation infrastructure. And so it would be incumbent upon them to review those.
Speaker 3: Is someone from Daddy here.
Speaker 0: And have.
Speaker 3: You reviewed and compared? The NHS invoices to the DPD records.
Speaker 7: Good evening. Council Margaret Melvin, Deputy Manager for Dottie. And. We have not audited those. That is something that we can do. You know, from my understanding, when we review, we do check to make sure that the hours that we requested, you know, this excess only operates at our direction. So we do check to make sure that the hours that we requested are indicated in the invoice. But this discrepancy that has been brought up is not something I have looked into. But we will look into it.
Speaker 3: Is someone from IHS here?
Speaker 2: No, but I want to see if I can address this just a little more first.
Speaker 3: Yeah. I mean, if each of us is under the impression that officers have to be paid a minimum of 4 hours per shift and we have a discrepancy, then I'm I just want to be clear. I'm prepared I was prepared to advance this contract tonight. But if we have a billing discrepancy and we're going into a new contract where it is not resolved, that is a concern.
Speaker 1: Again. This is Paul Bedard, Public Health and Environment. I had a conversation with environmental hazmat services with the President, Mr. Martin Green, today regarding this topic, and he indicated that it is the policy of the individual police officers under the police union rules when they are acting outside, when they are employed outside of city business. This was specifically, as is private contractors, to provide security that that is a standard measure of how their billing is. And so that I think my understanding is the way we're seeing it being billed represents is an artifact of the requirements for employing individuals who are police officers.
Speaker 3: Commander Thomas, are you still with us?
Speaker 5: Yes. Chief Thomas, thank you.
Speaker 3: Is there a separate way that off duty officers are paid that would not show up in your books? That accounts for the fact that your books are showing two and a half hours. But we have now confirmation that the contractor believes they have to pay for a minimum of four.
Speaker 5: No. So what I what I know is that is that the officers put the shift hours that they are actually working in our the staff system. The scheduling officer. Who fills those shifts for, you know, for IHS, sends them an invoice of the officers that have worked their shift and IHS. Pays those officers and it comes out to. Essentially $200 this year. For those really 50, it would really be $50 an hour if you were if you were to calculate a four hour shift.
Speaker 3: Paid for for hours, even though they work for two and a half.
Speaker 5: That is a term of employment that's worked out between the scheduler and the employer. Just.
Speaker 3: Okay, so, I mean, but but this is not a bar downtown. I guess. So I guess I am trying to understand why we as a city are paying our own officers to work off duty for more hours than they're actually working.
Speaker 0: If we could ask folks to keep their comments down, it's difficult for us up here to hear the conversation as well.
Speaker 3: And I'll see on the floor after this. But I'm still not understanding why we are paying for time. It's so. It sounds like we are all agreeing that the fee is for 4 hours, even though the work is for two and a half. And the question is. Why are we paying for hours that aren't being worked?
Speaker 2: Can I provide some general information that I think will help inform this? And this was a conversation that Paul Bedard and I were having back and forth about this issue. So certainly, please correct me if I'm wrong. And again, this is a little on top of what you're asking for. But I think the context this is important because DHS is not required to hire Denver police to provide security. It's an option that they choose to pursue and exercise. Right. And Marty mentioned Martin, the owner of the company who couldn't be here, even though we hoped he could be, because he had an existing personal appointment. Medical appointment. That's what he told us. He added that Marty explained that though he is not required to use an off duty Denver officer for security, the storage location and storage site security is required in the contract. These individuals are providing good service. These officers are flexible in their work hours of availability and and work for less. Per Marty's estimate, than what he would have to pay a private security service like. They just as for Pinkerton, for example. That's why he's reached out to employ off duty police. Continuing regarding cost, the contract only allows us to charge the city $68 an hour for security staff person. And that can be found on line 13 B of the contract rate sheet. I don't know if that's included in your handout, but I'm looking at a at a copy of it. And that's what they're charging this city as evidence than their invoices that we confirmed. However, Denver police in their off duty private employment have to observe their labor union rules on minimum number of hours and rates. So for the contract to use these individuals, he has to observe police union labor rules, which have a minimum pay rate of $75 an hour. But they and I don't know who that refers to. I don't know if it's union rules or anything else. We're making an exception to that so that these personnel could work with us and meet contract rates. Also, DHS said their union rules specified a minimum duration and that duration. So that's why we're seeing a four hour charge versus a two and a half hours actual on site schedule. Lastly, I'll just say that he indicated that this has worked in past years. So I just want to be fully transparent and offering that and certainly want to address any questions as best we can.
Speaker 3: But I will see the floor. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Canete. Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 2: Yeah, thank you, Madam President. So I've been really impressed by a couple of things, a bunch of questions for your release in our committee meeting and again today. And one of those things is the people that I've heard testify that would like us to turn this contract down. Almost unanimously are saying do the sweeps or the clean ups. But do them completely and do them compassionately. And I've also been impressed that I haven't heard anybody from the city from from Dottie, from DHS say that we didn't leave behind a ton of trash on Arkin's court and that there's a bunch of trash that gets left behind as a matter of course. So what I'm wondering is what has the oversight been of the city in the past? Has there been a consistent team assigned to be there evaluating the clean ups? And then how will that be different? Moving forward.
Speaker 7: Councilman Cashman. So a lot of the effort of the cleanup has fallen on Daddy to manage. We don't manage every encampment cleanup, but the vast majority do fall on us. In our solid waste team. Do you go out to the site? They will direct each other's you know, as we've said, this contract with DHS is really concentrated on the hazardous waste cleanup. Our solid waste team picks up the trash we do if it's needed. We do work with our streets department to bring sweepers. Then we work with our waste water department if needed, to bring in our VAC trucks, if, you know, if there is a wet cleanup that we need to do. So the oversight is done by the crew lead generally in solid waste. But we also, at the different cleanups, will have representation and oversight. You know, I've been at cleanups. I know Adam goes to clean up.
Speaker 2: I mean, I'm sorry.
Speaker 7: I'm sorry.
Speaker 2: I appreciate I appreciate your answer. But is there an assigned team? I mean, we've heard that DHS gets there first, starts on their own. And I mean, is is there an assigned team of people who regularly there's like a four person team that is assigned to be there all during the cleanup from start to finish.
Speaker 7: So generally there hadn't been. But as the encampments have gotten more prolific, it has really overtaken a lot of our resources. And we do now have a team generally that that, you know, that is not their only job in the city, but we do rely on them heavily. And so that is a consistent team and they do have a checklist that they go through. And after the conversations and the input we've gotten, we're adding to the checklist on top of the regular items that they're looking at. We are asking them now to take not only before pictures, but we also want after pictures. We do recognize ISIS is not responsible for the final cleanup of the site. That is whichever city agency is taking the lead in, in many of the cases that will be dotty. And so that is on us. And so we're going to to make sure that we are improving that checklist so that we all have that after picture. And knowing that sometimes the sweepers, it may take us up to a day to get day to day to to get on to the schedule. You know, our sweeper trucks are out. Trucks are already working throughout the city. So that is something that we're going to be adding that we haven't been doing regularly.
Speaker 2: I'm and I'm not an expert in materials, but it concerns me certainly that any trash is left behind. With all the money that we're spending on this and with the need to do what our residents want is to clean the city. So I'm wondering, do you know whether it would work or not to take a metal detector to be sure you're not leaving needles behind? That would seem to be a a basic thing. If it's if needles are of the type of material that a metal detector would do, I mean I mean, I expect it to be clean , to be raked clean, whoever has to do that. And I know that's a big job, but I think that's what our residents want us to do.
Speaker 7: Absolutely.
Speaker 2: And so I've suggested moving forward that it would would make sense to me that we have a. An objective observer team. And I don't know what that looks like, whether it's representatives of council or other agencies, but the administration has has seen fit to not think that's important. So I'm just trying to see I mean, we're hearing a lot of concerning things. Like I said, I've heard no denials of it. Incomplete work that's been done. And I've heard no real denials of the insensitive work that's been done. So I just want to be sure that I mean, as with my colleague, Councilwoman Canete, you know, I believe these cleanups need to be done. But I believe they need to be done well. And I'm looking for assurance that there's going to be the degree of oversight that's going to be done. So how will it moving forward? Is there like a set procedure of eyes that will be on this?
Speaker 7: In short, yes, we are looking at having the checklist. That will be something that we can pull up to look at each cleanup. You know, when I see the cleanups, you know, my expectation is that that area is going to be free of trash, absolutely free of hazardous waste and and if needed, swept or we can actually bring our trucks out if we need to do a wet cleanup. So, yes, my I'm working with the team so that we do have that documentation to to show that that is the way we've left the site.
Speaker 2: I appreciate that. And I have two more quick questions now, I'm sure, and for our legislative council. Obviously, the city council has the authority and the ability to approve contracts. Do we have any ability to break conch to end contracts? You don't approve it. I mean, if we were. By that, I'm to be clear. If we approve this. There's elements in the contract, as Mr. Fenton has told us, that give the city ability to end the contract. But does city council have the ability to end the contract in midstream? Jonathan Griffin W Legislative Council Generally, no. But it would.
Speaker 1: Also depend on the terms of the contract. I've seen the maybe the person who wrote the contract, if they were here, they could speak to it. But typically the contracts are approved. There would have to be something in the clause that was violated. It sounds like there are some. But council wouldn't have the power at that point.
Speaker 2: Okay, then. Okay. And my last question is, we also heard if I if I heard the testimony correctly. Of the storage facility not being open during posted hours. And I'm wondering if that if you're able to verify that in either direction. And again, moving forward, how do we be sure that it's it's being open. It's open the hours that we are telling the community is going to be open. You. Well, I certainly want to address the storage question, but I also have a little more to add on the structured oversight. If that if I can go back to a previous question, if that's okay. I think it's really important to emphasize to this body that, again, DHS is responsible for certain materials and for cleaning cleaning the certain spaces as directed by city personnel, regardless, whichever department that is. And included now in the the amended agreement that is shared with you all, there's a section on structured oversight for quality control. And if I could just read a portion of this, maybe already familiar with it. The contractor is required to participate in structured oversight practices implemented by the city agency commanding the services under the agreement. The purpose of the oversight is to establish a shared understanding of the task or projected goals document, accept the work completion and create a record of work quality for review. Structured oversight practices may consist of, but are not limited to not limited to the following pre task or pre project tailgate meetings to establish quality goals, share goals , post task or purpose post project works, worksite inspections, use of checklists or signoff sheets on work completed and photo or video documentation of post project work site conditions. These aren't just commitments of doing things differently. These these are things that we are putting in the contract. And not only do we kind of not only are we clarifying what we expect of DHS on the site for these different projects, as you heard from Dottie directly, we also have a responsibility to kind of reset and clarify expectations as a city for each site that we are visiting, whether it's an oil drum doctrinally somewhere or for or for these encampments, we have a responsibility and we have the ability to make sure that these these clean ups are backed clean. And that's exactly what we plan to do moving forward. As far as the storage option goes, that is another area where the contract is clear that we.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Second Amendatory Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Environmental Hazmat Services, Inc. to provide trained personnel to collect discarded and abandoned solid wastes, including putrescible wastes, medical waste, used syringes and drug paraphernalia.
Amends a contract with Environmental Hazmat Services, Inc. by adding two years for a new end date of 10-10-23 for the collection of discarded and abandoned solid wastes including putrescible wastes, medical waste, drug paraphernalia, and other materials in alleys, sidewalks, parks, and other public spaces, citywide. No change to contract amount (ENVHL-201844158-01; ENVHL-202053184-00). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 10-4-21. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 9-1-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08302021_21-0916
|
Speaker 3: I certainly will. Madam President, thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Now, I'll do a recap under resolutions. Council member Flynn has called out Resolution 916 for a vote, and Councilmember Sawyer has called out Resolutions 917, nine, 18, nine, 19 and 924, 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 on our screens. I see you've already got it up. Councilmember Flynn, will you please put Council Bill 916 on the floor for adoption?
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. I move that council resolution 21, dash 916 be adopted.
Speaker 1: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded comments by members of Council on Council Resolution 916. Council Member Flynn.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. This actually should have been filed as a council bill. It was filed as a resolution because it's a contract extension, but it's a contract with the Denver Housing Authority, which under our charter would qualify as an intergovernmental agreement. Therefore, it should have been done as a council bill. It had been submitted as a resolution, and therefore it has we have to vote it down because it was filed. And then I will direct file the replacement bill so that it can be considered on introduction at our next meeting on September 13th. The matter that is subject to this contract, the grow market over in Council District three, my understanding is the construction has been completed and that basically in order to pay off the final invoices and and close it out, we need to extend the contract beyond its expiration point so that we can get all that wrap up work done. So it's a very simple matter for such a complicated process that's here on the floor. Thank you. I asked my colleagues to vote no on this.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Flynn. And I appreciate that reminder for folks to vote no this evening. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 21, Dash 916, please.
Speaker 6: CdeBaca. No. Ortega. So. Flynn.
Speaker 3: No. Herndon No.
Speaker 2: HYNES No.
Speaker 6: Cashman No.
Speaker 7: Kimmich No.
Speaker 6: Sandoval No.
Speaker 7: Sawyer No.
Speaker 6: Torres.
Speaker 7: No.
Speaker 6: Black? No. Clark.
Speaker 3: No.
Speaker 6: Madam President.
Speaker 1: No. Madam Secretary, please close the vote. Results.
Speaker 6: 13 Nays.
Speaker 1: 13 nays. Council Bill 20 1-9 16 has failed. Moving along. Madam Secretary, will you please put the next item up on our screens? See? It's there. Councilmember Flynn, will you please put Council resolutions nine, 17, nine, 18, nine, 19 and 920 on the floor for adoption?
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Revival and Amendatory Agreement between the City and County of Denver and The Housing Authority of the City and County of Denver for the purpose of extending the duration to complete the GROW Market.
Revives and amends a loan agreement with The Housing Authority of the City and County of Denver by adding seven months for a new end date of 10-31-21 for the purpose of extending the duration to complete the GROW Market, which provides grocery accessibility as well as workforce training and development at 2800 West 10th Avenue in Council District 3 (OEDEV 202158449). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 9-20-21. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 8-18-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08302021_21-0917
|
Speaker 1: 13 nays. Council Bill 20 1-9 16 has failed. Moving along. Madam Secretary, will you please put the next item up on our screens? See? It's there. Councilmember Flynn, will you please put Council resolutions nine, 17, nine, 18, nine, 19 and 920 on the floor for adoption?
Speaker 3: Certainly, Madam President. Thank you. I move that council resolutions 21, dash nine 1721, dash nine, 18, 21, Dash nine, 19 and 21, dash nine. To be adopted in a block.
Speaker 1: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded comments by members of Council on Council Resolutions 917, 918, nine, 19 and 920 Council Member Soya.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Madam President. As you know, I have stated my concerns about the use of on call contracts among members agencies a number of times. I believe that the practice of setting aside money for certain vendors without any additional information or reporting requirements to City Council regarding the scope of the work being done subverts the intent of our Charter. Council has been explicitly given the authority to approve contracts over $500,000, and this practice doesn't provide transparency or accountability, which I believe my residents expect from their government, although DOT has changed their practices around on call in response to these concerns. These particular contracts are for on call contracts for Parks and Rec. They don't provide reports to council on the contracts at all. I've already had a conversation with them about this and they are working to make some changes as well, which I very much appreciate. But I am a no tonight. Thanks.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Sawyer. Councilmember Hines, I think.
Speaker 8: Thank you. Council president. I did put Gary on notice that I also did not enjoy the on call contracts, but I told them before I voted no. So I'll be a yes tonight. I sure would like for Parks to emulate what Daddy has started to provide us.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 1: All right. Very good. Thank you, Councilmember Hines. And seen no one else in the queue. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Resolutions 21, dash nine, 17, nine, 18, nine, 19 and nine, 20.
Speaker 6: CdeBaca, I. Ortega, I. Sawyer?
Speaker 7: No.
Speaker 6: Torres. I black. I talk. I swim.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 2: Herndon, I.
Speaker 6: Hi. Cashman. I can each. Right. Sandoval, I. Madam President.
Speaker 1: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 6: One 812 Eyes.
Speaker 1: 12 Eyes Council Resolutions 917, 918, nine, 19 and 920 have 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. Councilmember Flynn, will you please put the proclamations and resolutions for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor?
Speaker 3: Yes, Madam President, 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. All series of 2021 993 870 2906 922 912 837 910 983 880 3907.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 6: CdeBaca.
Speaker 7: I.
Speaker 6: Ortega. I. Black Eye. Clark. Eye for an.
Speaker 3: Eye.
Speaker 6: Herndon. Eye Hines. Eye Cashman. I can each eye. Sandoval Eye.
Speaker 7: Sawyer Eye.
Speaker 6: Torres Eye. Madam President.
Speaker 1: I. Madam Secretary, close voting and announce the results.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed On-Call Project Management Services Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Citrine, LLC for on-call project management services.
Approves a contract with Citrine, LLC for $1 million and for three years for on-call project management services including design oversight, design and construction services procurement, construction inspection services and project implementation oversight, for City parks and recreation infrastructure (202159103). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 9-20-21. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 8-17-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08302021_21-0759
|
Speaker 1: Direct your comments to council as a whole, and please refrain from individual or personal attacks. Councilmember Flynn, will you please put Council Bill 759 on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 3: Yes, Madam President, I move the council bill 20 1-7 59 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 759 is open. May we have the staff report and I see we have Jason here.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Council President Gilmore and good evening. Members of Council Jason Morrison with Community Planning and Development will be presenting the proposed rezoning at 2569 South Federal Boulevard, where the request is from SCD, which is a single unit, District two, SMU five, which is multi-unit with a maximum height of five stories. The proposed rezoning is located in Council District two, which is Councilman Kevin Flynn's district. It's in the Harvey Park neighborhood. Earlier this year, the existing church property went through a zone, light amendment and a parcel reconfiguration to create a new vacant parcel. The applicant is requesting this rezoning to have flexibility to construct 100% deed restricted low income senior housing financed with low income housing tax credits. The archdiocese housing will serve as developer as well as the owner and the operator. The proposed Zone District, which is SMU five suburban multi-unit up to five storeys, allows for residential uses in the suburban house. Duplex, rowhouse and apartment building forms up to a maximum height of five storeys. The site is currently zoned, as said in the suburban context single unit. The single unit district allows suburban houses with a minimum zone lot area of 6000 square feet. Surrounding zoning in the area includes single unit, mixed use, auto unit and open space. The Ruby Hill part view plane is applicable to the subject site. As a result, the site is subject to a maximum height restriction of approximately 100 feet. The proposed SMU five zone district has a maximum allowable building height of 65 feet, depending on the building form, and therefore the site is not impacted by the Ruby Hill Park View plane. As I mentioned, the site currently sits vacant, surrounded by mostly single unit uses as well as multi-unit and some commercial and retail. This slide shows the existing context surrounding the subject site with the proposed rezoning on the top left. Nearby, you see examples of single unit, multi-unit and commercial uses, as well as the existing Church of All Saints to the North and the College View Community Center and park to the east. The Map Amendment application was unanimously recommended for approval by Planning Board and moved forward by committee. Since the staff report was published, we received two letters of support from the College View Neighborhood Association and the South Marly Brentwood, Sharon Park Neighborhood Association. We've also received one letter of support from the Church of All Saints Council and one individual letter of opposition concerned about church overflow parking. As you know, there are five review criteria when analyzing the appropriateness of the request. The first criteria is consistency with adopted plans. There are two plans applicable to this rezoning, this comprehensive plan 2040 and Blueprint Denver. The rezoning is consistent with several strategies in the comprehensive plan and they can be found and detailed in the staff report . The future neighborhood context is suburban. Within this context, we find a range of uses from single unit and multi-unit residential to commercial corridors and centers, as this rezoning would allow a variety of building forms in a suburban setting. The proposed district is appropriate and consistent with Blueprint Denver's context description. The subject site is designated as a community center a future place type on the Blueprint Denver Future Places Map. This place type allows for a mix of office, commercial and residential uses, where heights are generally up to five stories. The proposed SMU five zone district allows a mix of building forms, and the five storey district height is consistent with the existing and surrounding contexts and appropriate for the community corridor designation and this particular location. Similarly blueprint Denver classifies west of Hester Avenue as a local or un designated street, where these streets are most often characterized by residential uses. Federal Boulevard is classified as a mixed use arterial. These streets include retail, office, residential and restaurants with buildings that are pedestrian oriented with high building coverage. The proposed SMU five zone district is consistent with these descriptions because it allows for additional residential uses at a subject site served by both a local street and a mixed use arterial. The subject property is located within the community centers and corridor's growth area. These areas are expected to see 20% of new employment growth and 25% of new housing growth by the year 2040. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the growth strategy that is mapped in this area. Staff also finds that the requested rezoning meets the next two criteria. The rezoning will result in uniformity of district regulations and will further the public health, safety and welfare primarily through its implementation of adopted plans and providing 100% deed restricted low income senior housing, which will provide greatly needed affordable housing options to this at risk population. The application identifies several changed or changing conditions as a justifying circumstance. The application notes that in addition to the recently adopted guidance for this area in Blueprint Denver, the increase in housing prices and aging population have created an unprecedented demand for affordable senior housing. Lastly, staff finds that the proposed rezoning is consistent with a zone, district purpose and intent of the SMU five zone district. And based on the review criteria, staff recommends approval of this application. Thank you.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you for the staff report, Jason. And this evening, we have three individuals signed up to speak. All are participating virtually. And our first speaker this evening is David Hagan.
Speaker 4: Hi. Good evening, counsel. Thank you for allowing me to speak right now. Sorry I wasn't paying much attention there. I've been busy reading case law about public comment and when and how you're allowed to limit our public comment. When a government decides to offer public comment period in an open meeting it provides the citizens may exercise their First Amendment rights.
Speaker 8: Government officials can limit comments to controlled, disruptive or.
Speaker 4: Overly repetitive speakers and impose reasonable time, place and manner restrictions on speech. However, when you wrote a public comment were created.
Speaker 1: Towards greater public hearing. This isn't public comment.
Speaker 4: Because you're before my First Amendment, just.
Speaker 1: Open to public comment. This needs to be.
Speaker 4: A free speech prediction hearing. The government may not silence speakers on the basis of their viewpoint. The content of the speech limit the time.
Speaker 2: I start allocated.
Speaker 4: Basically, you can't stop me from speaking. When you put up a public comment time at the beginning of the session, you have to allow us to speak so you can limit the amount of time to 3.
Speaker 8: Minutes, but you cannot.
Speaker 4: Limit us from that. From the time we sign up is when we get to go. This is a recap by the end of the line every single week.
Speaker 1: Or this week. And so we ask that you speak to the reasons for that topic. It's a reasoning for 2569 South Federal Boulevard in Harvey Park. All right. Well, if you're not going to speak to the hearing at hand, we're going to go ahead and I'm going to move on to our next speaker this evening. We've got Jesse Paris.
Speaker 8: Yes, there was a care for those watching at home. My name is just personal representative for. Blacks are similar for self-defense because of African-Americans. So success was the only part of a lot of work for a lot of black males. And I'll be the next month of December 20, 23. I'm in favor of this rezoning tonight. Tonight's our seniors are a very neglected community in the city. We don't allow our elders stays in place. So saying that this is going to be used to provide housing for seniors on the full support of it that all five of the criteria so there's really nothing I can say that's going to change your mind on this. So. Yeah. I'm in favor of the free zone, just in case you don't know. The five criteria are consistency with adopted plans, uniformity of district regulations, further public health and safety and welfare. Justified circumstances. Consistency with neighborhood context and zoned district purpose in that sense. So I'm going to rule that out. I would really appreciate it if you allow everybody that signed up to speak. To speak. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Our next speaker is test.
Speaker 7: I can still thank you for holding this space to speak. And I would just like to. To reiterate what David was saying in terms of the censorship and the limitations that have been placed on the public in terms of their content and and and even the shortening of time, which has has frequently occurred. I'd also like to speak about the. The zoning tonight, which, of course, is necessary for the housing. Need in the city, specifically the low income housing, because right now we're seeing developments all over the city that have been allowed and have actually been intended to be allowed for for at least two decades, according to some of the plans that I've been reading. And and so, you know, this this notion that we have a limited housing stock and that. We we don't have enough housing for people is an interesting one. Given that the city has deliberately limited the housing stock to only people who are wealthy and can afford it. Most of the people moving to Colorado. Are are able to probably afford the housing, but it's the people who have been here for generations who are being displaced. It's people who are black, Latino and indigenous who are being displaced in this city and segregated. Just like they are in the homeless shelters, which I visited last night. And I don't wish anyone the fate of having to go to a homeless shelter in this city. So I'm happy that this housing stock is going to become available, hopefully through the zoning. I would also like to ask that you please reevaluate and re revisit the criteria, the very criteria that you consistently say have been met. Well, I should back up. You say that they've been met for some of them when they are for developers and for white neighborhoods. But for other ones, you say that they either haven't been met or you've heard too much public comment and you and you deny any requests made by the community. But but I would urge you to revisit the criteria on which you're using, because it seems like some voices are getting left out of that process. And I'm also curious how people can weigh in to the actual planning department's decision making, because it seems like some of these issues that come before you that we we come and we bring to your attention and we raise concern about seem to actually start with the planning board of the city of Denver. So I'm curious if if there's any way for the public to get involved with that process. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. That concludes our speakers this evening on this required public hearing questions from members of Council on Council Bill 759. Councilmember Flynn.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. Is there someone here from the archdiocese?
Speaker 8: They are participating online so we can queue up. Jarrett Leroy, I believe, is present.
Speaker 3: Okay. Why were cuing them up? Jason, maybe you could address the question that the College View Neighborhood Association raised about set back from federal that they support the project but they would they would surely like to see some sort of a setback from the from busy federal boulevard for the front of the building. What are the what are the setbacks that are what's the range of setbacks for this zone district?
Speaker 8: Sure. So great question. So, a potentially what we're looking at, it's a it's a 20 foot setback right from wide right of way. And then there's also a ten a ten foot setback. And I did check with David Pellet. Pellet. Yeah. Thank you. And spoke to him a little bit in there. There was definitely some clarifying that had to be done. But I've spoken to to David and he's supportive now.
Speaker 3: Okay. So essentially what the answer that you gave me sounds like it satisfies the college view, concern about the setback on federal. Correct. And then the other the other concern was the letter of opposition from a neighbor on I think it was on green court at least. So about overflowed church parking. And I guess what are our requirements for parking for a facility of this nature and when it's using a lot that's been split off from a larger lot that also has parking requirements. Are they being met? By this reasoning?
Speaker 8: Mm hmm. Yeah, they will have to be met. So that'll be all discussed during the site development planning process with the various services. So they will have to be met in order to move forward.
Speaker 3: Okay. I'm thinking of the proverbial you know, you build a church for Easter Sunday.
Speaker 8: And.
Speaker 3: That's when you get the greatest attendance. And there's no doubt that there is overflow parking in the neighborhood on large these days, I imagine. So if there's a who is it from the archdiocese who's online?
Speaker 8: It's a Jarrett away.
Speaker 3: Okay. Could could he address that question for us, Madam President?
Speaker 1: Yes, of course.
Speaker 3: So the question is, what? What does the church do? What is the church's policy regarding overflow parking versus providing adequate parking on your on your parcel?
Speaker 8: Sure. Can you hear me? This is Jared.
Speaker 3: Thank.
Speaker 8: Yeah. I mean, almost every one of our churches, our parishes is well over part two standards. And we do have significant parking on the property now, um, to, to handle the, the need and even on feast days and on holy days. Um, and even without this parking lot or this lot, this lot is actually undeveloped and it's grass and there's equipment parked on it most times. And it's not really a parking lot per say for, for heavy church traffic. So, uh, we do have parking on the street. I know that's not always on large days. That's not always the, the, the preferred parking, but there is some there along the back side of our the parish lot as well as like I said, there's, there's more than, you know, 170 parking spots available on the property as it is today.
Speaker 3: And also, could you remind me, because it's been a long time since I had my meeting on this. You had you're applying for a five story. A zone that allows five stories. Is this going to be a five story structure or is it four stories?
Speaker 8: The current plan is for stores.
Speaker 3: That was that was my recollection. The reason I raised that is that one of the reasons I was concerned about the five storey height. And I think we need to remind everybody that we go from SMU three to SMU five, where we jump over four. So if you want four stories, you have to apply for five. Thank you, Madam President. That's all I have.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Flynn. And not seen any other folks in the queue. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 759. Councilmember Flynn.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. The Church of All Saints has been serving this community since the early fifties, I believe. There are still some people in Brentwood behind it who remember the huge fire that consumed this. I believe it was the social hall in the mid-fifties. And it's an institution in the neighborhood. And this parcel has been vacant, I think, ever since that time. The the archdiocese, through its some of its subsidiaries, also operates a housing for lower income seniors at Golden Spike just down the street. I believe that's a 12 story property. And the reason I raised that, Madam President, because this is one of those instances where the zoning out of a single unit zone district, which the church is on, even though it's not a single family home, zoning out of that blueprint gives us guidance. That uptick in density can be justified in that context, even in the suburban zone. And when I look up around federal north and south, I see that there is increasing density. There has long been density on Federal Boulevard. It's well-served by transit. It's well traveled. It's a state highway. And I believe that this is an appropriate double jump in in density from a single unit. And with with that and having met all the other criteria, particularly changed circumstances, I will be supporting this. Thank you.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you. Councilmember Flynn and I will be supporting it this evening as well. It meets all of the criteria as presented. Council Bill 21, Dash 759 is on the floor for final passage. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 759, please.
Speaker 6: CdeBaca. I. Ortega. All right. Flynn.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 6: Herndon, I can I can i. Can each i. Sandoval, I. Sawyer, I. Torrance, I. Black eye. Clark.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 6: Madam President.
Speaker 1: I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced the results. 13 and 13 Eyes Council Bill 20 1-759 has passed. Thank you to the staff and members of the public who joined us for that required public hearing or on to our second council member Flynn, will you please put Council Bill 810 on the floor for final passage?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 2569 South Federal Boulevard in Harvey Park.
Approves a map amendment to rezone property from S-SU-D to S-MU-5 (single-unit to multi-unit), located at 2569 South Federal Boulevard in Council District 2. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 7-27-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08232021_21-0863
|
Speaker 0: All right. Well, you go ahead. You're welcome. All right. We'll go ahead and get those up in the queue. All right. Under resolutions, I believe, no items have been called out and under bills for introduction. No items have been called out under bills for final consideration. Council members carnage and Tories have called out Bill 863 for a vote and Councilmember King each has called out Bill 924924 for a vote as well. But it sounded like we wanted to add a few more in there and so we'll go ahead and get those added and then under pending, no items have been called out. We're going to go ahead and pause for a second. It sounds like online we have Councilmember Ortega has her hand up.
Speaker 7: It's not a president. I just wanted to clarify. On Council Bill 20 10855. The title of the bill refers to it as West 46th Street in Berkeley. But in the description, it's Avenue, and I think it's an important clarification that needs to be made to make sure that's consistent. It should be avenue.
Speaker 0: All right. Very good. Thank you, Councilmember Ortega, for that clarification. And that was Bill 855 on the introduction. And so we'll make sure to work with the agency if there's anything we need to do and get that corrected when it comes up on second reading. All right, Madam Secretary, it looks like we've got the first item up on our screen here. Council Member Sandoval, would you please put Council Bill 863 on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 7: I move that council bill 863 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Councilmember Kenny, your motion to amend.
Speaker 9: Yes, Council President. I move to amend Council Bill 20 1863 in the following particulars on page one before line 22, insert section two, Dash 407 Dash Special Event. For purposes of this Article x x, the term special event shall mean a temporary event held on public property open to the public involving permitting by and coordination of two or more city agencies. In addition to the Office of Special Events on page one Lane 22, strike 2.407 and replaced with 2-408 on page one lane 27, strike two, dash 408 and replace with 2-409, page two, line 13 after city owned property insert where two or more city departments are involved on page two line 15 strike obtained and replaced with obtain on page two line 15 after from insert any on page two, line 15 strike departments and replace with departments on page two, line 21, strike two, dash 409 and replace with two. Dash 410 on page two, line 23, strike to dash 408 and replaced with 2-409. And on page two, line 27, strike two, dash 410 and replace with 2-4 11.
Speaker 0: All right, thank you. Councilmember Cooney has been moved and seconded comments by members of Council on the amendment. Councilmember Koinange.
Speaker 9: Thank you. Council President This amendment came from our discussion in first reading where questions were asked about when or how is it appropriate to add an additional permit and process to some event holders? And, you know, the answer given by the agency with really good intentions was that this wasn't for any routine rental of a shelter for an event in a park. It was where there was a more complex event that involved a park. And right of way or right of way and a special business license or something like that, where there was more complexity in reading the bill during our meeting, the language wasn't quite as clear as the description, and because some colleagues had concerns, I felt like it would be both reassuring to my colleagues as well as best for their record to have the bill clarified. To make very clear this is only for complex permits involving multiple agencies. So that's where all the language around permits is. There were also some typos where cleaning up at the same time for efficiency. So that's what some of the rest of this is. I would defer any further questions if there irony on the substance, but I believe what we're doing is matching the language to the discussion we had just with with a minor word clarification. Thank you. Council president.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Ngige, at speaking to the amendment. Next up, we have Councilmember Torres. But I wanted to remind folks that were commenting on the amendment. At this point, we'll vote on the amendment and then there'll be time to make additional comments on the final bill as amended if that amendment passes. And so I just wanted to share that. And so, Councilmember Torres, I see you've moved to when we vote on the amended bill. Councilmember Hines, did you want to speak on the amendment?
Speaker 1: Thank you. Council President. I just want to ask one question to Office of Special Events. Is this do you consider this a friendly amendment? Thank you. Thank you. Council president.
Speaker 0: All right. We had an affirmative from the Office of Special Events that this is a friendly amendment. And so we'll go ahead. Madam Secretary, roll call on the amendment, please.
Speaker 8: Cashman. I Cashman.
Speaker 2: I. I.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Ortega.
Speaker 7: I. Thank you.
Speaker 8: Can each. I.
Speaker 7: Right.
Speaker 8: Flynn.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 1: Herndon High.
Speaker 8: Times, Madam President. I.
Speaker 0: Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 8: 13 eyes.
Speaker 0: 13 eyes. Council Bill 21, Dash eight. Six three has been amended. Councilmember Sandoval. Will you please put Council Bill 863 on the floor for final passage as amended?
Speaker 7: I move that council bill 863 be placed upon final consideration and do pass as amended.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded comments by members of Council on Council Bill 21, Dash 863. Councilmember Torres. Thank you, Madam President. I appreciate the amendment to clear up some of the items. It doesn't relieve, I think, some of the questions that I have. And so I'll still be a no tonight. All right. Thank you, Councilmember Torres. Not seeing any other hands raised. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 20 10863, please.
Speaker 8: Cashman.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 8: Ortega. I. Black. I see tobacco. No. Clarke.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 8: Flynn.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 8: Herndon.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 8: Hines. Can each I. Sandoval. No. Sawyer, I. Torres No. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce results.
Speaker 8: Three names. Ten Eyes.
Speaker 0: Ten Eyes Counsel build 20 1-863 has passed. Madam Secretary, would you please put the next item on our screens as the Madam Secretary, is the council secretary is doing that? It looks like we're going to go ahead and go back and clean up the bill for introduction eight, five, five.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance amending Chapter 2 of the Revised Municipal Code of the City and County of Denver by enacting Article XX to establish the Office of Special Events.
Amends Chapter 2 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code by enacting Article XX to establish the Office of Special Events. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 8-4-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08232021_21-0924
|
Speaker 0: Ten Eyes Counsel build 20 1-863 has passed. Madam Secretary, would you please put the next item on our screens as the Madam Secretary, is the council secretary is doing that? It looks like we're going to go ahead and go back and clean up the bill for introduction eight, five, five. And so we're drafting that amendment right now for that bill on introduction, but we'll go ahead and proceed with our next item. And so, Council Member Sandoval, will you please put Council Bill 9 to 4 on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 7: I move that council. I move that council bill 9 to 4 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded comments by members of Council on Council Bill 20 1-924 Council Member Kenny.
Speaker 9: Thank you. Council President we had an extensive conversation last week. I this is the question related to the National Western Center campus facilities. I'm sad to be voting no tonight. I believe these are necessary facilities. And perhaps if we had started a collaborative conversation with some of the things that have been talked about over the last week , if we had started that as soon as this idea came forward, perhaps we wouldn't be here. Perhaps we could continue those conversations and have greater certainty that we've ruled out all other funding sources and that this is the true full amount required from this particular source, that there is no other source that could pair with it, there's no other source that could replace it. And that that we have the right balance between this and other projects, including in the future of this site. This might be the most important and an integral piece of the site and therefore perhaps the most fundable. And we have facilities that might be tougher to find in the future. And now we've used a very precious resource. Those are the types of questions and concerns they have. I anticipate this will pass tonight and it will be in the hands of the voters. I hope that we respect the conversation about maximizing sources, maximizing equity, regardless of whether this is referred to the ballot. I don't think this being referred to the ballot or even passing on the ballot relieves our city of the responsibility to seek all sources, potentially substituting for this most precious resource of property tax dollars and potentially better preserving funding for other projects for future phases of this project. So I appreciate the dialog bringing the record out over the last few meetings. It's been long, but I think it's important that all those questions were asked and I respect those voting on on various sides of it. But for me, I cannot be sure that we ruled out every opportunity and option yet, so I can't support it tonight. Thank you, Council President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Finch. Councilmember Hines.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Council President. I wasn't here last Monday and I apologize for having to leave early. I did want to put a couple of comments on the record. I want to thank the mayor's office. I want to thank the mayor's office for the citywide survey about the sentiment behind the national Western complex and the proposed arena. Based on the survey, it appears that there's broad support for the national western complex in the arena. That said, I.
Speaker 7: Heard something as important as I.
Speaker 1: Receive a personal.
Speaker 7: Sir.
Speaker 0: We ask that you not disrupt our debate, sir. Thank you. QUESTION Thank you.
Speaker 1: That said. Gentlemen didn't stay for the counterpoint. That said, the survey only asked about the National Western on its own. The survey didn't ask any questions about that, compared that any questions that compared spending funds on national western versus other purposes. Other purposes I've heard about include housing, homelessness and transportation infrastructure. So we perform some of that outreach on our own. District ten residents are split on strong support and opposition to the National Western funding. That suggests to me that this is an ideal question for the voters to weigh in on in November. So should the people of Denver accept the funding for National Western great. Otherwise I will be very interested in lifting up the alternative funding suggestions brought by my constituents generally concerning housing, homelessness and transportation capital projects. Thank you. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Hines. And not seen any of our colleagues online cueing in as well. We'll go ahead and move on. Not seeing any other speakers. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 21, Dash 924, please.
Speaker 8: Cashman?
Speaker 2: No.
Speaker 8: Ortega.
Speaker 7: I.
Speaker 8: Can each.
Speaker 9: No.
Speaker 8: Sandoval No. Sawyer.
Speaker 7: I.
Speaker 8: Torres. I black. I see tobacco. No, Clark.
Speaker 1: All right.
Speaker 8: So when.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 10: Herndon, I.
Speaker 8: Hines. Madam President, I.
Speaker 0: Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 8: So you don't have tourism in here. And Sandoval with a name. Okay. Thank you. For Nine Eyes.
Speaker 0: Nine eyes. Counsel Bill 20 1-924 has passed. Madam Secretary, please put the next item on our screens. And that looks like it's going to be the the black vote. Councilmember Sandoval, would you please put council bills? 864865, eight, six, six, eight, six, seven and 868 on the floor for final passage.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance submitting to a vote of the qualified and registered electors of the City and County of Denver at a special municipal election to be held on Tuesday, November 2, 2021, the question of whether the City shall be authorized to issue or incur general obligation debt for the purpose of financing and/or refinancing the cost of repairs and improvements to the National Western Campus Facilities System; providing the form of the ballot question; providing for other details in connection therewith; and ratifying action previously taken.
Refers a question to the November 2021 ballot to allow the City to issue general obligation bonds for the purpose of financing and/or refinancing the cost of repairs and improvements to the National Western campus facilities system. Councilmember Black approved filing this item on 8-12-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08232021_21-0864
|
Speaker 0: Nine eyes. Counsel Bill 20 1-924 has passed. Madam Secretary, please put the next item on our screens. And that looks like it's going to be the the black vote. Councilmember Sandoval, would you please put council bills? 864865, eight, six, six, eight, six, seven and 868 on the floor for final passage.
Speaker 7: I move that council bill 8648658, six, six, eight, six, seven and 868. He placed upon final consideration and do pass in a block.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded comments by members of Council on Council Bills. 864865866867 and 868. Councilmember CdeBaca.
Speaker 7: Thank you. These are the rest of the questions to be advanced to the ballot regarding the other components of the bond. And I would like to go on record tonight as a no. Given our crisis with ah, with COVID and the economic downturn, our revenue shortfalls from last year, our need to recoup those revenue shortfalls by increasing taxes or floating the levy. I think it's not a wise decision to add more debt to the taxpayers. And I will be a vote on these bond questions tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember CdeBaca. Not seeing anyone in the queue here. And it didn't sound like we had folks online wanting to speak either. And so. Madam Secretary, roll call on council bills 20 1-86486586, six, eight, six, seven and 868.
Speaker 8: Cashman.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 8: Ortega. I. CDEBACA No. Clark. I Flinn.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 8: Herndon Hines. I can teach. I. Sandoval. I. Sawyer, I. Torres, I. Black. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 8: One day, 12 eyes.
Speaker 0: 12 eyes. Council bills 20 1-864865, eight, six, six, eight, six, seven and eight six, eight have passed. Madam Secretary, please put the next item on our screens. Councilmember Sandoval, would you please put Council Bill 855 on the floor for publication, please?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance submitting to a vote of the qualified and registered electors of the City and County of Denver at a special municipal election to be held on Tuesday, November 2, 2021, the question of whether the City shall be authorized to issue or incur general obligation debt for the purpose of financing and/or refinancing the cost of repairs and improvements to the Denver Facilities System; providing the form of the ballot question; providing for other details in connection therewith; and ratifying action previously taken.
Refers a question to the November 2021 ballot to allow the City to issue general obligation bonds for the purpose of financing and/or refinancing the cost of repairs and improvements to the Denver facilities system. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 8-3-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08232021_21-0855
|
Speaker 0: 12 eyes. Council bills 20 1-864865, eight, six, six, eight, six, seven and eight six, eight have passed. Madam Secretary, please put the next item on our screens. Councilmember Sandoval, would you please put Council Bill 855 on the floor for publication, please?
Speaker 7: I moved that council bill 855 be ordered publish published.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Councilmember Herndon, your motion to amend.
Speaker 1: Yes, Madam President, I would like to amend Council Bill 20 10855 with the following particulars online seven Strike Street and replace with Avenue.
Speaker 0: All right. Very good. It has been moved and seconded comments by members of Council on the Amendment. Council member Herndon.
Speaker 1: Yes, ma'am. Friend And this is the correction that Councilman Ortega. So thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. We're going to correct this typographical error again.
Speaker 0: Yes. Thank you, Councilmember Ortega, for pointing that out so that we could get it taken care of on introduction, not seeing anyone else in the queue. Madam Secretary, roll call on the amendment.
Speaker 8: Cashman. Ortega. I. Herndon.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 8: Hi. Hi. Can each. Sandoval, i. Sawyer.
Speaker 7: I.
Speaker 8: Torres, I. Black. I see the i. Clark.
Speaker 10: I.
Speaker 8: Flynn.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 8: Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 8: 13 Eyes.
Speaker 0: 13 Eyes Council Bill 20 1-855 has been amended. Councilmember Sandoval, will you please put Council Bill 855 on the floor for publication as amended?
Speaker 7: I move that council bill eight by five be ordered published as amended.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It's been moved and seconded. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 21, Dash 855. CNN. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 21, Dash 855, please.
Speaker 8: Cashman.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 7: I didn't hear my name, but I'm going to say I.
Speaker 8: Black. I see tobacco. I. Clarke.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 8: Flynn.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 8: Herndon High. I cannot I. Sandoval, I. Sawyer, I. Torres.
Speaker 10: I.
Speaker 8: Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 8: 13 Eyes.
Speaker 0: 13 Eyes. Council Bill 20 1-855 has been ordered published. That concludes the items to be called out. All bills for introduction are ordered published except for Council Bill 21, Dash 908, which will be voted on after its courtesy public hearing this evening. 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. Councilmember Sandoval, will you please put the proclamations and resolutions for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor?
Speaker 7: I move that proclamations and resolutions be adopted and bills and final consideration be placed upon final consideration and do pass in a block. Vote for the following items. 97087689389487189589688488586887875888889890891833860.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Sandoval. It has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 8: Cashman. Ortega. I.
Speaker 7: Black Eye.
Speaker 8: CdeBaca Eye Clerk. Eye for an.
Speaker 4: Eye.
Speaker 1: Herndon on.
Speaker 8: Hindsight. Can it? I. Sandoval. I. Sawyer. I. Torres. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 8: 13 eyes.
Speaker 0: 13 eyes. The proclamations and resolutions have been adopted and the bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass tonight our previous recess announcement. Tonight, there will be a required public hearing on Council Bill 21, Dash 723 changing the zoning classification for 420 East 11th Avenue in Capital Hill.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 3645, 3655, 3665, 3675, 3685, 3701, 3739, 3745, 3801, 3811, 3815 West 46th Avenue in Berkeley.
Approves a map amendment to rezone property from U-SU-C to U-SU-B1 (allows for accessory dwelling units), located at 3645, 3655, 3665, 3675, 3685, 3701, 3739, 3745, 3801, 3811, and 3815 West 46th Avenue in Council District 1. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 8-3-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08232021_21-0908
|
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results. 13 Hours 13 ies council bill 20 1-723 has passed. Moving on to our courtesy public hearing this evening, and thank you to the CPD staff for being here for the previous public hearing. Councilmember Sandoval, will you please put Council Bill 908 on the floor for publication?
Speaker 7: I move that council bill nine eight be ordered published.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. The one hour courtesy public hearing for Council Bill 908 is open. May we please have the presentation and will allow council members CdeBaca and Flynn to join us at the lectern here.
Speaker 3: Madam President, in recognition of the headline that was in Westford a couple of weeks ago after the. Committee meeting. We have our walkup music.
Speaker 8: There you go.
Speaker 0: Wonderful. Wonderful.
Speaker 7: We thought you guys would appreciate that one. The odd couple, if you don't recognize it. So we're going to breeze through this kind of give you guys a recap of what we gave you. And committee will go as fast as we can to get on to the public hearing. We are trying to convert our At-Large seats to district seats. We wanted to highlight that this is about representation and equity. This quote here one of the most persistent findings by scholars of urban politics is that single member district elections increase descriptive representation of underrepresented racial and ethnic groups on city council so that to ground us in the context of some background. Denver City Council composition. We haven't always had At-Large seats. Before 1968, we only had nine single district seats. We had a charter change that was advanced in the last minute in 1968 to add our At-Large seats, and we have had those since 1968. Our population growth over the last about 11 years has been over 130,000 people. We are at a critical and unique opportunity as we are redistricting right now and the convergence of the redistricting with both At-Large council seats being open in the next election is what prompted us to advance this to you all. This is a graph showing our population growth, kind of just to show you a visual of the numbers I just shared. This is a heat map showing you where our most concentrated growth has been in District eight and nine. We've had some of the most intense growth. Here are the numbers that go along with those graphs, those visuals. I think that one to pay attention to is the 23% increase or change in the 2020. That's what we're also trying to mitigate here are our districts have grown significantly. Our budgets have not. And so representation has become increasingly more and more difficult, as well as winning seats. If you're running for At-Large seats, because you're now running citywide in a city of over 700,000 people. So the biggest considerations that we're trying to address here are R.A. and constituent accessibility. In my district alone, I have more than 30 RINO's. So even if I tried to meet with one every single day of the week, I wouldn't be able to touch on my RINOs in one month. So that makes it difficult to really be hearing their concerns and addressing their concerns in a meaningful way. In a consistent way. Accountability to Localized Decisions. We have this belief that at large members are accountable to everybody in the city. But the way that that plays out is not necessarily the way it plays out when you have a single district representative. Our council members at the At-Large level often are able to kick an issue down to a single district member instead of having to address it directly. And so accountability in those At-Large seats is a little more challenging for constituents. Competing interests with district members at large. Members, while representing the entire city, have a vastly different constituency than a district member, especially a member representing a less dense population. So what I mentioned earlier, with accountability and being able to kick down an issue, it also works in the reverse. So if there's an issue that is directly affecting a minority in a district, an At-Large member doesn't have to necessarily side or support side with or support that minor minority or marginalized group because they can argue that they're representing an entire city's interest and not necessarily the single district or that minority within the single district. The strained budget and resources, that's a separate conversation that we need to have. In addition to this one, we need to grow our council budgets. We've done the calculation in our district and we have less than $3 per constituent to serve our constituents. We've heard people push back on that and say that not everybody in our district is an adult. Representing over 6000 constituents to me is 6000 76,000 constituents, whether they're children or adults. I feel like we should have the resources available to support them with whatever needs that they have. And $3 isn't cutting it, but that's also something we should be talking about later, regardless of whether or not we're able to convert the At-Large seats. Again what we started with diluting minority minority votes and representation. We know these at large systems dilute the votes of people of color and other marginalized groups. And so we want to mitigate that, and we want to highlight that in Denver's 50 year history about large seats. There's a correction on this. It's not 15 individuals, but 11 individuals have served in the At-Large seats and none have ever been credibly challenged for reelection. And only two out of those 11 have ever been people of color. So just to recap the benefits of single district members localized democracy, tailored and accessible representation, accountability to constituents, minimizing special interests, and more effective use of limited resources. This is our in theory versus reality slides. We touched on some of the. I guess correspondence that's come into our offices arguing either for or against at large seats. In theory, at large members focus on citywide policy. In reality, we have proof that single District Council members, even within very recent history, have advanced successfully citywide policy and in theory, at large members serve as a backup for district members or constituent services and provide additional representation to constituents in practice. As I mentioned earlier, constituents go directly to their district member first if they go to their At-Large member. They're typically kicked to their single district member. And then the last one here, At-Large members serve as a balance to the mayor's power. That one's one of the most important ones to holds here in the in the balance, because in reality, the cost of running a citywide race is very prohibitive. So At-Large members are more susceptible than single district members to the same special interests that the executive branches and often vote in alignment with the the mayor's agenda. And if you go back and look at the campaign finance for At-Large members and the mayor, you'll often find not only similar contributions directly to campaigns, but if you also look at the independent expenditure committees, they're also typically aligned with the mayoral race. So those positions often affirm the mayor's power in our strong mayoral power city. This is a general timeline of how this proposal has come in front of you all. It did not magically come out of nowhere. This has been a conversation for many years, and the original constituents who brought this to the council many, many years ago brought it to council earlier in this year. And we kind of waited for somebody to pick the ball up and run with it and didn't see anyone pick it up. So we picked it up. Councilman Flynn. Councilman Herndon. Councilman Clark, in our own ways, engaged with those constituents and decided to do our own pieces to advance this conversation. Thank you to Councilman Herndon, who kicked us off with the history of our At-Large seats in committee. We did some outreach to our peers and here we are presenting this to you. We know the runway is a little bit short. But given the robust conversation we have, every time we allow the public to comment or council members to comment, we believe it's deserving of going to the voters for that conversation citywide. And we would definitely plan on engaging constituents throughout the city leading up to the November election. So this is not the end of stakeholder engagement, but this would be the beginning. This is the ballot language that we're proposing. Shall the the charter of the city and county of Denver be amended to convert the two At-Large City Council seats to district council seats, forming a city council composed of 13 district members? We are not eliminating any seats. We are just simply converting the At-Large rules to single district roles. And it would work out nicely because we could draw those districts as we redraw our districts. Now in that process. Pierce cities. A lot of you are I know like to look at our peer cities. What we found when we looked at our peer cities is there's no such thing as a best practice when it comes to having At-Large seats. We have many cities who do all at large. Many cities who do know at large. Some cities who do a hybrid like we do. And we have a full list in our appendix of this presentation for you all to check out. If this goes forward, the voters would get this on their ballot on November 2nd. And we hope that that is allowed. We hope that the voters get an opportunity to have this discussion. And I will pass it over to my colleague here, Councilman Flynn, to add some more context to this proposal.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilwoman CdeBaca. As a councilwoman said, I just want to add a little more context to the discussion because it's actually been going on for a lot longer than some of the folks realize in the community. We have a convergence with redistricting and both at large seats being open in the next election that frankly demands that we have this conversation about our structure, because these circumstances occurred only once before in the 50 years that we've had these seats in 2003, when term limits began and removed the two incumbents. They may never converge again. So we at least have to have the conversation. And I appreciate the openness of our colleagues and those in the community who've reached out to at least have this conversation, although many believe it's been too short. And I'll I'll be addressing that here in my part of the presentation. This conversation started among some long, active community members who saw this moment as the opportunity to broaden citizen representation among Denver's 13 member council, keeping district populations lower and reallocating or converting those two seats to district level to represent these smaller communities of interest. I want to emphasize, as I did it committee, I don't know if everyone here was at committee, but I want to emphasize again, there's no right or wrong way to structure your council. There's only how do you want to do it? And it may be right at this point in Denver's history with our population growth and the structure of our communities and the various communities of interest to reexamine the decision that was made 50 years ago to add the large seats to the mix. So there is no right or wrong, but there is a more common practice of 100 largest cities in America. 63. Have governing bodies that have no At-Large members at all. 29 have a mix of at large and district or ward members, and we are among those 29. And some cities such as Austin, Texas, converted about ten years ago from all at large to all district members. So having at large members on the positive side, as I said, this is this is a balance of interests on the positive side, having at large members gives every voter in Denver three representatives. That's that's a distinct positive point to that. There's no denying it. However, as citywide officials, there still is no guarantee that they'll reflect citywide interests. There's no guarantee that they won't be as parochial as a district member in some of their decision making and policy pursuits. I could name At-Large members and I've known all but three of them over the last 50 years. Who would fit that mold right? They didn't spend a whole lot of time pursuing citywide policy. And also there's no apparent correlation in any of the data between the cities that have our At-Large members and those that don't and policy development in those cities. While one can say that At-Large members since are untethered to any specific district, they have more bandwidth to work on citywide policies. There's no evidence that it's necessary to be at large to do so. There's nothing exclusive to Denver's at large members that yields significant policy advances compared to district members. So for every Kasey Reynolds or Susan Barnes gal who I see is among our scheduled speakers tonight who were At-Large members and served together for eight years. There was also a Bill Roberts or a Salvador Carpio or a Kathy Donahue or a Ramona martinez who were served at district level and were very strong in citywide policy development themselves. So there's no correlation that at large produces different or better results than than having all district members. Certainly cities like Minneapolis, Los Angeles, Austin, cities that we look to and look to their policies and in some cases try to adopt or emulate, have no At-Large members. They're all district members. One aspect of the at large that I think we need to talk about is under voting. Under voting is when voters have a long ballot, they vote for mayor, district council auditor, clerk. At-Large Judges. The under voting in the At-Large races is substantial. For comparison's sake, under voting in 2011, the last time that both the mayor's office and the At-Large seats were both open seats under voting in the mayor's contest was less than 1%. Fewer than 1% of voters did not make a selection for mayor. But in At-Large races, it was 38%. You vote twice in At-Large. So many voters chose to vote. That is strategic voting or, as some would say, gaming it a little bit. And they throw away their other vote or they don't vote at all. 38% in 2003, the previous time the At-Large seats were open, along with the mayor's office, due to term limits kicking in that year. Again, the undervote in the mayor's race was less than 1%, but it was 30% in the At-Large races in 2019. In our last election with the mayor and the At-Large races, all featuring incumbents. Under voting in the mayor's race was 3.8%. While the At-Large contests, it was 31.7% higher under voting than those who didn't vote for auditor or for clerks, which generally would be pretty low profile or at least lower profile than the city council. The At-Large seats are the only elected positions of the 1314 of the 16 elected positions in our charter. They are the only ones that do not require a majority to win. They are elected by plurality only. So in one election in which both seats were open. The two winners gained only 30% and 24%, respectively, of the total vote in that election of 16 at large elections since 1991. Only three winners achieved more than 50% of the ballots that were cast, which is a charter requirement for the rest of our elected officials. One of them is with us in the meeting today and it's Councilwoman Ortega who in 2015 had just over 50% of ballots cast. The other two were Kathy Reynolds. In her last of seven elections in 1999 and Doug Linker in 2007. So being subject to that strategic or bullet voting, the average undervote for at large is 37 or I'm sorry, 32%. Nearly one third of voters wasting their ballots by voting only one or none. So it's hard to say that they are representative of citywide interests with that total amount of undervote in my last segment here in the presentation. Madam President and colleagues. Is a little bit of history once again. And I want to thank particularly Alex Hernandez at the Denver Public Library, Western History Department, who did the mind numbing chore for us of looking through all the microfilm and digital scans of the newspaper coverage. When the at large seats were added, how did they come to be? And it turns out that while some of the criticism of this bill and it has some validity, that it is pretty late in the game. We could have been talking about this for four years, but we haven't. But the fact is, the At-Large seats were added to our charter with much less discussion than we have had on this provision. So the background. Up until 1968, the charter required that our council districts boundaries be redistricted based on the number of registered voters rather than the population. I know that sounds unbelievable today. In 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court made its landmark one person, one vote decision that extended equal representation to the state and local levels. And that meant that Denver's districts, council districts were completely out of line, for instance. And this then went to the Colorado Supreme Court. We had residents of Denver who sued the Denver City Council because of the makeup of our council districts at the time. One of them was Jerry Kopel. But many of us remember Representative Kopel. He wasn't representative at the time, but was one of the plaintiffs in that lawsuit. And it demanded that Denver redistrict according to one person, one vote we had districts with. Well, let me tell you, District eight centered on five points. District eight had the smallest number of registered voters, despite the fact that geographically it was among the largest. You went all the way from the railroad tracks to old Denver, Rio Grande, north yards up on the other side of Foch Street, clear to the northeast boundary of the city, had the fewest number of registered voters, but the largest population compared to districts in Montclair, Hilltop, Mayfair, the rest of the city. So the Colorado Supreme Court then ruled in 1967 that Denver must redistrict before the 1971 elections. So the council then put together a reapportionment committee headed by Councilman Bob Keating. They studied the issue for several months and in May of 1968, they recommended that Denver Council refer to the voters a charter amendment to expand this body from the current nine members that it had had since 1916 to 11 district members. There was no mention of any at large seats being added. Simply take it from 9 to 11 districts. Keating said at the time, and he was quoted in I think it was in the Denver Post. Adding districts, quote, would produce better representation for the citizens. No talk of adding the at large positions and going to 13. So the council decided we will discuss this when the new council committee assignments come in and in that era they came in July 1st as opposed to we do it usually a third Monday in July. So starting in July, their committee worked for about two weeks on a charter amendment then that not only expanded to 11 district seats, but then for the first time and this is only two months before the September 10th primary election, at which this would be on the ballot. So within two months of that election came the first recommendation to add At-Large seats and go to 13 members. It was ordered published at the end of July by a vote of 6 to 3. It was opposed by Mayor Tom Carrigan at the time. On final passage, there was an amendment by Councilman Keating to remove the two At-Large members and that was defeated. There was a an attempt to put off and delay the charter amendment until a special spring election so that there could be robust community engagement and discussion. And that failed also. So this did go on to the primary election ballot, a very low turnout election generally, and it passed. I don't have the vote totals. I didn't get them. So the decision to create the two at large position was made only seven or eight weeks prior to the time that the voters were asked to vote on it. And that was the first time I heard of it. So with that in mind, Madam President, I think we'd be happy to take questions. I think the only thing I would add and I hope that Councilwoman CdeBaca would join me in this and this really doesn't have anything to do with Councilman Clark's Senate committee , with the individuals who served. I have said many times from my desk that I believe Cathy Reynolds was possibly the most consequential member ever to sit on this body in the last 50 years. She served seven terms here. She served at large. I had just I had a discussion with her with her widower, Rick, over the weekend. And he believes that Cathy would not have been able to do all that she did had she served at large. And I'm not going to disagree with him. He knows her better than I did, obviously, but I believe that she would have. I believe that the National League of Cities, which she served as president, has had many presidents who were district council members from Los Angeles, from Philadelphia. I've listed all the presidents of the National League of Cities. Many of them were district council members as well. So. I don't think that it's true that you need that extra time in order to do this hard work, because we all do the hard work. So I would just ask for a discussion on where we are. Where are our values today at this point in history? Do we value the residents of Denver having three representatives, or do we value the closer to the ground smaller district representation? Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. I appreciate the presentation. Councilmembers Flynn and CdeBaca. And we'll give you a chance to get back to your chairs. We've got 17 individuals who are signed up to speak this evening, and all participants are with us virtually. And so we're going to go ahead and get started. Our first speaker is Travis Leiker.
Speaker 1: It's. Good evening, Denver City Council. Travis Leiker, president of Capitol Hill, United Neighborhoods. I just want to say thank you so much for this thoughtful dialog this evening, as well as all of the work that you do on behalf of the city. I'm here just to provide additional background information. Capitol Hill United Neighborhoods conducted a survey of its membership, comprising roughly a thousand Denver sites in the central Capitol Hill area. And the respondents to that survey overwhelmingly opposed the proposal to eliminate the two At-Large positions, but were favorable to possibly include increasing the size of Denver City Council to 15 members with two At-Large and 13 districts. And so I feel like I would be remiss in not sharing the perspectives of our organization as well as the members that we represent. But I would also encourage council, as it deliberates this evening, to think about other processes and procedures that we do a really great job of as it relates to engaging community feedback ranging from liquor licenses to rezonings to other, more robust policy discussions such as the the ballot measures that we considered with respect to the bond measures. That has not been done in this case. We have not had any neighborhood meetings, conversations with community stakeholders, formulation of committees at the neighborhood level and the like. And so while our organization did not take a formal position with an up or down vote, I think it is worth mentioning on behalf of our organization as well as neighborhoods throughout the city, that a more thoughtful , deliberative process would have been well-served for this engagement initiative. We heard conversations around the Austin model, the Los Angeles model, and the New York model. I would post to the council this evening that there be a Denver model and that we have the opportunity to co-create something that could be really meaningful, to increase democratic participation, to enhance advance voter notification around measures such as these or others, to boosting the size of council. We should be evaluating that. Organizations like ours can be your champion as it relates to increasing the sizes of your office budgets. We are here to be thought partners and we're here to engage in a robust conversation. But we would have liked to have had that opportunity over the last several years and unfortunately we weren't a part of that dialog up until now and only have weeks to prepare and to engage the citizenry in a thoughtful, deliberative process. And with that, I say thank you so much for your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Kevin MATTHEWS.
Speaker 10: Hi. I'm Ken MATTHEWS. I live in Congress Park and I also serve on the board of Be Denver. So I am opposing this for tonight. This has been really not, as Travis said, this is there's not a lot of time given to to think this out. We often talk a lot about needing a lot of time to digest different proposals. And I think it's curious that the same amount of time was not given to this. I'm also a master's student at University of Denver studying environmental policy. And the reason I bring this up is my last term. I wrote a paper looking at the climate policies and the transportation policies of Denver. And compared to another pure city, Portland, Oregon, which is which is similar size about 670,000 people now. Now, Portland only has five city council members, actually six, if you include their mayor. They serve all at large, but they do break it up into they basically have different responsibilities. In terms of the climate plans between Denver and Portland, there aren't a lot of differences in the goals. A lot of they talk about complete neighborhoods. They talk about reducing car dependance and other things like that. The difference is Portland is actually succeeding in implementing those goals through legislation. And this body has not. And I don't know how removing two At-Large members makes this body any more effective. Watching this body the last couple of years. The biggest problem is a lot of council members believe that their individual district is an island that stands independent of all others and has unique challenges, and that what happens in their district does not affect a neighboring district, whether and that's whether it's housing or transportation or bike lanes, we just keep finding out that that's not true. There is a valuable perspective that At-Large members give to balance district members who are only focused on their district and not on the citywide. So I hope you take more time with this and and think it through. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Thaddeus Texter.
Speaker 2: You all know that I believe that at large elections constitute an instance of systematic racism and should be abolished. Some of you agree with me and some of you don't. But that's not what I'm here to speak to tonight. In a representative democracy, elected officials are chosen to determine what is best policy for a community. However, they are not properly selected to decide what is the best type of government for the community. In fact, given potential conflicts of interest, it's always dangerous when government starts to decide what is the best type of government. That is a decision that citizens must make for themselves. In fact, the city charter of Denver specifically leaves the question of what type of government should exist solely to the discretion of the citizens. Your job is simply to decide whether or not to submit the question to them, and that decision should not be made on the basis of your personal preference for the best type of government. It should be made on whether or not this is an appropriate time to reassess this question. This is, in fact, an especially appropriate time to reassess at large elections. First, numerous courts have ruled that they this type of election constituted is racially biased, and this alone should provide grounds for reevaluation. So also the immense growth of the city population makes the size of districts an appropriate topic for consideration. Finally, the fact that neither At-Large Councilperson is eligible for reelection in the city is required to engage in redistricting, makes this a propitious time to engage in the discussion. Previously, several of you had noted that this issue more requires more consideration and you may well be correct. However, the proper forum for that discussion is not this chamber. Rather, it is the public forum in which all citizens can participate. I know that some of you have taken informal polls on this topic and think that you have a sense of what your constituents believe about it. However, as you have noted, the type of polls that have been conducted are not particularly representative. What is required is a full public debate in the context of an election. As a result, I ask that you not preempt that debate facilitated by referring this issue to the voters. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is David Pardo.
Speaker 1: Hello. So many of you know me in a large part because I've lived in multiple districts in this city over the last few years. To me, the biggest issue with eliminating the At-Large seats is that it forgets about the 49% of Denver that rents and is. Maybe not going to be in the same neighborhood. In another year if their landlord decides to sell the property they're in or rents increase or they decide they want to move because they just do. And so to me, our At-Large council members represent those of us who rent, who may not have as deep roots in a single district, who don't see a district council member as somebody who is really representing their needs. Because we don't say, Oh, I'm from Highlands or I'm from five points or I'm from wherever we say, I'm a Denver, and that's what I am, because I've been in three different neighborhoods living in the last 15 months alone. So to me, it's it's really important to keep these At-Large seats to represent those of us who don't fit that traditional. Like, I bought a house and I've been here 20 years and I care about what happens in my district. I care about what happens in the district I live in right now, but I care significantly more about what happens in the city. And to me, that really is only represented by our At-Large members. I wanted to add, though, that there are a couple of other options out there. I think it's not a bad idea to expand to 13 districts if you do the math based on the number of council members there, how many sorry, how many constituents each council member represented. Years ago. 50 years ago. Based on those numbers, we should have 16 districts and we should have three At-Large members. I don't know that we need to have a 19 member council. But there are other options. Another option would be, you know, people talk about, hey, there's not enough funding. We only have like we have less than $3 per constituent. And I think that's a totally legitimate crisis. But. You could just increase your budgets. I don't think I'd have an issue with that obvious that we'd have to go in front of the voters. But I just think it's worth discussing other options, whether it's do we increase the budget, you increase the size of council. But I really, really don't feel like I'm going to be represented very well. If the two representatives who've consistently represented me for the last nine years that I've lived in Denver. If those seats disappear, then I have nowhere. I have somebody who who knows that I may be gone in a year and doesn't have to visit. So that's why time and thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Frank Sullivan. All right. We're getting Frank Sullivan up at the Q.
Speaker 2: Can you hear me now? Let's try this again. My name is Frank Sullivan. I live in Park Hill. I speak tonight in support of the Bill zero nine, a way to place them on November ballot, a proposition to convert the two council lunch petitions to district positions. You've heard my arguments in support of this proposal. You've also heard objections to those arguments, and I think each of those have resonated through the city. This is not a new issue. Discussions have gone on for quite a while in the city about this issue. Several times, one member of council prevented the issue from ever reaching the council floor. We've never been able to get this far. And finally, it should be for you to provide an opportunity for the citizens of Denver to weigh in on the issue. To be clear, two things. One, this is not about personality. It's about structure. Secondly, we are not asking you to convert the council at large positions to different positions. What we're asking is you place the issue before the Denver electorate and let the people decide. A packed house tonight or an empty house? A number of people who are speaking in favor of it or are opposed to it really are not a good gauge of the will of the people of Denver. The will of the people of Denver will gauge at a vote. Not not in this one hour courtesy hearing, as it were. Please place the issue on the ballot and let the people decide. There will be spirited discussion. Between now and November. And finally in November, the people will speak. Let the people decide. Thank you so much for your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Darryl Watson.
Speaker 1: Council. President Gilmore, members of Council, thank you for your service to the city and county of Denver. My name is Darryl Watson. I'm a 30 year resident of Denver's District nine. I'm asking you tonight to vote no on a proposal to create an ordinance asking voters to eliminate the existing two at large council seats. During a community hearing, there were statements providing broad stroke conspiracies that the creation of the At-Large seats were underpinned by institutionalized racism. There is not an origin story of the creation of any governance system in this country municipal, state or federal that was not conceived through a lens of racism and patriarchy. There really isn't. What we are discussing tonight is the value of the current diversity council at large positions. Within this current system. The two current large city council members civil rights backgrounds are undeniable and speak loudly for themselves. Bad public policy process in 1968 should not be get more bad public process. Today, my reasons that I ask you to vote no are as follows A possible seismic change to the structure of our city. Governments should have had a more robust communication and community feedback process before being sent as an ordinance to the people to vote . In reality, micro targeted districts could create a myopic focus on council responsibilities by some members of this legislative bodies. And please note that many district seats have never, never elected a bipoc member. And finally, leaders that are elected citywide can provide a legislative balance to our strong mayor executive structure. I also would like to add that large city council members provide three legislators to reach out to reach out to expanding the reach and impact of the only one district representative. And thankfully, in district in the district that I'm in, that I can reach out to Councilmember Ortega and Councilmember Kennish. I listened intently during the committee meeting when it council members shared their successful process for being available for their constituents. What resonated to me is that it wasn't so much a geographic size and population of the district. The Council persons responsible for that determines the level of constituent services that is provided. A $75,000 council district member does not reach out to 75,000 members. They reach out to a far smaller number. It is the size of the compassion. The interest in listening to constituents within that district is really what resonates and really what creates a level of high constituency service. We need both at large and district council members. We need to keep both of those council seats so that individuals like myself and others who rely on that honest support and the direction of a large council members will return. What remain? Thank you for your consideration and for voting no on this proposal.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Dr. Adrian Stefanski.
Speaker 7: Hello and good evening. Members of Council. I am here to speak in favor of Resolution 908 to convert, not eliminate, but to convert the At-Large seats into two additional councilmember districts. I listened last week as Denver residents were accused of being un-American for being disenchanted with the ballot. This statement neglected to mention that when Denver adopted its mayor and council government in 1904, women couldn't vote. We were just reminded of the patriarchal foundation of our government by the previous speaker. But it is an illusion. The citizens in Denver are represented by three council persons. We heard it again tonight, but I'm here to tell you that that isn't an illusion at best. We are represented by a single one. I have heard that At-Large council people are busy working on legislation, policy or addressing citywide issues, and I simply disagree. I have not seen the results of this. I have not seen the critical legislation we need. What I have seen is At-Large councilors works, criticize and obstruct most meaningful legislation that has come through and to sit on the dias. And critics criticize how residents choose to engage. So I feel very lucky that I have been represented by Councilwoman CdeBaca, who tirelessly advocates for the people of District nine. And I really object to the idea that this proposal was rushed. This proposal started out with my councilwoman showing you a timeline. I object to the idea that any changes that are necessary toward a government need to take years. This is an issue of something getting referred to the ballot, right? So you can't have it both ways. You can't criticize people for voting or not voting and then not not wanting to give them the opportunity to vote. So I think that we've gotten to a point with with this dysfunctional council that you really need to start referring things to the ballot. We don't need to spend years. We need change. This is perfect timing. This is literally the perfect timing. With two At-Large council members turning out at the same time, there could not be better timing. This is not rushed. This is well done. Please pass this on to the voters. Just please, please support this very common sense. Move into the future. Thank you very much for your time. Please support this. Please support. This. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Jonathan Patoka.
Speaker 1: Hello.
Speaker 7: I can hear you now.
Speaker 0: We can hear the area.
Speaker 1: Oh. Okay. Excellent. Hey, good evening. Houses down Tokyo District three. Tonight, I'm speaking against the notion of the Senate conversion of council seats to this false ballot. You've already heard from others that the projects are at large. Representative. Some undertaken are distinctly valuable, are not duplicative of the work our district representatives do, and allow for a wider breadth of legislative focus across one citizen's representatives. Adding to what you've heard already, I'm here to speak to two additional arguments. First up, this is a solution in search of a problem. And to that, placing the question on the ballot for voters to decide. Even if this council doesn't necessarily think it's the best solution is not a harmless act, does not amplify the voices of people. It is ill advised to begin. We've heard the difficulty. The difficulty that you or councilors face when doing your work amidst an increasingly large population of Democrats is understandably challenging for district network members alike to find ways to connect with your many residents, in each being only one place at a time. And we all know how many neighborhood meetings and events overlap on any given day of week. District representatives now represent the voices of over 50,000 residents each, while our at large councilors represent the whole city. And these numbers are rising. But it's clear that converting our At-Large seats today once doesn't solve these problems. If districts become smaller, that does nothing to help you attend multiple simultaneously simultaneous events. It doesn't help you personally research a broader diversity of legislative topics. In short, a smaller district doesn't extend your reach. On the contrary, having more support staff and alternatives that has been resoundingly popular in our discussions and surveys would extend your reach if the issue we were trying to solve is one of reach. We should ask voters to increase budgets for your staff and to note, even if we were to take at face value, that a smaller district would make your work easier or better in quality. This proposed solution would be nothing more than a Band-Aid with the gross history of a councilwoman said about us here. It wouldn't be long before 15 district councilors represent as many as 13 do today. It's clear that this proposal walked backwards from its desired solution to find problems that could passively support a narrative instead of letting problems guide the solution. Further. I've heard arguments in committee and elsewhere that we should place this proposal on the ballot anyhow in order to let the people decide or to let the voters have this discussion. This assertion assumes that placing this question of question on the ballot at worst amplifies the voice of the people and does no harm. That isn't the reality of council sponsored ballot questions, particularly this one. When an initiative reaches the ballot in this council, there's a tacit assumption among voters that this council did its due diligence before sending that question to the people. We, the voters, should be able to reliably believe that this council identified a problem with solutions and determined that the sponsored question was the best solution. When we see these, we think that this council didn't pass what you ostensibly consider to be ideal legislation only because you were prevented from doing so by your charter, not because the idea crossed the desk and said, Why not let them vote? This won't make it for public debate. Here the voters are presented with only one inadequate path for a yes or no. I urge you. Vote no. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is David Hagan.
Speaker 1: Hi. Thank you, Counsel, for being courteous enough to let me speak this night. I am going to say this should be given to the voters, basically based on. The last the last one we voted are you voted on Sway? Hinds and Clark all said they did not support the last one, but yet they wanted the voters to decide. So I would expect Sawyer, Hines and Clark to all vote yes on this one, to let the voters decide. If not, I'm going to find that quite a bit interesting. We just decided to let the people just decide on a neighborhood how it was going to be. Gentrified, basically. Most of the people are going to understand that they're going to vote however somebody tells them to. Right now we're asking the question that affects every single person in the city, and we need to be letting the voters decide on this one. If you oppose it, maybe you should start a conversation after you give it to the voters, because right now they keep talking about.
Speaker 10: Three people representing me. Well, I would.
Speaker 1: Assume that maybe I had four. If you think about the two at large.
Speaker 10: The president, and then my.
Speaker 1: My my councilman. Currently, I believe I have one because not as president, not a single At-Large person has ever responded to an email I've sent ever.
Speaker 10: So to say that they.
Speaker 1: Represent you is not necessarily true. I just don't see that to be the case. And I actually am curious to find out how they spend their budget. Because I don't know. It's just everything seems a little bit weird here. And they come back and say, this is Rush. When we just went through the whole set, the whole thing about the last one being Russ and you voted for it anyways. Would it have to be black and brown vote? Mostly, mostly brown people.
Speaker 10: And then now.
Speaker 1: We have a bunch of white people up here other than one other person, which are white people saying that we shouldn't do this. So I would like to understand where we are and. Yes. Everything has been built upon a racist system. We all know that. But it's our duty to stop that, not to acknowledge it, then continue forward and do the exact same thing over and over again. We should stop it. We should have somebody that represents each and every person in the city. And I also would like to say that my councilwoman, she represents people outside of her district because she cares enough to listen to them, to respond to them, to create relationships with them. I don't get that from my at large people. I'm sorry. I don't mean that, you know, but it's the way it is. I don't ever get a response. And frankly.
Speaker 2: If our council really gave a damn.
Speaker 1: About us, they wouldn't shut public comment off 3 minutes early, one minute early, they'd go 2 minutes over, one minute over, because they want to let the people talk because it'll.
Speaker 2: Take.
Speaker 10: 1500.
Speaker 1: Years for all of us to speak. If we want to go there once at a courtesy when our public hearing and 20 people get cut off. Excuse me. That's not courteous. That's. I don't give a shit about anybody but my views. The people are here to speak. You let them speak. If you cared about the people, you would let the people speak. And that's the way it would be. So let the people speak. Let them vote on what is coming down the way. Since we're so adamant about letting them vote on it.
Speaker 0: We have freed speaker. Our next speaker is Steven Benishek.
Speaker 1: Oh. Can you hear me? So.
Speaker 0: Yes, you can. Go ahead.
Speaker 1: Okay. Hello. My name's Steven Bunch. I live in District six and I'm here to speak against this proposal. So this is going massively over the last ten years. Not to even mention the past 51 last change to the council was made, as we heard. So it's obviously clear the time has come to reevaluate how we can best provide effective representation. However, I do have several concerns with this proposal. The first is in transforming the At-Large seats, which I believe would drastically decrease representation for the people of the city. There are ways to correct the democratic deficit in the current election about large numbers. However, this council, when presented with a report, chose to do nothing but move the election date back. Great city wide initiatives like Group Living have come out of that large seats. And Councilmember CdeBaca explained just before how current council members are swamped just within their own districts. Time is a finite resource, and current district members have to choose between spending their time on representing their districts and working on citywide policy like we heard. Limiting these seats and turning them into district represents also creates major equity concerns with renters who are more likely to move around the city standing to lose representation as opposed to wealthier property owners who are settled in one district. The second problem is in this process, this process through which does come about with public only learning about it may even have discussions have been going on for a while. There are many different paths that this could take and reevaluate the city council from expanding the council its current ratio, adding some large adding some district seats to increasing staff budgets. However, because of the timeline to get this on the ballot for this year, a low turnout election. There hasn't been enough time to properly consider all the possible alternatives. There's plenty of time for these conversations to take place before redistricting in 2022 and elections in 2023. For these reasons, I ask you to vote no to give this topic further considerations. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Tess Dougherty.
Speaker 7: Hi, Counsel. Thank you for holding this public comment tonight, albeit not enough. I wanted to just talk about equity. So a few things. One, the notion that district council members do not work on citywide issues is a farce. So everybody keeps coming forward talking about that. And there are plenty of things that are brought forward by district. District level council people that impact everybody in the city. There are numerous examples. I don't know why that is continued, a continued narrative that is just not true. The second the if we're going to talk about equity. You know, earlier tonight I mentioned the River North Plan, which, by the way, you know, the name River North in and of itself is, you know.
Speaker 9: Came out of gentrification.
Speaker 7: That neighborhood is called Five Points. And they literally they they say it in the.
Speaker 9: Plan how.
Speaker 7: They want to rebrand it to make it more marketable. You know, because because prior to that.
Speaker 9: They prior to all of the white people have come in and literally colonized the land. They, you know, just they couldn't have it associated with the name five points because that is associated with black and brown people.
Speaker 7: And so, you know, on that plan is Debbie.
Speaker 9: Ortega's name actually.
Speaker 7: Because she was she's been around since that since then she's been a part of these plans. So to talk about equity as if the current. At-Large members are doing it for everybody is probably not true. The third is that. You just let the voters decide on a half a billion dollar bond package? And yet you're maybe not going to let them vote on this. That's ridiculous. We're putting into people's hands. You put into all of the voters of Denver to decide on a neighborhood that didn't even get a seat at the table. About what happens to their neighborhood, and yet you're going to let the rest of the city decide. And now you're going to say that the rest of the city can't decide on this. That's absurd. It doesn't even make any sense. Please let the voters decide on this.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Douglas Price. Shannon Hoffman.
Speaker 7: Good evening, members of Council. Can I be heard?
Speaker 0: Go ahead, chef.
Speaker 7: Thank you. I am here in support of Bill 21, 0908. At first it was simply logic around numbers. Right. Smaller districts mean that we can have closer representation. But last week during a Denver City Council committee meeting, a person Mr. Thaddeus thank you gave comment indicating that other in other seats, At-Large seats have been struck down by courts due to finding at large voting districts to be racially discriminatory by the Voting Rights Act of 1965. So just to share with you a little bit of that research from an article called Challenging the Racism of at Large Elections. In 2000, the DOJ announced that the At-Large method of electing city council members in Morgan City, Louisiana, violated the Voting Rights Act by diluting the strength of black voters in 2002. They blocked the DOJ block plans in Freeport, Texas. This also happened in Charleston County, South Carolina. Fayetteville, North Carolina. Georgetown County, Lake Park in Florida. Fayette County, Georgia. So you can look into the history there. You might be thinking, but, Shannon, this is the South. Well, America is the south. And may I also remind you that Denver was ordered by the Supreme Court in 1973, almost 20 years after board the Brown v Board of Education to desegregate schools. So we have an issue here, too, that we have to deal with with anti-racism in our public systems. You see in our new census data that we have pushed black and brown people out of this city. So we need representation for all people as we continue to make statements about commitments to anti-racism. This is an opportunity to act. This is an opportunity to engage people who have typically been underrepresented and pushed out of the political process. This is an opportunity to do something unlike we have done with the residents of Global Elyria, Swansea. Last week we we passed a bond test, said, thank you, that's almost half a billion dollars and did even less community engagement than what has happened here. In fact, many of those residents were blocked from engaging and they still have no idea about how they will benefit from that project. Please pass this forward to the voters so that we all may engage in this process. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Keith Pryor. All right. It looks like we don't have Keith in the queue. Next up is Jesse Paris.
Speaker 1: Yes. Good evening, members of the council and those watching at home. My name is Justin with Sam Paris and I'm representing four black socks and move for self-defense causes of massacre. America's also changed was the Unity Party of Colorado in front line black news. And I will be the next mayor of Denver in 2023. I am in favor of passing this on to the voters to decide on what we're going to do with our two at large positions. I'm in favor of converting them into district seats. Representation matters and clearly we are not being represented, especially black people, foundational black Americans, American descendants of slavery in this city. We are not being represented. We are being displaced, continue, marginalized and gentrified out of our communities. So I am full support of passing this on to the voters. Let the voters decide. As seen in Candy, Councilwoman Candy said about this presentation, there has been due diligence done on this. So there has been enough time for the voters to decide. So we just need to go on and pass this on to the voters to decide in November. All this talk about. We're not being. There's a population growth. And. The numbers are not keeping up with the city council. So when we do the redistricting in 2022. We need to keep all that in mind because we are not being represented as a continued state. We're not being represented by people who are not being represented by people who are not being represented, as we seen last week with the Bonn passage of half a billion dollars and the people and the community of which this is going to be taking place where not even at the table. So we have a problem, Denver And our problem is racism, white supremacy. And we continue to perpetuate it by passing these bills, these ordinances and all the above. So just leave it up to the Denver voters to decide what we're going to do with our seats. I get more representation from can Candi see the who's not even in my district. I'm in District eight, Councilman Hardy's district, and I don't even go to him for help. I don't get replies, back, e-mails, nothing. And I don't get the same from the at large seats. And I ran for out of large in 2019, almost 15,000 votes with no money. So I can attest to how racists and white supremacists. Such a racist. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And a quick reminder to our speakers, we ask that you address your remarks to all of council instead of individual council members. Our next speaker is Susan Barnes Guild.
Speaker 7: Hi.
Speaker 10: I neutered and started video.
Speaker 7: Oh, here I am. So pretty much everything I was going to say has been said. I agree.
Speaker 10: That this.
Speaker 7: Has been rushed to the ballet. And I guess my big question.
Speaker 10: Is I'm not clear on what the problem what problem me trying to solve, I would argue, is Kevin Flynn, acknowledge that nothing big got done without Cathy Brown. Every big construction deal, every big policy deal. And she was superb. And I would. Argue with well that I.
Speaker 7: Worked on my two.
Speaker 10: Terms on council.
Speaker 7: Several very important.
Speaker 10: Issues, perhaps the most.
Speaker 7: Consequential.
Speaker 10: Being the transformation of Denver General Hospital to Denver Health Authority, which was big, heavy lifting.
Speaker 7: And Wellington, of course, was the mayor.
Speaker 10: And it was he came.
Speaker 7: To me and he.
Speaker 10: Said, okay, Barton Scout, I'm going to.
Speaker 7: Let you handle this, because Wellington was pretty.
Speaker 10: Close to my.
Speaker 7: Husband, Howard Delk, because Howard Gilbert tells me that.
Speaker 10: You are fearless.
Speaker 7: And to tell you the truth, I think I know this is the right thing to do.
Speaker 10: I completely support patty gbo.
Speaker 7: I think every citizen of Denver deserves.
Speaker 10: The best level one.
Speaker 7: Health care.
Speaker 10: Available.
Speaker 7: But I'm not in a position.
Speaker 10: To take the flack that this is going to generate.
Speaker 7: So I think I mean, that certainly is my proudest accomplishment.
Speaker 10: But I would also argue that.
Speaker 7: Initiating a comp plan after 40 years without one, redoing the zoning code, which candidly I.
Speaker 10: Apologize for.
Speaker 7: And many other land use and preservation.
Speaker 10: Historic district view planning issues were my purview. So I do think that the district council. I think you should.
Speaker 7: Add two more district council seats and.
Speaker 10: Keep the march. Thanks for the opportunity.
Speaker 0: Thank you. We would also like to acknowledge former council member Susan Barnes, Gil, as well. Thank you for your comments. And our last speaker this evening is Dewey Jackson.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. I am Dewey Jackson, a resident of District eight and also the president of the Denver Area Labor Federation, where we we represent over 90,000 plus members in the Denver metro area who work and live in these districts. And I would be opposed to abolishing the last two seats and ask that you would also vote no because it weakens the power of the council. And most of those workers are women and people of color, and that makes them lose two thirds representation. And historically, the model that the council is now has worked up to this point. And I would just say that to consider the alternatives of increasing district and staff funding, to take that to be able to service the new ballot, the new redistricting lines would be better than abolishing the two At-Large seats. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you. That concludes our speakers this evening. Questions for members of Council on Council Bill 908. And I believe we have Councilmembers Flynn and CdeBaca available for any questions. All right. CNN. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 908. All right. There we go. Council member Swire.
Speaker 9: Thanks, Madam President. I think this really comes down to a question of good governance and whether it's responsible to refer this proposal to the ballot. Has there been enough community outreach and engagement? Has it been vetted enough for consideration by the voters who are trusting us to do our jobs? As I said in committee, my office in our own admittedly unscientific community survey and found that the majority of the respondents don't support getting rid of the two At-Large seats. And I'm frankly not sure that I support it either. I think the solution is for the mayor's office to fund our council offices appropriately. We simply cannot pay our staff what they deserve and staff at appropriate levels to meet the level of customer service that our constituents deserve. In my office, each of my full time staff members services approximately 22,000 constituents each. My staff works really, really hard and they should absolutely get paid more. But if I paid them what they're worth, I wouldn't have any money in my budget for SurveyMonkey or constant contact or mailers or translation services or all of the things that we are required to fund out of our Council Council budgets in order to assure the excellent ensure the excellent customer service that our constituents deserve. That said, I think that my colleagues are probably right now is the time to look at this issue. And I do believe that the voters deserve to have a conversation. So I will be a yes on referring this to the ballot this evening so that the residents of Denver can engage in this conversation as well. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Sawyer. Councilmember Hines.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Council President. I want to repeat a comment made in committee because I don't think it really has been addressed. I see this as a, um. This particular question is a combination of two separate questions. Question one Should we have 11 or 13 District Council members? Question two Should we have zero or two At-Large Council members? I'm a little concerned that we're in the interest of expediency mashing those two questions together. So I, I think that if we were to have a public comment or a public stakeholder process, I, I, I personally believe that we would, uh, we would find a lot of people willing to, uh, to address both of those questions on the ballot as opposed to having them arbitrarily combined to this particular question. Another comment I made in committee is that 100% of those who provided feedback to my office all made comments asking me to keep the large seats, which isn't exactly the question that is being asked or asking me not to refer the question of the ballot. The outreach includes multiple constituents who are former Denver City Council members, including former council member Susan Barnacle. I made this comment on the record in committee, expecting a deluge of responses from constituents yet again received not a single email from anyone asking me to eliminate the At-Large seats or to refer this to the ballot. Specifically, one constituent wrote, But I am oppose the elimination of the At-Large districts. I don't even want to see it on the ballot. That is as it is one that can be easily promoted with weird slogans. This is a solution working for a problem. So I ask you to vote to oppose putting it on the ballot. Sure we've bantered this question around for a long time. This banter has been theoretical in nature, and there's a difference between banter and serious consideration now that we're seriously considering. I would strongly encourage us to have the conversation with the community about the two questions before sending it to the ballot. Next. I understand that the original ballot measure that added large was rushed. While I agree that the rushed process then was controversial, I disagree that we should then normalize controversy and refer this one to the ballot because of the same rush process. While District ten does not have a history of Bipoc council members, it still has broken a barrier by choosing a first elected official in Denver's history who uses a wheelchair for mobility. There are other ways to break barriers. Finally, Denver is growing up. We are no longer a cowtown in a flyover state. We're a top 25 U.S. city that continues to grow by leaps and bounds. As we grow up, we will increasingly move toward representative democracy. That's just what happens in most cities, with the two potential exceptions of New York and Chicago. I look forward to a conversation that includes ensuring council has adequate funding to communicate with constituents. I look forward to a conversation with the two questions. Until then, I will vote no to refer this to the ballot. Thank you. Council President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Hines. Councilmember Black.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Madam President. And thank you, Councilwoman Sayed Abarca and Councilman Flynn for bringing this forward. I learned a lot from your presentation, so thank you for that. I've been working on a lot of good governance things with the council and with Councilwoman Gilmore this past year. And one of the things I'm kicking off very soon with our clerk, Paul Lopez, is a ballot measure working group. And one of my goals with that is to ensure we don't get into this position in the future where we are deciding to put something on the ballot that we haven't had the time to vet, we haven't had the time to understand it. I think it is our responsibility as legislators to really understand what we are putting on the ballot before we put it on the ballot. I can't say that I would be for or against this proposal, but I just don't know enough about it. I'm going to read a few sentences from a letter that we all received from the League of Women Voters because they they stated very well. It says Our opposition is based on our position on citizen participation in government, which advocates for increased opportunities for citizen input into the governmental process. The process leading up to the August 23rd public hearing does not meet these criteria. Charter amendment consideration should be removed from council proceedings until a broad public discussion has taken place. Our opposition is to the current process because there has not been sufficient discussion of a change with such far reaching implications. Council has known for at least three years that there would be simultaneous turnover of both at large city council positions and a once a decade redistricting. Such a fundamental change to our charter and representation, a staple of Denver government since its installation in 1968, must be widely discussed with widespread forums and speakers generating thoughtful consideration by the citizenry. I agree with what that letter says and I would be very open to discussing this further. I just don't feel comfortable referring it to the ballot. With having so little information. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Black. Next up, we have Councilmember Herndon.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. I'm glad that we're having this conversation because I want to share this number with you. So the 1970 census. So when we move to the current configuration that we have right now, the population of Denver was 514,000. You divide that by 11, that's 46,000 per district. You fast forward several decades later, we have the same number of district representatives and we have a population of 200,000 more. Which breaks down to just about over 50% increase when they decided to increase the structures broken. And I have the unique position of representing two districts during redistricting because I represented District 11, which went from 23rd in Holly all the way out to the airport. My district was over 80,000 people. And I can tell you that was too big. And I was thankful for the redistricting that brought it down to 55,000, an appropriate level and number to be able for what we are asked of as local electeds. Because what's unique about this position, what people ask of their city council members are not asked of their state representative, their state senators, their school board members and RTD . In my opinion, what we are asked to go to, what we were asked to participate in is significantly higher. And that's what the question is. What is what is the appropriate size for the districts? If we stay with our current configuration, with the 715,000 as a census brought forward, it's approximately 66,000, 20,000 more than what we had in 1970. Maybe it is. Maybe some people still feel that it's sufficient enough. I think it's worth the question because I believe that due diligence and research has been done to see other cities what they do outside of Denver. I don't believe we should replicate another city, but ask the question, are what other cities are doing appropriate for Denver? I believe the research has been done. I believe this is a valid question. I don't believe that it is. RUSH That's always the argument. People say if they feel as if they don't want something to go to the voters, I believe this is fair. I would look forward to discussion if it doesn't pass. This council should do something when it comes to our size, and I don't believe money is the solution to that. I would have been open if there was a proposal for going to 15 to add more, but that proposal wasn't forward. No one brought anything forward. It was just a matter of debating this one. So I want to I want to thank Council member State of Bock and Flynn for bringing forward a solution to a problem that I believe we need to address. So I will be in support of sending this actually, I'll be supportive of publishing this because this is on first reading, but I do hope that we send it to the voters, if not figure out a way we can better support our constituents in our districts. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Herndon. And we're going to transition online right now or virtually we've got Councilmember Ortega and then Councilmember Cashman. Go ahead, Councilmember Ortega.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Madam President. I'm going to try to be concise, but I think it's important to capture some of these issues that were brought up. I had an opportunity to participate in a discussion with Inter Neighborhood Cooperation, ANC Councilwoman CdeBaca, who presented this same information to them, and overwhelmingly the majority of the people who were in attendance in that meeting and as you know, they represent neighborhoods all across the city, had very similar concerns as those that were expressed tonight. In fact, some of them were some of the very people that were part of that conversation. I think the argument about renters is a very, very valid concern. So if somebody wants to run for a seat, if they're a renter, they are at the mercy of their landlord. And we've seen this happen with with people all across our city where they have to move. When a landlord decides to either sell or condo, convert a home or scrape it and have something else put on the property, and, you know, you're left with no choice but to have to move. And we have some active renters in our city. Their voice is equally as important. And the fact that, you know, they could only run for that large seat is the only way they be able to represent over half of our population that are actually renters. This is data from the U.S. Census Bureau. Another point that I wanted to make is when you look at the comparison of cities and what structures people have in those cities, the National League of Cities actually looked into this issue and their focus is on equitable civic engagement, and they recommend that the hybrid, which is the At-Large and the district seats, is their model charters that they recommend. And so I think that's important to share. We know that we have people who are active in our state legislature, who attend many of our House district meetings and some of the Reno meetings, most of them not only the state legislature, but our school board members, as well as our RTD district members. They represent much larger districts than what our district offices do. And we have three staff people or can have up to three staff people. Some members of council choose not to fill all three of those positions or they spend the money differently on their staffing. But most of them either have limited staff or no staff and are representing much larger districts. And it doesn't mean to say that they're not receiving and responding to constituent concerns that come in to them on a regular basis as well. Over my 42 years of working with the city or as a staff member to a council person, a staff member at our Office of Human Services and my 26 years on as a council member, I have witnessed many votes and decisions where having At-Large members at the table ensured a more robust debate that reflected the perspectives at a much broader city level rather than just a localized district perspective. Councilman Herndon talked about the how the districts had changed in size over time. I think it's also important to share that as the districts have grown, so have the staffing levels and the amount of money that was budgeted to each office to ensure that we're able to meet the needs of the constituents that that we all represent. And I can remember at one time that large seats actually got more money than what the district seats did. And we have the same budget as the district, but district offices do. It's always been mandated that the At-Large seats are housed downtown. We have a number of district offices, three of whom are supporting this particular measure that have offices out in the community. In some cases, they're in city buildings. In other cases, their rents are paid out of our district. Central budget for central budget. And so. The conversations that I have heard from my colleagues are about, you know, the concern related to being able to pay enough to keep good staff and the issue of, you know, having enough money to be able to do some of the things like newsletters and surveys and those kinds of things. And that's the conversation that we should be having. As as you heard from many of the speakers, part of the concern is the fact that we have not done the same outreach and robust community engagement that we did when we brought the whole package of ballot initiatives , the charter changes that we did last time around when I chaired that committee. We started that six months in advance to, you know, vet the different ideas that people were bringing forward, both from colleagues as well as from internal. Agencies, independent agencies and some of our external partners that are that work with our our city staff people from the Fraternal Order of Police to. You know, those kinds of groups. And in this case, we did not do that. And you're hearing from the public that, you know, we should be looking at maybe adding two more seats, but keeping the At-Large seats in place because people value having that, you know, that diversity of representation. And we we're not having that conversation. That's not the proposal that is on the table for us to consider. And and so that's where I think we're really lacking in this process. And just because timing seems to be an issue about. You know, looking at the fact that. You know, Councilwoman, we can eat. You know, we'll both be gone for this next election cycle. And it's not about us, but it's about the structure. And to do something so drastic in such a quick timeframe without that thoughtful engagement from the public that we heard tonight, you heard it and see, I've been hearing it from constituents that are, you know, sending e-mails and calling my office that they they really do feel like this is worse. And so for for those reasons, I will not be supporting this. I think people have a misconception that by. Basically removing the two at large districts and creating more districts that were going to create some some, I don't know, equalization, some equity in the process. But not all districts are created equal. It depends on the geography that you happen to get. There are certain districts that have far more activity than others that require three units to have three staff people and to maybe attend more movies. So it just depends when the boundaries get reshaped. What geography you happen to have that's going to determine, you know, your your workload. And again, that's the conversation that we should be having. This is not broke. We shouldn't fix it. We don't have clarity of what it is that is broken that we're trying to fix. And I. I just can't support this moving forward. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Ortega. Next up, we have Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Thank you, Madam President. I'll try not to repeat too much of what my colleagues have already said as far as the time frame, whether or not we've had enough time. This is a major change to the to the way we're proposing to govern our city. It's been proposed that, well, if it's been too rushed, you know, now we can have a discussion and let the people have the discussion. If we had six, eight, nine months ahead of us to have that discussion, I might think that was a reasonable way to approach it. But by my look at the calendar, this would give us a couple of months and to put forward a proposal of this magnitude, of any similar magnitude, and say you've only got two months to discuss it. I think most of the time the public, including a lot of folks who are presented tonight, would be outraged. So I lean to the point that we haven't had enough time. I think it's an important discussion. I mean, looking at the issues that people like Frank Sullivan and Thad Tex have brought up about equity, you know, racial and otherwise are critically important. I mean, you know, reason would say that this topic would merit a full whether you want to call it a task force or a committee, but a full unveiling of all the issues. The one thing that I find really interesting that I haven't heard vetted in any way. If I remember Councilman Herb Herndon's numbers, I think in the what, the seventies, we had 46,000 a district. Right now, if we stay at 11, we're up to 66,000. Well, when they had 46,000 people per district, those district offices were not hearing from 46,000 people. And I don't believe we have the statistics to tell us how many unique contacts we are getting from our districts. And I think this discussion calls the question that we probably need to figure out a way to begin assembling that data, because whether this passes or not, at some point it very well is worth looking at how many districts we should have. Because, you know, if we if we now had 66,000 people, I know that that's if we're mailing door to door, that numbers are extremely important. And that's a budgetary question. But how much staff we need is more reliant upon, you know, what's the difference in population that we actually need to be in contact with by email, by phone? I think it's a great conversation. I really do. I just don't think we have the time or the structure to properly vetted in this particular issue. And so I think that's all I have to say. And so I'll just say thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Cashman. Up next, we have Councilmember Flynn.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. I agree that I wish there had been. I agree with the folks who say they wish there had been more time. The fact is, as Alex Hernandez, a Denver public library documented for us, we've probably had triple the amount of discussion on this than they did in 1968 when they added the At-Large seats at the last minute in the legislative process. Things were much different in 1968. I can't I can't really disagree with the folks who say they wish we had more time. I do, too. What I also know is that I'm grateful for having had the discussion. I think it had to occur because of the convergence of the redistricting with the two open seats. If we were to take this up in the next redistricting, we would most likely be looking at a district being out incumbents. That could be done, but it's not politically very easy. So I'm really grateful for the fact that we've had the discussion now. I do want to emphasize one point that I made there at the podium, and that is the nature of the voter turnout for the at large races in historically. The undervote in the At-Large races would raise the question in my mind of how representative are the At-Large positions of the city as a whole when in in one year when they were open seats, 24,000 votes citywide was enough to win a seat. 17,000 votes in one race was enough to win a seat. And so I think we ought to at least consider whether and again, Madam President, I want to emphasize there's no right or wrong way to do this. There really is. And I'm not going to it's not going to break my heart if we don't proceed with this. I just really think that the value at this point in Denver's history, the value of bringing representation closer to the people and creating smaller, more representational districts, it has less to do with the point that Councilman Cashman just made, the fact that we don't hear from 60,000 people. Certainly we don't have 60,000 unique contacts in the course of a year with our constituents. It has more to do with representing tighter, smaller communities of interest at the district level. And the question here is whether you value that or do you value continuing the At-Large positions, which give the people of Denver three representatives to to to rely on. I side with the choice of having the more representative districts. And the thing that pushes me over the edge is the. The low profile that the races get, the low voter turnout that they get, which makes me question how represented representative they are of the the citizens of Denver. So thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Flynn. Councilmember Quinn each.
Speaker 9: Thank you. Council President. I'm taking my Zen pill today. I appreciate all the speakers. Thank you. To the community who signed up to speak. I agree with those who suggest we should move past the process conversation. Everyone who's described the lack of input and community meetings is correct. And here we are debating the substance. So that's where I will focus. In taking my Zen pill. I'm trying to step back and imagine what this conversation sounds like to others. And I think that I respect that. It might not have been intended this way, but to imply this council is so special compared to other elected bodies perhaps needs a little reflection. The population of the state of Colorado has more than quintupled. Quintupled. The average constituency in a House district office district would have been 20,000 residents in 1950. It would have been up to 34,000 in 1971, the year we've decided to benchmark our conversation to today. Today it's 87,000. And you're right. Our jobs are very different than those of the House of Representatives. They, for example, have to have other jobs, and they're paid a whopping salary of $40,000 today, and they had to fight to double that. If I benchmark their salaries with these years, they might have been virtually nothing. So you're right. Our jobs are different. We're paid full time, year round. We have health care benefits and retirement. They have to have two jobs and they represent more constituents than us. And just as diverse of issues. Just as diverse issues. Let's look at our other boards, our TDI, single issue. Really perhaps less complicated job, perhaps transit dependency versus commuters. They're paid the whopping salary of $12,000. They have to have another full time job, not another part time job. They have to have a full time job to live. And so to suggest that our jobs are different is true, but perhaps not in the way intended. Let's move fast forward to our school board, also a single entity. We could say less complex, except it's children. It is our future that they're responsible for and they're paid a salary of zero. Again their districts, far more constituents, far more constituents than ours. Fewer districts, more constituents. Zero salary. And, by the way, zero staff. I don't point this out to shame anyone I pointed out to say at a certain point, I guess I invite us to reflect on our humility. It is a privilege to do these jobs. And yes, they are hard. But I see no other body. The US Congress. Right. The population of the United States has doubled and the US Congress, every district has gotten larger. I struggle with finding that we are the most special body in the United States of America. That as population grows, the only answer and the only just answer is to try to shrink the district size and to keep up with that no matter what size the body is, no matter what the best practice research is about. For example, when a body functions the best, there are certainly councils that have 50 members and they have smaller districts. I'm not sure they meet the test for the most functional governing body. I'm not sure of a level of collaboration. I don't know what it's like for a member of the community to lobby that body to make change and have to count 50 votes as a as a community member trying to make change. But all of these things. Right. I think the question of. The humility to say it's a privilege to do these jobs and they're hard and we're no more or less important than these other elected officials. And it's simply a point of reference. Right. So that's one argument we've had tonight is this idea that because of population change, we must we must have more districts. Right. So I've just addressed why I think that. I'm not sure that's true. But let's talk about some of the other arguments that have been brought forward. What do you do? So we had two kinds of arguments. In addition to this population, one, we had theoretical arguments, which is really tough. This is why the Zen is so important. So a theoretical argument about how at large council members are more likely to align with the administration? Well, the only way to dispute a theoretical argument is to get into real examples, which is awkward. Right. I voted against the mayor earlier this evening. My council colleague, Councilwoman Ortega, has voted against the mayor numerous times. I voted against the mayor before I voted against a very popular budget. You know, we could start to refute with individual facts. I can talk about Carol Borg and running the first, you know, probably the main budget amendment in a decade, giving a raise to city workers, you know, over the mayor's opposition. I can give the juggling cart fighting the gel. The only way I can fight theoretical arguments is with facts from real life. And then it sounds like we're in the personal and everyone wants to not be in the personal. This is not personal, except when you put a theoretical argument on a slide. Then we have to talk about whether it has proven true in reality, right? Whether the At-Large seats have in fact championed policies that have been counter right. To the interests of people of color. Right. Whether the large seats, for example, have.
Speaker 13: Proposed.
Speaker 9: Anti-Discrimination ordinances non-cooperation with ICE ordinances for, you know, for immigrant members of our community, whether they have been the first member from the LGBTQ community or the first Latina to be in this seat, we have to we have to get personal, because that's what you have to do. If you're faced with theoretical arguments, you have to say, are they true? Have they actually been true in reality? And perhaps there are those who feel that they have been. And that's their that's their prerogative. But we can't leave a slide deck with theoretical and then not dig into whether those things have been realities in the actual people who have served in the actual seats over the actual decades that we're talking about. And then we get into some actual numbers. So another set of arguments we heard tonight was about how not competitive the At-Large seats are. You know, that's a that's a fact. And so, you know, so it's interesting, the At-Large seats have not gone without challengers in several decades. There have been challengers in every single race. And yet there have not been challengers. I gave these facts last week. If anyone wants to review, I'll pull them out. But there have not been challengers in dozens of district council seats. So if competitiveness if competitiveness is the factor we're looking at, then we need to look at both kinds of seats. We could go on and on all kinds of numbers, right, about who's been in representative of every fact that was given about an at large seat. We could give a similar fact about a district seat, so it doesn't help us distinguish. So in the last At-Large race, you know, the two winners won by you know, we went in the 70,000 range and the 90,000 vote range. All right. If you divide that by 11, it averages about 6 to 8000 votes. Respectfully, respectfully, there are district council members up here who were elected with fewer votes or about the same. So if we're going to say, well, it's not enough votes, it doesn't count, then are we going to use the same math and the same evaluation stick for the district council seats? Are we going to say that those seats aren't appropriate? I get the majority argument, and if we wanted to have a debate about plurality seats versus majority seats, then that's the debate we should have. But I feel a little bit like it's a debate about spaghetti on the wall. Here's a good reason to get rid of the seat, and here's a good reason to get rid of the seat. And each one of them has the facts on the counter point. So what are we debating? Here's my sense of what we're debating. We're debating whether we think there is a difference. And whether we think that difference has a value. And I can see there are places where there's no difference. I study the bills the same way you do. I, you know, ask questions of agencies the same way you do. Maybe even a little tougher. Sometimes I respect them and love them. I'm sorry. Sometimes my questions are tough. So some ways our jobs are the same, but then there are ways they are different. And I'm going to I'm going to ask rhetorical questions. I didn't ask this during question and answer, but do you open an email and look at the bottom to see the address where the person is writing from? Have you counted up the number of constituents? So in a in a I from many times in this dais have heard council members say I got thousands of emails and 13 of them were from my district and they all agreed with the way I'm about to vote. I never, ever read the address at the bottom of an email, ever. I respond to them all the same. Sometimes I check with a district council member to see if they have already started a case. Whether they have an opinion on this, do they have more information than I have? Right. I check with them. I don't know whether my office has ever sent someone to district council office and said, good luck. Have fun. We check, we collaborate. Sometimes we hear back, sometimes we don't. But I respond the same. That's different. When I was asked to prioritize projects for the bonds. I mean, this is another rhetorical question. Who here prioritized a substance abuse treatment center? Who here prioritized a homeless shelter? Right. Who here prioritized something that wasn't a district asset? It's different. It's different. So we can acknowledge there may be some differences. And then the second question is, is there value? And I think that that is where you get into a personal judgment. Some people who testified today testified that they don't like the votes and the way that they've been served by their at large council members. Interestingly, some also testified that they didn't like or get served by their district council members. So, again, I'm not sure that you can sort through that and come up with an answer. So where we are, I think, is whether there is value in the structure. Is there value in the structure of having someone who doesn't check an address before they respond or, you know, account for the feedback? Is there a value to having multiple representatives to choose from? Is there a value to voters in getting a say over one fifth of this body instead of 1/13? If you think those things have value, then it's appropriate to continue this to to to continue these seats and not force us into an expensive, contentious election when we could be focused on other things. There are other things on this coming ballot that require attention. And by putting every idea that comes along on the ballot, you are asking the community to spend money, resources and energy on something that isn't a high priority, maybe in terms of housing people or fixing our transportation challenges. So so that's my, you know. Way of bringing together the debate I've heard over the last meetings. And that is why I asked my colleagues respectfully to honor the value of their voters in their constituents being able to choose and have these options, have this structure before them, and to vote no on this proposal tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Council member Ken each council pro tem Torres. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 9: It's it's interesting. I've heard two arguments.
Speaker 7: Tonight for.
Speaker 0: The proposal. One needing more districts to serve Denver and the other. Do we need or want At-Large members? And I've heard. Statements referring to both things I struggle with this year. Census numbers a lot and fear that my district was one with a severe undercount. Projecting based on the American Community Survey, which was the map in the slide deck, says that my district should be closer to 63,000 residents. The actual census numbers that just came out put it closer to 56,000. I think a citizenship question proposal dampened numbers in my district. I think people didn't want to fill out their census in my district, which means I've got to add 10,000 more residents, and possibly that means two or three more full neighborhoods to District three. And that I really struggle with. I think the resource side is something that we've got to fix. It's not up for the voters to fix. We've got to fix our budget. We've got to fix the way that.
Speaker 7: We.
Speaker 0: Request and expand and allocate direct resources to us. I think this is much more about the argument of who are we representing and why. I struggle that the question feels flawed and we didn't have enough time to change it. So why didn't we choose 13 district in two at large? I'll be a guest tonight for publishing and. Will determine kind of final next week. Thank you. Thank you, Counselor Pro Tem Torrance. Next up, we have Councilmember Clark.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. I just wanted to give.
Speaker 2: A big thank you to Councilman Herndon, who I know was one of the first.
Speaker 1: People who talked to me about this and just, you know, as an idea.
Speaker 2: And throughout bouncing ideas. Big thank you to Councilman Flynn and Councilwoman CdeBaca.
Speaker 3: For their work in putting this together and getting.
Speaker 2: Us to this point. And thank you to the citizens. I mean, we heard from citizens who've been trying to raise this issue for many, many years.
Speaker 1: And are very passionate people.
Speaker 2: Passionate and people who I.
Speaker 1: Respect tonight speaking on both sides of the issue. So thanks to everybody for that. I think this proposal is a good idea. I think that, as others have articulated, now is the right time. And I'm sorry that this has turned into something that put people on the defensive and that people thought was personal, because for me, it absolutely was never that. I believe that our citizens.
Speaker 3: Are better served with smaller.
Speaker 1: Districts. Our citizens are better served if there are fewer.
Speaker 2: Of them trying to get the attention of their representative and fewer.
Speaker 1: Of them fighting for time with their representative. I think, as I said before in committee, I think that's one of the magical things about local municipal representation is its accessibility. And that's something worth.
Speaker 3: You know, fighting for and preserving.
Speaker 1: And I think that this proposal would.
Speaker 4: Would fix.
Speaker 1: The drift away from that that we're seeing. I think that it will be a real shame that given the timing of redistricting and both of these seats being empty, that voters wouldn't at least get to make this choice at the ballot box. Whether they agree with me in the end or not. I think they should be able to choose. I know that there have been some complaints about not having enough time for us needing.
Speaker 3: To understand what we're referring.
Speaker 1: And that's been debated on both sides. But the other thing that I'll just say is that this is not complicated. This is not something that voters will be confused about. This is a simple choice about how our citizens would like to be represented by the city council.
Speaker 3: There are pros and cons that we have heard.
Speaker 1: On each side. This is not a 100% on either side, but our citizens can navigate that and they should have a choice on how they want to be represented. I don't mind at all. In the end, if this is referred and it were to fail, if the.
Speaker 3: People of Denver were to.
Speaker 1: Disagree with me on that scale of how I've weighed and landed on those pros and cons. But I do think that it would be a real shame if we fail to allow them that choice or fail even here at publication to get it to second reading. So I will definitely be voting to allow to make them to make that choice, not just on publication but also on final. And it looks like it's going to be close, but I sincerely hope that we will refer this to the ballot and let the people choose about the representation. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Clark, Councilmember CdeBaca.
Speaker 7: Thank you. I just want to thank my colleagues who co-sponsored who supported us up for this conversation and everyone for their robust comments tonight. I think that the quality of the dialog that we've had is what indicates this is important for the voters to discuss. I want to address the comment that we heard during public comment that the racism piece of this wasn't an argument that was valid or that it was a myth. And I heard Councilman Flynn reiterate that it was not a myth. And, you know, anyone who knows history and what was happening in this country in 1968 or anyone who simply listened to our presentation, could see that the Voting Rights Act, the lawsuit against the City Council for Discrimination, and the sheer fact that in a city of our size and stature, we've only had two At-Large council members who are people of color. Councilwoman Ortega and Councilman Santos. That's indicative of, you know, the fact that there is racism and discrimination embedded in the current structure. Debate happens when the voters get a voice. There are very few instances in the work that we do when voters get a vote to make their debate meaningful. We often only allowed debate in the form of one hour courtesy, public comments, or maybe a community discussion where we're making the rounds to tell our communities about our proposals and their decision making power in those instances is nonexistent. We don't ask people to show up and base our decisions on their input as much as we say we do. It's obvious that most of the time the decision is already made by the time the debate occurs. I think that Councilwoman Kenney accurately pointed out that it is a privilege to do our jobs and many people do the job of legislation for free or without staff. That's a problem. That's a huge problem. That's a structure that yields a much more privileged representative who can afford to make. Laws for free or with limited efficacy because their family will still eat. Their family will still have a roof over their head and their campaigns will still get funded. That structure inherently is the problem that leads to not having adequate representation for marginalized people. This is personal. This is personal to every constituent who's not getting the level of service or access they deserve from their council members. It's personal for those constituents who are downgraded when time is limited and a powerful voter or business is competing for council members time. My favorite argument throughout this process came from a supporter who compared the value of this proposal to the value of smaller class sizes. We've said many times that smaller class sizes translate to more individualized attention from a teacher. In this case, the point is exactly the same. Smaller districts translate to more individualized attention and the ability to recenter the margins or what campaigns and candidates call low propensity voters. I love our dialog tonight, but again, the structure of our government should not be decided by 13 of us. We should be allowing the voters their doval voice in this conversation. All we are asking with this proposal is for the voters to have the opportunity to chime in whether they agree or not. None of us here are attached to an outcome. I would love to see my side of it, but I'm not attached to that outcome. I would love to see the voters have this discussion. The small amount of people who've chimed in thus far are not representative of Denver. We have a responsibility to always keep the people at the top of this government hierarchy and depriving them the opportunity to vote on this is demoting them in that hierarchy. Please. We did it earlier. We had this discussion with the bond proposal and their short runway, which was even shorter than our runway on this proposal. Please show the voters of Denver that you think they're intelligent and worthy of governing with those of us who they have given the opportunity to represent them. All we're asking is to send it to the voters. So give them a voice. Thank you. I hope you vote yes tonight.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember CdeBaca. And now go ahead and give my comments before we vote to publish this or not. You know what we're really talking about tonight? We've talked about at large, we've talked about the districts, we've talked about our budgets. And it has been a really great discussion. And we're talking about how we can, as elected officials in a very different environment, serve our constituents better, how we can be more intentional in how we're engaging them, what we can do to make sure that their voices are heard. And one of the things that has been very obvious to my constituents in District 11 are the lack of conversation that they've been able to engage in about this very, very short process. We've referenced back to the bond, but there were telephone town halls that were citywide that they used reverse robo calls to try to engage folks . There were many, many different stakeholder meetings. And you can always say that there wasn't enough, but there was at least that. And I am the elect the elected representative of my council district. And I take that very serious because I want to hear from my constituents. I want them to understand what I'm voting on either for or against, and that they'd have an opportunity to weigh in and tell me what they think I should do. And that is something that hasn't happened through this process. I've got many, many constituents that are just asking why? Why are we doing this now? It's too rushed. We haven't had a chance to understand what the different options are. We've talked tonight about potentially going up and the number going down. That's something that I think our constituents should be able to really weigh in on and then we would debate it and then we would refer it to the rest of the voters is usually how the process works. And you know, with group living, we had went back to have that time and still it's on the ballot to possibly be repealed. And so there is no perfect dynamic in this. But what I know is that my constituents have not had the time to really vet this and they have asked me not to support this. And I'm going to do what I was elected to do and represent them, albeit I might feel differently about, you know , having more elected representation on this body. That is a conversation that we need to really have and we need to vet what is that going to cost the taxpayers of the city and county of Denver by adding seats potentially or, you know, with the proposal now still be 13, but that's additional staff, etc.. And lastly, you know, the budget issue and council offices maybe not having all of the resources that they need. I have to commend my colleagues who are serving on the budget working group and then alongside myself and central staff representation. We're working very hard to right size our council budgets and the city council budgeting process that is well documented. We've done a lot of that work. We've communicated to this body through our operations meeting meetings, and we're increasing the amount of money that is going to the district offices as well. And so with that being said, we just need more time to fully vet this and talk with our constituents on why we would be referring this to the ballot at this point in time. Council. Bill 20 1-908 is on the floor for publication. Madam Secretary, Roll Call on Council Bill 908, please.
Speaker 8: Cashman.
Speaker 2: Nay.
Speaker 8: Ortega. They? CdeBaca, I. Flynn.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 8: Herndon Hines. Can each.
Speaker 9: Name.
Speaker 8: Sandoval. Nay Sawyer.
Speaker 7: I.
Speaker 8: Torres. I. Black. Mary Clarke.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 8: Madam President May.
Speaker 0: Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced the results.
Speaker 8: Seven days, six eyes.
Speaker 0: Seven nays Council Bill 20 1-200908 has failed our pre adjournment announcement. But before I go there, I'd like to thank the community members who spoke tonight as well, the folks who emailed us and most definitely the council members who sponsored this bill to move it forward.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance submitting to a vote of the qualified and registered electors of the City and County of Denver at a special municipal election to be held in conjunction with the coordinated election of November 2, 2021, a proposed amendment to the Charter of the City and County of Denver transforming the offices of councilmember at-large by creating two additional councilmember districts.
Submits to a vote of the qualified and registered electors of the City and County of Denver at a special municipal election to be held in conjunction with the coordinated election of November 2, 2021, a proposed amendment to the Charter of the City and County of Denver converting the two councilmember at-large positions into two additional councilmember districts. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 8-10-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08162021_21-0863
|
Speaker 1: Council member Torres has called out Council Bill 20 1-843 for comments under pending. No items have been called out. Madam Secretary, please put the first item on our screen. Councilmember Cashman, would you please put council bill 863 on the floor for publication.
Speaker 6: I move the council bill 20 10863 be ordered published.
Speaker 1: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded comments by members of council. Council members say the Barca.
Speaker 8: Thank you.
Speaker 4: I just wanted to make sure that we get to vote on this separately, that one of the pieces of this ordinance proposal is allowing for issuance and enforcement of a special event permit. And given that our.
Speaker 8: District.
Speaker 4: Is the host of many of the special events that we have in our city, we deal often with a lot of the people who are applying for those special event permits. And what we have found is that the process needs to be streamlined more effectively. And that's not part of this proposal. This proposal adds a layer that I think complicates.
Speaker 8: What we're trying to do. And I would.
Speaker 4: Have liked to have seen this proposal come to us when we were at a place where we were ready to streamline our processes to make it easier on the constituents and the people hosting special.
Speaker 8: Events to get.
Speaker 4: Their event permitted. Currently it doesn't do that, and so I wanted to go on record as a no. I don't think that this portion is ready yet. Thank you.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you. Council member Sayed Abarca. Next up, we had Council Pro Tem Torres.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. I don't believe enough work's been done to think through some of the blindspots in codifying this office and implementing a new fee, timelines and likely barriers for our nonprofits and community based organizations. A B.A. tonight and next week. All right.
Speaker 1: Thank you, counsel pro Tem Torres. Next up, we have Councilmember Sandoval.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Madam President. I have similar concerns to Councilman CdeBaca and Councilman Torres, so I will be a note tonight as well. Thank you.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Sandoval. Seeing no other hands raised, Madam Secretary. Oh, I was going to give it a second there, Councilmember Kimmich.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Madam President. I do think it would be helpful if someone from the agency is here. I mean, if we're going to have some some no votes, it might be helpful for the public to understand what the concerns response is. So I appreciate my colleagues raising their concerns with someone from the department like to comment on the nonprofit impact.
Speaker 1: I believe we do have a representative here from the proposed office. So if you want to go ahead and come up and introduce yourself and tell us a little bit about what the bill accomplishes, and then we'll go ahead and have the roll call vote.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Kate. Easter, senior director for the Office of Special Events. Thank you for having me tonight. So if you could reiterate how I can address the question and specifically, that would be great.
Speaker 1: I think if you can just explain for the public, since we're going to have council members voting no on this tonight, exactly what Bill 21, Dash 863 is hoping to accomplish. So folks understand what council members are perhaps voting no on.
Speaker 4: Okay. So what we are trying to do right now is we are trying to create some accountability in the Office of Special Events. Currently, we have no enforcement capabilities for the requirements that exist in the city of Denver. Our office is a coordinating and communicating entity. And what we want to be able to do is to be able to ensure compliance of all city requirements. And right now, we have a hard time in our agency enforcing that compliance. The agencies we help support, the agencies that have special event requirements. But there are some agencies that do not have enforcement power. And so what we are trying to do is fill in a number of gaps to make sure that all events that are happening on public property have all of their compliance needs with the city met and by the city by our agency issuing a special event permit, then we have that ability to ensure that all the city requirements have been met and we can bring together all the parties to ensure that the communication is there, that the event knows what the requirements are, that the agencies are in communication, and that an event doesn't happen on public property without its proper requirements. Permits met. I don't know if that addresses it right.
Speaker 1: Questions, I think that's fine. There's a couple more members that have gotten into the queue. I fully accept my earlier colleague's comments on why they're going to vote no. I think they described that very well, but we'll go ahead and move on. Councilmember, did you have anything additional that you had questions about or wanted to chime in to.
Speaker 4: Ask you to address the particular concern about unintended consequences on nonprofits in particular, and how you are trying to mitigate those in the permit that you described? Absolutely. Thank you. So there is a communication channel that we are going to need to clarify when it comes to nonprofits. A lot of nonprofits that are happening, I don't know, a ratio per se, but they aren't necessarily categorized as special events where our office is concerned. Our office addresses events that are happening on public property that use more than that, utilize one more than one city agency. There are definitely a number of nonprofit events that just happen in a park or that just that aren't even on public property. So I think there is a communication channel that we're going to need to address to ensure that some of the nonprofits that you may be speaking of or that that may be stuck in in a communication gap, is is clarifying when our office is actually being utilized. And just to clarify, it's events on public property that are temporary in nature and that utilize more than one city agency as we are a coordinating agency. It is more than one city agency. There's a number of events that just happen in a park. When that happens, we're not involved at all in those events. So we certainly have had conversations. And Councilwoman Torres brought to light some some questions that we are now ready to to look into and try and identify where those gaps are. If there are nonprofits that are challenged with either knowing that we even exist, that we can help them, or if there is a gap where they may not be able to afford it, we have we've made the the application fee extremely low comparatively from a from a nationwide standpoint of $25 for the smallest events. And we did an analysis of the different permits that an event, a small event would pull, and it's 0.6% .0. 6% of what their total budget would be. And that's on average. So we it was very important to the mayor that this application fee would in no way be a detriment to an event from happening. And if that ever were to become a case, this the executive director certainly has the right to waive those fees. We have been working with the Office of Social Equity and Inclusion. They have given us guidelines. We have gone back and forth over the last four months with the office and propose a number of ideas and they've come back. So we'd love to create a criteria. We are not, actually. Charging the application fee until the year 2023. So we have given we wanted to give the events this two year time period so that they a year of education in 21, another year of education in 22 before they would actually be paying for their event in 23. So because we had not finalized what that criteria would be for nonprofits or for any entity that may be struggling with the cost of an application fee, that we know that we still have time and every intention to continue working with the Office of Inclusion and Equity and Inclusion. So it's it's by no means a complete process. And it is something that is important to us as it is to the mayor. And we are currently working on it, but we believe we do have some time to get that figured out before they would be charged.
Speaker 1: All right. Great. Thank you. All right. Next up, we have Councilmember Black.
Speaker 8: Hi, Katie. Hi. I have experience before being on council.
Speaker 4: Of hosting a.
Speaker 8: Special event, and I earlier mentioned an event. I'm having a Bible Park this coming week and I know how challenging it is from the coordination standpoint, having to get a permit from parks and something from public work or from daddy and dealing with the waste and excise and licenses and all those different agencies.
Speaker 4: And I know it's really hard for people.
Speaker 8: And so when when you all came to committee and I think I had a briefing with you, we.
Speaker 4: Kind of talked how you all will help the coordinators navigate all those different city agencies.
Speaker 8: So can you tell us a little bit more about how you're going to help.
Speaker 4: The people who are hosting the events? Absolutely. So our the goal of our office and the product of our office is service. We have been doing that for six years. Where it is, we are a relatively decentralized city in that there is different permits and different agencies and it is hard and it is challenging. And our agency was set up as a coordinating agencies so that that maze of agencies and requirements that an event organizer would be faced with, that we could help them through that it can be a puzzle. There's every agency has different timelines, different deadlines, different permit fees, different inspections. It is very confusing. Our office was set up after all of these other agencies were. So we have had to kind of cobble together and create a workflow where our agencies, our agency are our liaisons are event specialists, know a tremendous about 21 different agencies. And it's their job to help these event organizers, whether they're brand new organizers, whether they've been doing it for 30 years, which we've had too many of those also, is that it's we are helping them to navigate the city process so that they can be on time, so that they can get all their requirements met. We often are able to answer many of the questions. We take the burden off the response. We take the burden from the agencies themselves so that they can focus on their main objectives of their agencies. And we're able to take a lot of those questions. So it really is. Customer service at its best. And I think she wants to say something. Hi Julius. I'm the Communications and community engagement officer with the Office of Special Events, and I just wanted to add something to Katie's points that one of the very special things that we do is we work really closely with the communities and the local businesses that are impacted by events. And one thing that our office oversees is the community notification effort. So when we before our office was instituted, we had lots of community complaints about different things trash, noise, traffic, parking. We still have those complaints, but there is much, much fewer of those. And we try to mitigate those issues before they become a serious issues and work very closely with the event organizers to make sure that your officers are aware of the events that are coming up and the impacts they will have, as well as all the different residents and businesses as well. So that's a special service that our office provides as well that I think is really important to your offices and your constituents. So I just want to mention that.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Black. Are you good? All right. Thank you. Up next, we have Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Madam President. Katie, I have a couple of questions for you. And I'm sorry, I was I did not have the benefit of hearing the conversation at committee. But let me just start with asking how many staff you have?
Speaker 4: We have six, including myself.
Speaker 9: Okay. Will any of this result in an increase in the cost either to the office or to the applicants? Other than the $25 you mentioned, and I'm not clear what constitutes a small versus a large event, so can you. I know that's a lot of questions. I'm thrown at you, but.
Speaker 4: I think I got it. I think I have it. So we did create a range. So it's $25 for the smallest event, up to $250 to the largest events. And the ratio of that cost is similarly. 0.6% and 0.5% for the largest. So for both the small to the large.
Speaker 9: Okay. And. Okay. In. You talked about doing this. So that gives your agency the power to deal with enforcement. So can any of that be done without codifying the existence of your agency?
Speaker 4: So we need to codify the agency in order to give it a permit. We do not. We need to be an ordinance in order to issue a permit.
Speaker 9: And in doing so, how does that give you power? To oversee issues that are violations with exercising license, with Doddy, with any of the other agencies that may be involved, including Parks and Rec. Now, because it sounds like your expectation is for events that will be in parks, that it falls that all under the same umbrella.
Speaker 4: So first of all, we will be creating some of our own requirements that right now we don't have the ability to to mandate. One of them, as Jill just spoke about, was the community notification. Right now, all we can do is ask event organizers to please notify their communities. We do not have the ability to say you must provide a notification for all of your events. So by having a permit that allows us to ensure that they have conducted this community notification, another requirement from our agency is the Office of Emergency Management, which is not an enforcement agency, has a has has asked us to help with their requirement, which is essentially an emergency management plan. And so this is a new requirement, which we have not been able to mandate of event organizers that ensures that every single event on public property has an emergency management plan, which is anywhere from, you know, a hailstorm and how people are evacuated to a drive by shooting or any of the above that. Right now, that's not required. We we can ask event organizers to provide an emergency action plan, but right now, we can't require it. So that's those are two really important requirements that we that are certainly a gap in the city that we want to be able to require. In regards to your questions about the other city agencies. We don't have authority over their permits by any stretch of the imagination, and we don't want it and we're not asking for it. It really is coordination between them. If there is an event that excuse me that is falling behind the job of our agency and our special event permitting experts is to stay with that event and to make sure that they're meeting all the deadlines. Parks has thousands and thousands of permits they're issuing, and they don't have time to sit on top of these events to make sure they're meeting all their deadlines. So what our agency does is we send out notifications and reminders and we're working with them. So it's not about overriding the authority of another agency, but it's it's helping that it's helping to ensure that all of the events are meeting the requirements of the other agencies.
Speaker 9: So if you're going to be doing that, are you expecting to make any budget requests for an increase in staffing.
Speaker 4: At this point? It may it may come about, but it's not something that we have. It's not something that we have at this point. We our agency definitely is working far more hours than than 40 hours a week as it stands right now, certainly with something like the MLB All-Star Game and the large events that are coming into town put a big demand on us. So it is it is a possibility.
Speaker 9: And will you just remind us how many events we have a year?
Speaker 4: Sure. We have over 700, between 700 and 750 event days throughout the year.
Speaker 9: Okay. That concludes my questions. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Speaker 1: All right, thank you. Member Ortega. And we've got two more council members up in the queue. And quick reminder, we've got four, three required hearings this evening and one one hour courtesy, public hearing. And so we're going to have a late night. And so I just want to remind folks of that. Councilmember Sawyer.
Speaker 4: Thanks, Madam President. Just wanted to commend you guys for your amazing work. So Councilman Herndon and I sit on the committee, the Special Events Committee, and we work with you all the time and you are amazing. What you do is incredible. The fact that you were able to pull off the All-Star Game events the way you did it was extraordinary in the timing. It was amazing. So I understand my council, fellow council members concerns over some of the language in the in the bill. But I think if you had the experience of sitting in these meetings like Councilman harder than I do, you would 100% supports creating this this what do we call you guys now office this office into an actual agency because it's something that our city needs. And the work that is done by this team is extraordinary. So I just want to commend you and thank you. And I will be absolutely supporting you tonight and appreciating that, you know, there are some things that maybe need to be worked out and they can be done in now in the policies and procedures rulemaking part. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Sawyer. Councilmember Sandoval.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a couple of questions for you, Katie. So on top of C, we would have a fee, a permit for this special event. Correct. And then they would still have to pay their park permit fee. They would still have to pay their daddy fee. They'd still have to pay their excise and license fee. So on top of the fees that they're already paying there, we're adding an additional fee for your office.
Speaker 4: Correct.
Speaker 8: And then in Parks and Rec, you know, there's the ability for city council to be sponsors and then the fees are waived. Are do you have that built into your regs, rules and regulations?
Speaker 4: That is something that we are still continuing to work on and that would be in the rules and regulations. There's some agencies that have that established already. We don't have the authority to tell Dotty what they would or wouldn't waive. I know Parks has has waivers. So in terms of our costs, I think that's a conversation that we still can have and put in our rules and regs at this point. Yeah. Yeah. It's not written in at this point.
Speaker 8: Do your rules and regulations come back to city council?
Speaker 4: Do they come back? No.
Speaker 8: No. So you have the ability to make your rules and regulations with no input from us once this gets voted on.
Speaker 10: So.
Speaker 2: Okay. Good evening. Members of Council Nathan Sarah, Assistant City Attorney. Can you ask the question again, Councilwoman?
Speaker 8: Yeah. Thank you, Nate. So once the rules. So if this were to pass the rules and regulations that the Office of Special Events creates, they don't have to come back to for city council for any input or we don't vote on them. Is that correct?
Speaker 2: That's correct.
Speaker 8: Okay. Thank you. I just want to say, I absolutely support creating this agency. I just don't like adding all of the bureaucracy on top of it. So I have worked with your office numerous times, and I think it's helpful when we do have these events. I just don't like the added fee on top of everything because we already have to have a lot of fees. So even if your fee doesn't match up with the nation's fee, our other fees, such as they just updated their fees to actually match what's happening around the nation and they can be pretty expensive depending on the street classification to close the street. So I support creating this agency to codify it. I think it's smart. I don't support the fees and I don't support the fact that city council can get waivers. I use those waivers only in particular cases where it is a strain on the community to have those events. And I also don't support the fact that these rules and regulations never come back to city council. So we're asking being asked to create the agency. And then from there on it, I think you said the mayor's name like four times. I'm not privy to what the mayor wants. I have to respect what my constituents want. And my constituents don't want added bureaucracy into it already, like a lot of political red tape. So thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Sandoval. Councilmember Herndon.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. I will I will be brief. I just wanted to to speak to the the rules and procedures.
Speaker 2: I'm not aware of any.
Speaker 3: Rules and procedures from.
Speaker 2: Any agency that comes to council for approval once we.
Speaker 3: Approve an ordinance. So that is one and two, as my colleague also said.
Speaker 2: Councilman Sawyer and I sit with on the Office of Special Events Committee.
Speaker 3: So have colleagues feel they couldn't directly connect with Katie and Katie. I know they could, but you could talk to two.
Speaker 2: Council members who sit on this committee with you who will be a part of these conversations. So I just don't feel that that's an accurate depiction. That Council will have no input on that, and I am certainly in support of this. And as Councilman Sawyer says, thank you for all that you do with your small but mighty team. Thank you, my.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Councilman.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Herndon. All right. We might just have everybody chime in now. Councilman Cashman, go ahead.
Speaker 6: Well, I couldn't miss this opportunity, Madam President. I'm supportive of the creation of this office as a means to not only improve things for the promoters and make their life easier, but in turn make life better for the residents of the city and county of Denver. And I'm just hoping the administration will see the same wisdom in creating an Office of Community Engagement that this council has found as a value and would also lead towards the improvement of life in Denver for all its residents. So thank you so much.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Cashman. All right. I think we're good. We can go ahead and have you take a seat, Katie, and thank you and your team. All right. We are going to go ahead and go forward with the vote. Madam Secretary, roll call Hines I.
Speaker 7: CdeBaca.
Speaker 4: No.
Speaker 2: Clark I.
Speaker 7: Swim.
Speaker 2: All right. Herndon, I.
Speaker 7: Cashman. I can h i Ortega. Sandoval.
Speaker 8: No.
Speaker 7: Sawyer.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 7: Torres.
Speaker 4: No black eye.
Speaker 7: Madam President.
Speaker 1: I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced results.
Speaker 7: Three Days ten Eyes.
Speaker 1: Ten Eyes Council Bill 20 1-863 has been ordered published. All right. We're going to go ahead and move on. Madam Secretary, please put the next item on our screen. Councilmember Torres, go ahead with your question or your comments. Excuse me, on Council Bill eight for three, please.
Speaker 4: Thank you so much, Madam President. I just wanted to thank community advocates, advocacy organizations, council members here on the dais, and those who have left city council who have been working for many years to continue to strengthen the Office of the Independent Monitor.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance amending Chapter 2 of the Revised Municipal Code of the City and County of Denver by enacting Article XX to establish the Office of Special Events.
Amends Chapter 2 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code by enacting Article XX to establish the Office of Special Events. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 8-4-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08162021_21-0689
|
Speaker 1: Councilmember Cashman, will you please put Council Bill six, eight, nine on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 6: Yes, Council President. I move the council bill 21 689 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 689 is open. May we please have the staff report? And I see we have. It's in here. Go ahead, please.
Speaker 2: Good evening, everyone. My name is Ed Senate Finance and I'm with CPD. Before you today, we have 30, 31, 45 West 31st Avenue, where the applicant is seeking to rezone a single unit zoned district to a single unit zone district that allows for an accessory dwelling unit. So the site itself is located in Council District on Amanda Sandoval's district in the sorry, in the West Highland neighborhood. So the site itself is just under 8000 square feet. It's a single unit, residential, and they're looking to do an accessory dwelling unit. The site is surrounded by several single unit zone districts. So to the west and to the east, its US hub, which is a single unit, stone district to the north you see a US-EU, a one which is a single unit zone district that allows for an accessory dwelling unit into the south and see us through a. And close proximity. You can see um, x three, which is a mixed use up to three stories. The land use is a single unit residential and as you can see it's predominately single unit and two unit uses in in the vicinity. And the site itself is in the upper left corner. It's a one story home. And as you can see, it's predominately 1 to 2 stories in the neighborhood. It went before the planning board in June. It was approved unanimously and it's before you today. And as a present there no comments have been received for this application. Whenever we're looking at a rezoning case, the Denver zoning code has specific review criteria that I will analyze right now. The first one is consistency with adopted plans, and we're really focusing on two plans, which is comprehensive plan 2040 and Blueprint Denver, L.A. and Transportation Plan of 2019. There are several strategies found in a staff report that this application is consistent with and I will jump into a blueprint. Denver, Brooklyn and Denver classifies this area as urban. And when we look at the future place type, it's classified as low residential, which is predominantly single and two unit uses and accessory dwelling units . 80 use are appropriate and 31st Avenue is a local street, which is primaries are primarily served by residential uses. Blueprint also has a policy in the Langston built form housing policy, which talks about having housing choice through the expansion of accessory dwelling units in all residential areas. And this application is consistent with other review criteria found in the staff report. Therefore, CPD recommends approval based on all findings of the review criteria. Having met and I am available for questions as well as the applicant's representative is on as well.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Edson. We're going to go ahead and. We have one individual signed up to speak this evening and it's on the virtual platform. And so we'll go ahead and move to our speaker. And it's Jesse.
Speaker 4: Paris.
Speaker 2: December 20, 23. I am in favor of the rezoning tonight. I support the accessory dwelling units. When I ran for city council at large in 2019 and 2021, I still continue to support them. We need alternative housing solutions and methods throughout the city. So I support assisted dying units in all this, not just District one. So I'm in favor of this sometimes. Good job, Amanda said of you. Got this.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you. Questions for members of Council on Council Bill 689. All right. Seen no questions by members of council. And just wanted to double check. All right. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 689. Council Member Sandoval.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. This map amendment may create another sorry. This matter amendment meets all the criteria. Patty has been very communicative with our office. She reached out a while ago, and I know that my aide, Councilwoman or Naomi, has met with the West Highland Neighborhood Association to see if they would like a legislative rezoning. So we don't have to have these one off rezonings as we're seen. With that, I would ask that everyone support this map amendment this evening. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Sandoval. And seeing that this does meet the zoning code, the rezoning criteria, I'm happy to support it as well. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 689.
Speaker 8: Hines.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: We might have to call in Councilman Hines again, council secretary.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 7: Sandoval.
Speaker 8: I.
Speaker 7: Sawyer.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 9: Torres. I black.
Speaker 7: I see tobacco.
Speaker 2: Clark I.
Speaker 7: Saw when.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 7: Herndon. I cashmere. I can teach.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 9: Ortega. I.
Speaker 7: Madam President.
Speaker 1: I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 7: 13 Eyes.
Speaker 1: 13 Eyes. Council Bill 20 1-689 has passed. All right. Moving on to our next required public hearing. Councilmember Cashman, would you please put Council Bill 694 on the floor for final passage?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 3145 West 31st Avenue in West Highland.
Approves a map amendment to rezone property from U-SU-B to U-SU-B1 (allows for an accessory dwelling unit), located at 3145 West 31st Avenue in Council District 1. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 6-22-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08162021_21-0694
|
Speaker 1: 13 Eyes. Council Bill 20 1-689 has passed. All right. Moving on to our next required public hearing. Councilmember Cashman, would you please put Council Bill 694 on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 6: Yes, Madam President, I move the Council Bill 21 694 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 694 is open. May we please have the staff report?
Speaker 2: Hello. My name is Edson. Iranians, and I'm here before you again with CPD. So before you we have 42 and 95 North Inca Street. Currently it is in a light industrial zone district and they're requesting S.R. eight, which is a residential mixed use. It's located in Council District one, Amanda Sandoval's district, and it is in the Sunnyside neighborhood. As you can see, it's in close proximity to the 31st and Fox Station right at the border there. So the request is just for about an acre site. And it's for urban center neighborhood context, residential mixed use, up to eight storeys in height. And so what this means is that the first level allows for street level retail uses and commercial uses, but the remainder upper stories are strictly reserved for housing and lodging accommodation uses. So the zoning is as you as you can see, it's year or two, which is a light industrial zoning district with the billboard use overlay. So there is no billboard on site and the applicant is looking to remove that you or two adjacent to it, as you can see to the northeast or to but to the west and to the south you can see the same zoned district that the applicant is applying for the CRC, which is a residential mixed use, up to eight storeys as well. Through the West. You see IMAX three, which is an industrial mixed use up to three stories and some UTC, which is a22 unit zone district. The land use is industrial and adjacent to it is an industrial single unit. But as you can see, there's a lot of industrial single unit, multi-unit, residential, vacant office as you can see. And here is a aerial photo of the site. It's about half an acre. And the middle and the bottom for photos are the site itself. As you can see, it's a one story industrial building and directly to the north, above 43rd is the electrical substation. Um, directly to the west, you can see a one storey industrial building and then on the top right photo, it's really hard to see, but you can see a one storey industrial building to the south and then about a block and a half away, you see an eight storey S.R., S.R. eight, which is a residential mixed use, up to eight story structure that connects with a pedestrian bridge. So the applicant has entered into a voluntary, affordable housing agreement, which is attached to the staff report of which the applicant is committing to 12.5% of the units as income restricted at 80% or less, ami of which 20% of two or more bedrooms will be income restricted at a 60 year period of affordability. So with the process, it went before the planning board in June and the planning board approved this unanimously. There were some concerns from the planning board. Some of the concerns from the planning board had to do with the 41st and Fox station area plan where it recommends 2 to 8 storeys to like about two blocks to the north of this site, saying that at this site it is appropriate for eight storeys, but anything above this site or to the west as when we dove into that plan, that it might not be appropriate for eight stories. That was one of the concerns they had as well as they had some issues around the neighborhood context, which I'm going to explain in a moment. And it is before you today. So far, several different channels have been notified, as you can see on the screen. And there has been one letter of support from the Sunnyside United Neighbors, Sonny's organization, of which Sonny specifies that they met with the applicant in various occasions and they approved it unanimously, and they provided a lot of input on the design and the material of the building. So there are several review criteria that we analyze based off the Denver zoning code. And the first one is consistency with adopted plans. We're looking at four specific plans, which are a comprehensive plan 2040 blueprint in Denver of 2019, the Sunnyside Neighborhood Plan of 1992, and the 41st and Fox Station Area Plan. So there's several strategies found in a comprehensive plan that this application is consistent with. And I will jump into several of these. The first one being under equity, specifically strategy, and B, which is equitable, accessible and inclusive goal one and two, increasing the development of housing units close to transit and mixed use developments, as well as create a greater mix of housing options in every neighborhood for all individuals and families. As well as for climate under the environment, resilient, resilient and gold strategy A, B and C promote infill development where infrastructure and services already in place. Encourage mixed use communities where residents can live, work and play in their own neighborhoods, as well as focus growth by transit stations. Now when we jump into Blueprint, Blueprint classifies this area as general urban. Which homes vary from multi-unit complexes to complex, compact single unit houses and development should offer a mix of uses with good street activation and connectivity, and it should be served by transit and enjoy access to abundant amenities and entertainment options. So something I do want to highlight is that blueprint Denver and tend to emphasize this area with a future neighborhood context of General Urban, the applicant is applying for urban center. So however however that area plan as well as blueprint in the next slide will show that that this location is appropriate for up to eight storeys, but there is no eight storeys in the residential mixed use for the general urban. So that's why the applicant is applying for this urban center. Residential mixed use eight stories. So as you saw earlier in the existing zoning slide and I have it here, there are other rezonings at this location that have the six eight district which is very comparable to the closest groups five in terms of like built to requirements as well as limitations of parking structures and the pedestrian realm. So Blueprint does provide specific guidance on the flexibility of a neighborhood context, which is found on page 66 of Blueprint, which says a mapping of a neighborhood context is at a citywide scale. So the boundaries of the context may be interpreted with limited flexibility if the request furthers the goals of Blueprint Denver and is consistent with the overall intent of the neighborhood context. And so at this specific application, they are providing affordable housing option, they're promoting comparable design and providing a walkable mixed use center here. And so when we look at the future place type for this site, it it's classified as high medium residential, which offers a mix of low to medium scale multi-unit residential uses with some neighborhood services servicing mixed use distributed throughout. And buildings are generally up to eight storeys in height and block patterns are consistent and pedestrian scaled buildings form clearly define and activate the street now 43rd and industry are on designated local streets and I know that it's not adjacent to a arterial or collector street but the but it is served in that area by light pan and 38th, which are arterial collector streets as well as the pedestrian connection that is about a block and a half to the south that connects to the commuter rail. So I also wanted to provide a comparison similar to what's found in the staff report. In the staff report, we do industrial to what this proposes. But I also wanted to show that in Blueprint recommends General Urban and the applicants applying for our urban center because there is no x eight. But when you look at Greece five in comparison to Syria, it's very similar when you look at setbacks. They're identical when you're looking at the stories. They're different in this sense because one is five and eight is what applicants seeking for. But when you look at surface parking between buildings in Primary Street, they're identical. And when you look at the bill two, they're very similar. So these districts are very similar. When we jump into a blueprint for future growth strategy, it's classified as all areas of their city where they're anticipated to see 10% of new job growth and 20% of new housing growth by 2040. And something to highlight is that we're going from an industrial use to a residential mixed use is that this subject site is not in a manufacturing district or a manufacturing preservation area. Now when we jump into the sunny side neighborhood plan, the sunny side identified this area as industrial and it states that the far eastern portion of this plan should be industrial. Given that it's it's it's close proximity to the rail as well as the interstate. And then it also says that there's scattered residential mixed in through the industrial and that should be redeveloped as industrial uses. And so so although the Sunnyside Neighborhood Plan was it is an adaptive plan and continues to shape the overall policy and development decisions of the area. There's a newer plan that was adopted in 2009, which is the 41st and Fox station area plan that gives more specific guidance for this area. That station plan is in response to new opportunities presented by the commuter rail. As a result, it provides a substantially different land use recommendation in the Sunnyside Neighborhood Plan, which pre-dates the conception of the fast tracks by more than a decade. And then the 41st and Fox station area plan does not recommend industrial like this plan does. So when we jump into the 41st and Fox station area plan, it provides a vision for a diverse, transit, supportive and environmentally sustainable urban center. And something that I do want to point out is that when you look at the actual plan, this specific site is classified as a electrical substation, which I showed you earlier below and previously, is that the electrical substation is above 43rd, not below 43rd. So there's a mapping error with this. And so the inferred land use for this site is urban residential, 2 to 8 storeys, as you can see. That's what's to the north, to the south, to the west. And so when we're looking at urban residential, it's new moderate density neighborhoods forming a new edge between the station and the existing neighborhood to the west, as well as it provides a lot of urban design recommendations, such as asking for it to be closer to the street, the building, and to minimize the setbacks. So the proposed S.R. eight zoning meets the land use intensity and design intent of the 41st and Fox station area plan. And when we're jumping into review criteria to uniformly disaggregate nations, the request is consistent as well as furthering the public health safety in general welfare. And it does this by implementing adaptive plans as well as it's furthering the city's goals by creating a cohesive, walkable community around the 41st and FOX Station. And then for the fourth criteria justifying circumstances, the applicant stated change and changing conditions in a particular area in the city in general by this is a mixed use redevelopment in the area and the 41st and Fox commuter station and pedestrian bridge that is in close proximity and the Inca Street multi-use path that connects downtown. And for the fifth graders here, consistent with neighborhood context, is this your purpose and intent? Sierra Zone District Promote safe, active and pedestrian scaled diverse areas through building forums that activate the public realm. Therefore CPD recommends approval based based on all findings that the review has been met. I am available for questions. Andrew Johnson from host is here to answer any questions as well and the applicant is online Billy Wang as well to answer questions.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Anderson, for the great staff report. And we have one individual signed up to speak this evening, and he's joining us virtually. And we have Jesse Paris.
Speaker 2: Yes. There's a council of those watching at home. Those are in the council chambers. My name is Jesse with some personal work resume for Blackstone, maximum for self-defense powers of actually come in for social change as well as the unity party of Colorado and frontline black knows and I would be the next my member in 2023. I am against this rezoning tonight for several reasons. The first reason is this is not affordable 80% or less than mine in a rapidly gentrifying neighborhood that is not affordable. Maybe if it was 40%. Maybe if it was. 50% or less. I would be in favor of it, but I'm not in favor of this. Only 12% of the units are 80% or less. That is definitely not affordable. I have three questions. Is there a traffic study done on this particular site? Has there been a parking study done on this particular sites? And last but not least, has there been a neighborhood agreement at this particular site? How many square feet are these apartments going to be? Now, you say it meets all five of the criteria, which is consistency with adopted plans, uniformity of district regulations, further public health, safety and welfare, justified circumstances and consistency with neighborhood context and zone sense. This is rapid gentrification. You're going to continue to fuel rapid gentrification if you pass this tonight. This is not affordable by any means. I don't know who you think can afford this, but 80% am I. That means you have to make 80% of $75,000 a year to be able to afford to live in these units. So this is not affordable. Please stop saying this is affordable, but it is clearly not. And don't pass it to me. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. That concludes our speakers for this hearing. Questions from members of Council on Council Bill 694. Councilmember Ortega.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Madam President. I just wanted to ask a couple of questions. Is the applicant around?
Speaker 1: Yes. I believe we have the applicant in the queue. Billy.
Speaker 9: Okay. Billy. Wink, I believe. So the first question I want to ask is whether or not the applicant was provided the information from the railroad working group that basically has a check off box on the application to basically alert them that they need to be looking at how they would address railroad safety issues. So to the applicant, did you receive that when you came to the Planning Department?
Speaker 1: Okay. We're double checking that we have the applicant in the queue.
Speaker 3: Can you hear me? This is Billy Wang.
Speaker 1: Very good. Go ahead, please.
Speaker 3: Good evening, council members. We did not receive a railroad plan. Council woman Ortega. And regarding the traffic study, we were informed that that would be required when we submit prior to the site development plan what we've proposed to SUNY thus far and get their unanimous support from the PC, SUNY Pcdi and the Sunni neighborhood is a conceptual plan that shows the elevation and a concept of units. We don't have those defined in terms of how many units, what's the square footage. But we would be pursuing that. As we progress with design.
Speaker 9: That said your application was within a close proximity to railroad. Is that what you're saying to me in when you submitted your application?
Speaker 3: It is. Yes. It's adjacent to the railroad tracks, correct?
Speaker 9: Did your application check that box.
Speaker 3: I would have to look.
Speaker 9: It's an I have a question for you about what the tallest building is along that corridor adjacent to the tracks close to the light rail stop.
Speaker 2: I may answer that question, but before I do, we did provide them with a railroad study at the Pre-Application phase and as well a few, maybe a few weeks before the planning board as well, because I know this question would be brought up. And this building, if you remember correctly, this is the one where we discussed what previous applicants have done in the past and with noise, TDM and different things of what the plan talked about specifically. And you mentioned about how you wanted to maybe mimic some of that stuff if you remember correctly. But I did send it to you, Billy, on two occasions and we did talk about it Zoom as well. But going by it for your question, I don't know that specific. I do know that it's eight storeys and it's about a block and a half to the south. It's that C development which is eight storeys. I don't know. The height, the maximum height that it is allowed to be is 110. I'm not sure if it's at 110, but the zone district allows for that one, which is exactly this one district to S.R. eight. It would allow for a 110. I'm not sure if it's below that or around that, but it should be around that.
Speaker 9: Okay. I've driven and I don't remember that any of them were eight stories in in height. And perhaps Councilwoman Sandoval can address that.
Speaker 8: Yes. The Zia apartment building on 40th and into from 40 from 40th to 41st. The entire block is eight stories currently built and occupied.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 9: And do you know if they addressed the railroad safety concerns in their construction, in their work with the planning department?
Speaker 8: From what I understand, they met all requirements for building. I don't know specifically if it was the railroad construction because there is the street and then the anchor pedestrian trail, the promenade and then more land and then the rail yard.
Speaker 9: Okay. Thank you. It's an. Can you tell me if there are any limitations on the first floor activation that you talked about that would happen on this site?
Speaker 2: The limitations are only if it's strictly residential, but if it's commercial, it's the setbacks can be zero.
Speaker 9: In terms of the types of uses that could be in the commercial space, that's what I'm referring to.
Speaker 2: It's mainly focused on retail and commercial uses, not necessarily industrial uses, as you see in Mumbai, but it will be mainly retail and commercial uses office as well.
Speaker 9: Okay. And then the applicant said he wasn't clear on how many units there might be, but with these stories that potentially can can be pretty significant in terms of the number of units, somewhere in the 70 to 80 ballpark, depending on size, you know, number of bedrooms, etc.. So this is trying to get an idea of that given its proximity to rail. Can you just talk about how many parking spaces this would require? Again, knowing that sort of tied to the number of the units that will be on the site.
Speaker 2: I'm going to let the applicant speak on that because he has a breakdown of parking and the number of units that he's been discussing with House as well as well.
Speaker 9: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Billy.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Can you hear me okay? Yes. So to address your question regarding first, the commercial spot right now from the concept plan, we have allocated commercial space right on the corner of the northeast corner of 43rd and anchor. Alongside that would be a plaza because one of the key components is to activate 43rd and activate anchor and drive as a community center. So we would streetscape that from both angles and create a commercial site. Right now. I believe. Let me look. The concept plans is about 74 units. Councilwoman Ortega But that may adjust and as it adjusts, the affordability scale would adjust as well. Regarding the parking, we would certainly adhere to the parking requirements for that zone district and we would take into the future traffic study plan of trying to minimize parking or try to minimize. The number of use of cars. Along that well and try to promote the the fox and 41st light rail plan, car sharing, smart cars etc..
Speaker 9: So tied to that question. Have have you ever encountered a bank being concerned that if you didn't provide adequate parking, that if for some reason the project didn't move forward, they didn't want to be stuck with the project. They couldn't park the units.
Speaker 3: I have not personally encountered that.
Speaker 9: Q I have no further questions. All right.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Ortega. Up next, we have council member Flynn.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. Hudson, I have one quick question. I recall from I think I recall correctly from a long ago billboard overlay issue that here we're getting rid of the overlay is our is the city under any obligation to maintain a certain amount of billboard overlay areas in the city. Is there some sort of an agreement still in effect? And, Nate, I don't know if you can answer that. I do. It was a long time ago. I remember this came up in a hearing. I just wonder what the current status is. Not that I want to see billboards here. Good evening. Members of council.
Speaker 2: Neighbors their assistant city attorney. There is no obligation for the city to maintain the billboard use overlay.
Speaker 3: Okay. So conceivably, if we re zoned any place with a billboard overlay we could do away with. We're under no obligation to keep. That is correct. Okay. Thank you. Could I ask, is there someone here from host? Oh, Andrew, I forgot. You're over and hosts now. Thank you. Hello. Andrew Johnson with the Department of Housing. Could you raise the microphones here to Andrew Johnson with the Department of Housing Stability? Thank you. In the affordable housing agreement, it read. It has two alternative paragraphs if they're for rent or for sale, but they seem to require the same thing. Can you describe, first of all, do we know what the owner intends to do, what the developer intends to do here? Yeah. His intent is actually to do rental to the rental. And so the focus during our conversations when we were going through this agreement was to do rentals. We always put up for sale paragraph in there as much as possible just in case, because 60 years is a long time. It could change somewhere down the road just in case it goes condo. Correct. Okay. I would we normally have this ask for the same percentages and affordability levels between a rental project and a for sale project. Just because of a different economics.
Speaker 2: We usually have different AMI levels on a for sale sign.
Speaker 3: Right. We did talk about a different percentage on the for sale side.
Speaker 2: But because was very confident that he was doing.
Speaker 3: Rental just focused on the just the rental AMI level. Okay. Thank you, Madam President. That's all I had.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Flynn. And thank you, Andrew. Up next, we have Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Madam President. For the owner or developer. I'm wondering, you said 74 units. Was we talking the whole development or the affordable portion?
Speaker 3: A. Can you hear me? Hello?
Speaker 1: Yes, we can hear. Okay.
Speaker 3: I apologize. The 74 units is in concept right now. That's total number of units. So if we were to meet the agreed host agreement of 12 and a half percent, what would that be? Nine units, approximately eight or nine units, and then 20% of 74, which would be two units. I think 20%, 20 for me.
Speaker 6: Total units, not of the affordable units.
Speaker 3: Just 274 is the total number of units in concept right now. Yes.
Speaker 6: 12.5% of that is going to be affordable at 80%. So 20%, two bedrooms, 20% of, what, 20? And it's got to be 20% of the 12 and a half percent. Correct.
Speaker 3: It'll be about.
Speaker 6: One one or two units.
Speaker 2: Yes. Okay.
Speaker 3: So it's a lot of math, but it's about one or two.
Speaker 2: Units in back.
Speaker 1: All right, I. You're all brave doing math on the spot. So I was just going to let you go ahead and do that. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. And thank you, Andrew, for helping out with those questions. All right. Seen no other members of council in the queue. The public hearing is closed. Comments from members of Council on Council Bill 694 Council Member Sandoval.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Madam President. I know that the applicant, Billy Wing, has worked with the Sunnyside neighborhood to get their support as it was just brought up by my colleague. I wish the affordability was going deeper. 1 to 2 units does not make a dent into the Sunnyside neighborhood. But that's another day, another story for another day. I know that my colleague, Councilwoman Kenny and I are sitting on the expanding affordable housing task force, which hopefully we will get more units out of rezonings such as these. So with that, I ask my colleagues support. Thank you.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you. Councilmember Sandoval and seen no other speakers. I will go ahead and chime in that I do believe that this has met all of the review criteria and will be voting in favor of this tonight. And I want to also let folks know that Councilman Hines needed to leave the meeting. And so that's why we're skipping him in the roll call in case anybody caught that. And so we'll go ahead, Madam Secretary. Roll call on Council Bill 694, please.
Speaker 7: Sandoval.
Speaker 8: I.
Speaker 7: Sawyer.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 7: Torres.
Speaker 4: I. Black I. CdeBaca No.
Speaker 7: Clerk.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 7: Flynn.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 7: Herndon.
Speaker 2: Hi.
Speaker 7: Cashman. I can each.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 7: Ortega.
Speaker 9: I.
Speaker 7: Madam President.
Speaker 1: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce results.
Speaker 7: One May 11 Nice.
Speaker 1: 11 Eyes Council Bill 20 1-694 has passed. Thank you Edson and Andrew and the community members who joined us for those two hearings. Next up, we have our third required public hearing. Councilmember Cashman, would you please put council Bill 7 to 1 on the floor for final passage?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 4295 North Inca Street in Sunnyside.
Approves a map amendment to rezone property from I-A UO-2 to C-RX-8 (industrial to urban center), located at 4295 North Inca Street in Council District 1. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 6-22-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08162021_21-0864
|
Speaker 1: Councilmember Cashman, will you please put Council Bill 864 on the floor for publication?
Speaker 6: Yes, Madam President. I move the council bill 21, dash 864, be ordered published.
Speaker 1: Thank you. It's been moved and seconded. The combined one hour courtesy public hearing for council bills. 864865866867924 and 868 is open. Speakers may address any or all of those items after the conclusion of this public hearing. Council will vote on each item separately and we're going to go ahead and have the staff report from Brendan Hanlin with the Department of Finance.
Speaker 2: Good evening, City Council. Thank you for having us here tonight. Brendan Hanlon, the city's chief financial officer. You're here to provide the staff briefing on the following six bill requests. 864 865 866, 867, 924 and 868. We have been presenting these in two committee meetings over the previous three weeks, reviewing and asking for council's approval to refer five bond measures. Now that's up from four from from the last time we were briefing council. Five bond measures to the ballot for consideration by the people of Denver for the municipal election to be held on November 2nd, 2021. Wanted to briefly provide some some overview that's been provided at the committee level, then focus on the primary purpose that we're here. This is part of our recovery effort. The package includes 80 unique projects that would create 7580 jobs, $483 million in labor income, and $1 billion in economic output. So this is a foundational element of our recovery. It is not the only element of our recovery that also is going to be paired with other federal funding dollars and other city dollars both this year and into 2022. So briefly reviewing the package of projects that are in each of the five questions, these are this is going to be an element of the sixth ordinance request or bill request that has the companion ordinance that outlines these projects. The first question is on Denver facilities, a total of $93.7 million of projects, 1832 jobs created by this package, $116 million of wages provided through these projects. $255.8 million of economic output. You'll notice that the projects are a combination of city facilities, cultural facilities, both new construction as well as maintenance, housing and sheltering. Two projects. These projects total three $37.4 million, providing jobs of 457 wages at 26.1 million, and economic output of 60 million focused primarily on our sheltering facilities. Again, these should be paired with other investments that the city has made by way of CARES funds, as well as proposed American rescue plan dollars that are also containing housing investments as well. So this is one element of a multi funding stream. Transportation investments totaling $61.2 million, 877 jobs, 54.7 million of wages provided through these projects. Economic output of $122.4 million. Again, a combination of both concentrated new construction as well as maintenance of an expansion of our transportation system. Parks and rec projects totaling $52.7 million. 947 jobs. Wages provided 60 million economic output of $115.4 million. Again, a variety of both new construction as well as maintenance projects throughout the city, both large and small. Projects. And the last question, this is a new question from our Conversation Committee. Two weeks ago, two projects totaling $190 million of investment for 3467 jobs. Wages of $225.5 million. Economic output of 490 million. And these two projects are concentrated in in the National Western Center campus facilities. There are other elements of this. You have the questions that have been provided to you. These are elements of those questions. These are table required numbers. Below that estimate, the paramount or the principle that would be transacted through each of the questions. The maximum total repayment cost, principal and interest is in that category and the maximum annual debt service. All of these elements are required as part of the table of questions that that is a legal requirement of any debt questions that go on to the ballot. And that concludes my update and staff report. Thank you.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Brendan. And tonight, we have 40 individuals signed up to speak and we want to hear from as many folks as possible. We're going to allocate one hour to the courtesy public hearing. And we also have some folks that we're going to have interpretation services for them as well and will allow them 6 minutes for the translation. And we're going to go ahead and call up our first set of folks who are in chambers. And so Nolan Miguel, L.J. Suzuki, Mercedes Gonzalez, Jocelyn Hill and Angela Angelina. Scuse me, Torres, are all the folks in person in chambers that we're going to take first? And our first speaker is Nola Miguel.
Speaker 4: Good evening, council members. Thanks so much for for hearing us tonight. My name is Nolan Miguel, and I'm here with the global response here, Coalition Organizing for Health and Housing Justice. I wish that we were here tonight in support of this. I really do. Mostly because the fate of local area Swansea is really intertwined with the National Western Center. Especially our most vulnerable neighbors that have been facing already involuntary displacement. Nine out of ten neighbors facing involuntary displacement. Now, with the pandemic, the issue is even more heavy, something that we're all dealing with every day. Unfortunately, community benefits have not been identified yet. After eight years of talking about it, and I'm happy to give a more detailed history of those eight years as I've experienced them. There hasn't been real community benefits identified. We haven't we don't feel like a real partner in this development. We don't feel like we're engaged in this development. We have lost homes and businesses, in particular in the Elyria neighborhood in the triangle that have not been recovered nor mitigated. And we feel like this isn't being done right. This is being rushed. We feel like this the rushing this actually puts the national Western reputation at in danger. Is it and is is irresponsible in a lot of ways because it frustrates the voters. It divides our community in globally response here. And it really feels negligent and harmful to not have done a proper process for this. And we have time to do that. We have time to do that and to finance this right in a way where community benefits are prioritized and really have a path forward. We talk about recovery. Is this is talk about recovery for a minute. Is it to re cover? Is it to recover our eyes to the reality that was before the pandemic? Because we know that the pandemic has unveiled structural inequities around housing, around health, and we can't go back that those things have been unveiled to us. And we need to see our leaders really rethink these types of things that plans that were formed in 2014 and shift to a resilient plan that builds on the strengths of people. We feel like we're this is just plowing forward with tons of unknowns. I have so many unanswered questions about what's going on in this plan, and we don't feel like doing this is smart governing or putting this out to the public when there's not enough of those answers to those questions right now. We have been working as a coalition on really thinking through what could happen at the National Western when there is a gap from the P3 not going through anymore. We really took that as an opportunity to say what would we want? What is the vision? And we started working on that earlier this year. And we have a vision document. We have extra copies and are happy to give them all to you. And we can talk more about it at.
Speaker 1: The time we have this evening. All right. We're going to go ahead and go to our next speaker, LJ Suzuki.
Speaker 2: Good evening, Councilwoman. Councilman and fellow citizens. My name is L.J. Suzuki, and I'm here representing the Globeville first R.A., which is the primary registered neighborhood organization of Globeville. We had a meeting last Tuesday night to discuss 924 for the funding of Phase three of the National Western Center and have released a resolution on our stance, which I will happily circulate with you all when I'm done here. In summary, we support the economic development of our neighborhood and therefore we support the Phase three development bond issue with the following firm conditions. First, we insist that the City of Denver and the National Western Center approve the Community Investment Funds proposed community impact fee. This fee is not the same as the already committed to. Roundup is an additional mechanism which will be presented to the National Western Center's Board of Directors in the coming weeks. The committee carefully designed the fee to scale proportionally with the growth of the National Western Center. Therefore, the campus's success is also our community's success. Phase three, therefore, stands to benefit Globeville in a significant way, but only so long as the community impact fee is in place. Also approval of this fee is a non-negotiable condition of our organization. Support of the bond. Second, we expect the city of Denver to make good on the projects in the 2017 bond issue and verbal promises made by several city officials over the years. These include adding improving pedestrian infrastructure, traffic, calming measures to keep our children safe. A pocket park at the site of the former tiny home village and cleaning the underpasses our children and commuters use every day, which are typically filthy with pigeon feces and habituated by homeless people. While several projects are planned and in process, many remain verbal promises only. We respectfully request written commitments from the city to perform these basic services which are already being performed in Reno and other neighborhoods. With legally binding consent for these two simple conditions. Global First will enthusiastically support the city's bond package and the November ballots, and we will encourage our neighbors to do the same. Thank you. And I'll remain available tonight for further questions.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you. Our next speaker is Mercedes Gonzalez. And as she makes her way to the podium and with our interpreter and I would ask that our rules of decorum, we ask everybody to have a seat. And so we can't allow anybody to stand against the wall in the back. Thank you. Go ahead, please.
Speaker 10: When I start this, the lengthy list for Permettere, the mayor of LA presidency. This one here, which going to see is La Coalition. De is Globeville. Elyria. Swansea? Yes. They represent other island residents. This does those for money, that is. Brett Johnson for management. They proclaim under Proceso de la Ciudad the embed in Valencia Canal, this Arroyo del Complexo Nazionale. The lawyers thing. Good evening, Council, city council. And I want to thank you for for allowing us to be here and to give a comment. So the G as Coalition global area Swansea represented represents the residents of these two communities, rejects formally the proclaim the proclamation in the process in the equities accretive process of the city of the Denver in relationship to the development of the national Western stock. Lot. Miembros de la Junta. I mean, don't yell. L'll call them Hancock. So you get enough in this area, they'll complain. Who is particular de la soul Neville to not gonna see that commercial triangulum say I gave him the former costar he acted that diva bit unmistakable is that's a feeling I feel my slowness begs I feel my processor continua on only legato the practical, the this arrow, your sister, this poor quality, a lack of money that you Basil's promise as well as you that other them better they want this arroyo that he the poor la comunidad. City council members and the and Mayor Hancock affirm are they continue to affirm that the developments of this complex and in particular of the triangle zone that is known as the triangle has been taken in a way that is a just and equitable. But for our community it rejects these affirmations, does affirms that this process continues to be taken by our racist practices for this development. It has been displacing land for the community and false promises that the city of Denver for a development that is led by the community. Sierra Young got me into the embed in Sierra Leone process so that I meant that it was the SEC Optometry Congress. Miembro de la Comunidad Tribal Association Profunda Gay Incluida Escuchar incorporate aspect of the La Comunidad Para Los Banos Anteriores Contra la comunidad. That will be the lateral precedentes. They'll address the residents in an elegant central Vegas solicitous you that guarantee in a disaster your equitable maybe anything. If city if Denver City Council would like to be able to do a truly equity tive process of righteous process, it would commit to gas or with gas and with the members of the community through a collaboration that is a deeper collaboration that would include listening and incorporating the petitions of the community and to be able to repair the damage is done before against the community by returning the property of the land of the residents in concrete, G.S. is asking the city to advance in a development that is equitable , more equitable through. The Polar bear a la Comunidad Reno's gives it a spot on the river turtles in El Bahia. The Complex Nacional de la is the common part of this arroyo a largo plazo that. So it would commit by giving back to the community those lands that were taken from the community, from the neighborhood and through the National Western Stock Show as part of a development in the long term for Denver. Established Heroin Association Significativa as commonly gathered locally, Circrnas and Nazionale was their para provider. Dentists border with Assisi on this arroyo. This was the barrio from operating their pocket, their bones in equal care. This arroyo posterior. To establish an association, a meaningful association with the communities, with the local communities nearby and to Western Stock Show to be able to give residents the power over the decision making, over the development of the neighborhoods as part of the package of the bonus package or of the bond package and whatever other development that happens. Zero. That's an error that that general this Arroyo. The studio in Berkeley, Los Banos and Servicio Salud. We end up at a Los Habitantes the but most notably we end up losing touch on Bebe Indesit Ghibli e Programas Empleo. It would stop the development of the stadium and invest the bonds in certain health care services homes for the people of Denver, such as solutions for housing, solutions for the homeless homes, accessible homes and programs and employment programs and housing, accessible housing and employment programs. Gilmore resident It is one Seattle labor that is for me. Yo siento completamente. They're on the prowl the other a post border stop pasando in already adorned with comunidad en todo el these are all your triangulum yellows. This are all yours. Then the lizard. Then to the DeSalvo Is Salvatore Mendel getting all this stuff done? DoCoMo comunidad eu mas afectado solos mas vulnerables gets quarters for this place. Sarmiento gives a stubby indoor color the masked Imus displacement of water systems. This arroyos intones as more or more blessed enter labor that e so you're not abuela they they all choice equals yes, he says nietos he says these nietos Joe we are laboratorios tambien body yours or mi familia. Over time, darling, or you'll have to let the Vietnam Police straight up stop us and. So as a resident of Swansea, I am very disappointed by what has happened and I am disappointed by the development that has happening all around the area with I-70. With everything that is happening and with all the homeless communities that we see all around. And as a as a mother of eight, grandmother of 16, and great grandmother of six, I worry about their future and about other things that are happening with it, with the lack of housing in our communities.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you very much. We've got to go ahead and move on with their spirits. Yes. Thank you. Yes. Next up, we have Jocelyn Hill.
Speaker 4: Thank you. It is an honor to be here tonight speaking with you council members. I am here. I am Jocelyn Hill. I am a Denver resident. I am here representing the Colorado State University system. The CSU system is expressing support for the inclusion of the arena, an historic 1909 stadium building bond on the November ballot. CSU has been a partner of the National Western Center redevelopment since 2013. Our CSU Spurr campus, currently under construction, will be a public facing satellite campus, bringing educational and research opportunities of our three institutions to Denver and to learners of all ages. Our mission at SPR is to promote educational equity and inspire the next generation to tackle big challenges in food, water and health. Critical to this mission is our engagement and connection with the surrounding neighborhoods and to the city and county of Denver over the last eight years. We have listened, offered community responsive programs, partnered with existing local organizations and are on the verge of opening physical spaces that can host our neighbors for programs in just a few short months and can over time become an anchor institution for the community providing good jobs and economic sustainability. The arena matters to CSU. It would include local families, and our vision is that when they visit the arena, they also visit Spur when they come to events. They will also come to experience our hands on fun learning experiences that connect young people to career pathways they may not have considered. In this environment, children who may never have had the opportunity to see and experience how food grows or what it means to be a veterinarian can dove in and explore those opportunities in a setting where learning is open and designed for them. I see us whose presence at the National Western Center also represents a partnership with Denver schools and Denver youth that ultimately aims to ensure that more students will be ready for careers and connected to the educational pathways that those careers require. We believe we will reach more families and young people with the arena and 1909 stadium building energized and drawing visitors in addition to local families. We also know that visitor visitors will come to the arenas from around the country and around the world, providing an opportunity to showcase North Denver and the state of Colorado. The 1909 stadium building offers something a little bit different a chance to focus on what CSU has done for over 150 years to connect people to food. The vision for the market space in the 1909 includes opportunities for small businesses, a chance to showcase Colorado's food products, and a way to incubate new ideas, all while opening up possibilities for fresh, affordable food being more accessible to those nearby. Both the Arena and 1909 have been part of the overall vision for the National Western Center and bring strength to the larger project. Along with the rest of the National Western Center. They will provide economic impact and long term jobs. For these reasons, CSU is asking that the council vote to include the arena and stadium building public market in November's ballot. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Our next speaker is Angelina Torres. And we're going to allow 6 minutes for translation services.
Speaker 10: When I started.
Speaker 2: Looking at.
Speaker 10: The numbers letters. So to see them through this one in. Good evening, City City Council. My name is Angelina Torres and I am a resident of Swansea. And. Nor is there equitable Bono to buttress. Portugal National with the notice of promises in polio. They use this rule. Familiar Italians who live in the center of Circle National. Was this just a participant in this? Who molested the girls in the lawyers technical 7-Eleven is the automatic comment this. These are local. No care of that apology album. No Birkin? No. Is Diciendo. Look at the very end, I said. Embrace the Latino necesitamos viviendo. Farkas. In the local community areas. Is passive, communitarian. Lara's request. But alas, 1 million still within that inner. Further, it cannot happen in the theater. Contreras Eagle National Wisdom Taken from Metalcore La Comunidad. If your mando bull compromise socialism everywhere don't. Gadhafi. I am not in agreement with the Phase three bond because in north the National Western Stock Show has made promises that did not fulfill that they did not fulfill. They displaced families that had their homes in the lands close to the national western. They disappeared. Stores such as the store called Sinaloa into La Botanica and 7-Eleven, which were automatically displaced. I don't want the city to support this bond because they are not doing what they should do. Instead of the arena, we need housing, parks, local stores, community spaces, recreational places so that the families in the neighborhood and we need them to support the community land trust with lands and for the national western to commit with the community by signing an agreement, a solid agreement. That is true. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Our next speaker is Silvia Hernandez. And she is joining us online. And it looks like we don't have Sylvia with us. And so I'm gonna go ahead and call the next speaker online. We have Jack FINLAW, Marvin Thomas, Kevin O'Connor and Bob Sarlo, just so you can be ready if you're not right by your computer . And so we're going to go ahead and go to Jack FINLAW. Jack, if you can hear us, we've got you cued up to speak. You might have to unmute yourself. Okay. We'll go ahead and move on. We'll try to get Jack back in the queue if we can. Marvin Thomas. All right. It doesn't look like we have Marvin Thomas. Kevin O'Connor.
Speaker 3: Thank you, President Gilmore. Can you hear me?
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 3: Thank you very much. And thank you. Members of the city council. My name is Kevin O'Connor. I reside at seven seven for Saint Paul Street. First, I want to thank the city council and the city government for this excellent technology that makes it possible for myself and other citizens to testify from our homes. I think that's a terrific advancement of democracy. I also want to acknowledge that the bond issue. I am speaking on behalf of completion of the Central Library Project. In doing so, I want to acknowledge that two very important library additions are in this Bond project. Certainly appropriate given that the city has grown 115,000 people and that these neighborhoods are properly served. I want to refer back to an article on April 28th in the Denver Post when the mayor announced a approximately $400 million bond issue in concept, saying that it was to jumpstart the pandemic recovery, create 40,000 jobs by the end of 2022. I also want to refer to the report that was received by the Finance Committee, where the completion of the Central Library was a Tier one project. There's many reasons for that. Most importantly, the current project is on time and it's on budget. It's also already planned and ready for construction. So if we're to meet the goals that was were in the introduction of the bond issue by staff to create jobs by the end of 2022. This seems like an ideal project and would secondly save the city money because construction is on site already. So by by being on site, the contractor can continue without the start up costs. So I would I would encourage the city council to restore the $19 Million necessary to complete the Central Library Project. And appreciate your consideration.
Speaker 1: Thank you. We're going to go ahead and ask Jack FINLAW to go ahead and leave the Zoom meeting and come back into it. And we think we'll get your audio and video working. Sometimes we just need to have you pop out and pop back in and we can get it going again. So if Jack FINLAW would do that, our next speaker that we had online via Zoom was Barb, Bob Sarlo. Bob Sarlo and it doesn't look like we have Bob in. And so we're going to go ahead and transition back into chambers and I'm going to call the next five folks if they can join us up in the front pew or get ready to come up. We have Sara Lee, Paul Andrews, Alma Urbano, Ernest House and Carol Briggs. Our first speaker is Sarah Lake.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Council members. My name is Sarah Lake. I live in District nine and I wanted to speak about the development of the national western complex and in particular the arena in the 1909 building. I'm speaking tonight not only as a longtime Denver resident, but also as an economist over from Boulder in economics, sociology and meaning. My training and my career is dedicated to looking at how economic development either exacerbates or improves inequality. So tonight I'm approaching this question about this bond from an academic perspective, from a research research perspective. And if we look at the research, it's very clear the arena is both economically untenable and also unjust in an equitable. Several council members have already pointed out in previous sessions there's many problems with the feasibility study that has been conducted. So let's start there. First. We've already invested $765 million in this project, and now they're asking for more because the original plan counted on a public private partnership of which companies pulled out of because they themselves did not trust that this was going to be profitable. Second, we know that the feasibility study stated that it will not be profitable unless 10,000 housing units are built in the neighborhood. That's nearly four times the number of all housing units in the Reno neighborhood right now. Next. Any recovery is expected to be 3 to 5 years out. We're not talking about economic returns from the arena any time soon, and especially not for the neighbors surrounding the arena. This project is not shovel ready as it was originally claimed. Next, the study notes that the arena is going to compete directly with other venues. There are over a dozen venues in the Denver and surrounding areas that hold 5000 or more people, and the feasibility study even notes that it will be the same types of events that will be held at this arena as well as the other dozen arenas. Next. There's been very little thought put into the sources of revenue for the investment fund. The bare minimum solution of rounding up on purchases is highly contingent on sufficient sales and doesn't even offer the scale of investment necessary to support the community. And next, the feasibility study. It was conducted from 2013 to 2014. It uses data from 2012. We're talking about a decade old data source that we're relying on to tell us that this is going to be economically profitable and sound. And last, the feasibility study emphasizes the challenge of developing the arena without available land. It requires the disenfranchisement of local community members. And as we've heard from the global Globeville, Elyria, Swansea Coalition, they are not supporting this development. So to be fair and just, it is essential that we vote no on this bond and allow more time to investigate how to do this process in a just and fair way that does the right thing.
Speaker 1: Q That time we have allotted our next speaker up is Paul Andrews.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, members of council. It's always a pleasure to be here with you. I am Paul Andrews, the president and CEO of the National Western Stock Show. A event that has been successful for 115 years in the great city of Denver. I'm here in.
Speaker 2: Support of the new arena.
Speaker 3: And I'm here in support of the 1909 stadium arena, which we built in 1909.
Speaker 2: The new arena is the catalyst to the entire.
Speaker 3: Nation, a Western stock show development and the nation of Western Center development with projected numbers of more than 150 events a.
Speaker 2: Year at that arena. It's the centerpiece.
Speaker 3: That makes everything else work on this site. The National Western Center, once fully built out, is projected to generate.
Speaker 2: Economic impact of $230 million.
Speaker 3: A year and host a projected 310 events each year by passing this bond. Payback is immediate. The new arena is the most important building to the nation. A Western stock show.
Speaker 2: And our 29 rodeo.
Speaker 3: Performances. The successful business model for this 115 year old Colorado institution hangs in the balance as you cast your vote tonight. To support the community. The National Western Stock Show has voluntarily decided to implement the round up this January on all food, drink and ticket purchases on site over the 16 days of show. We continue to be a good neighbor to our friends in Globeville, Larry.
Speaker 2: Elyria and.
Speaker 3: Swansea. Please, complete with the voters in every district passed in 2015 ballot measure to see complete the master plan for the nation Western Center.
Speaker 2: And vote yes on the new arena and the 1909.
Speaker 3: Renovation here tonight.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Our next speaker is Alma Urban. You.
Speaker 4: Hello. My name's Automotive Piano pronounced her and I am a resident of Swansea. Today I would only speak as representative of the Community Investment Fund Committee, a committee that has been organized to make sure funding is secure and distributed to the communities impacted by the National Western. I will be reading from a letter composed by the committee members and organizers from the three connecting neighborhoods. As residents of the Globeville, Elyria and Swansea neighborhood. We have been tasked as the Community Investment Fund Committee with negotiating a system for the receive, the funds and their distribution. To make it clear, as a Community Investment Fund Committee, we are aware of the impact the Arena mentioned in the plan will have in their efforts. We are also far more aware of the impact this type of development will have in our communities.
Speaker 10: The development of P3 will directly affect.
Speaker 4: The revenue of the CRF based on our current proposal, and I hope this makes our stance more impactful. We are accepting the consequences this takes to make sure our communities are respected. We are opposed to the international western arena, part of the Bonn phase three, and as a result it will be hard for us to support the ban as it stands in the midst of an ongoing and convoluted.
Speaker 10: Discussion about additional funding for the 10,000 seat.
Speaker 4: Arena. The community is being pulled to both sides when we should be at the center. City officials alleged the development of the National Western Center is the only way. Community needs and glitz can be addressed. They want us to believe encroachment and disruption is their only path to address housing issues. The lack of food outlets or other essential resources. The city of Denver has been content to acknowledge the issue, but has taken minimal steps to respond. Before we talk about a new arena, shouldn't we talk about housing? At what point do we become outraged and ashamed that our fellow residents are treated with such disrespect, with the conditions that exist in Swansea and Globeville be allowed to continue in neighborhoods located elsewhere? Sadly, we have had little financial value to the businesses and companies to invest in this area. That is until Denver ran out of land. So now our value is so-called unoccupied land. We now have transactional value for financial interests. However, this bond is not is an.
Speaker 10: Example of.
Speaker 4: Us asking the same system to repair the same issues they have cost. Our question is, do we not have this backwards? Should we not start by asking what is in the best interests of our communities? What do the residents need? How do we honor.
Speaker 10: The value of the people who have tolerated so much from neglect.
Speaker 9: Intrusion?
Speaker 4: Simply put, the community must come first. Therefore, we oppose Phase three development of the National Western Center until the city has first focused on resolving basic community issues and global variance once again. Myself and a few other members of the Community Investment Fund are available to answer any questions to your time.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next step, we have EARNEST House.
Speaker 2: Well, make the argument the way. Madam President, members of council. My name is Ernest House Junior. I'm a member of the National Western Center Authority Board of Directors. I'm here to speak in favor of all of the go bond measures. This is the right time to invest in our economic recovery. In particular, I want to make a few comments of support of Bill number 221, dash 0924 that refers to the voters, a bond measure to fund improvements to the National Western Center campus. I understand this placement broken promises, and it voted my career in acknowledging that history. I'm an enrolled member of the new tribe and work as senior policy director at the Keystone Policy Center. I spent a lot of time working with communities and acknowledging that in the U.S., authorities must be diligent, diligent about working together with our neighbors . The arena in 1909. Buildings are important to the campus. And if we honor our board adopted community benefits principles, we can ensure that these buildings support the authority operations and support the community. Our goal with these buildings and the entire campus is to create jobs and opportunity for our guests, neighbors and broader community. The 1909 market will be the center of opportunity for farmers and ranchers bringing their product to Denver. And with community input, we can create opportunities for our neighbors by providing space for makers to sell their products. The arena will bring more people to the campus, something that is critical to the success of the market. Both these buildings were increase funding to the Community Investment Fund. I sit on the Community Benefits Committee and while we have a long way to go, I'm confident that our relationship with all of the community entities will grow and we can all share in the success of this campus. We are excited that the Community Investment Fund Committee is coming together as a self-governing group that will decide how CRF revenues will be distributed. A partnership with Councilman Ortega and Councilwoman CdeBaca has made this possible. Thank you for helping get that process started. We look forward to working with you, our neighbors in Greece and the broader community to make this campus something special. The arena in 1909 are the next steps. And I ask you to support sending the ballot measure to the people. The. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Our next speaker is Carol Briggs.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Counsel, for this opportunity to speak. I am a resident of Swansea.
Speaker 4: And I speak against.
Speaker 9: Including the.
Speaker 4: Any more money is going to.
Speaker 2: The national western.
Speaker 4: In the bond.
Speaker 9: The City process.
Speaker 4: The city development process provides for community comment.
Speaker 1: Possibly community benefits.
Speaker 9: Agreement and equity commitment. However, over and over again, the process fails. Denver Neighbors The CBA and equity, culture and equity commitments are drafted by the city with input from developers and then brought to the neighborhood for comment. The neighborhood heads are expected to accept the city planning with only superficial comment. This was confirmed by a city planning and development staff on a Zoom call in fall of 2020. A staff member told us it was the neighbors job to comment and his department's job to decide what will be done. This statement is part of a pattern of systemic white supremacy in the city's process. The neighborhood representation at the National Western CACC is a city packed community member with no voting power. When the neighborhood requested a grocery store, the National Western ranged for an urban market that does not meet the.
Speaker 4: Needs of the neighborhood.
Speaker 9: When the neighborhood requested affordable housing that keeps neighbors in their homes, or at least in the neighborhood, we are told that there is no plan for affordable housing. The housing will be elsewhere in the city.
Speaker 4: In other words, you can't stay here.
Speaker 9: There continues to be talk of how the national restroom provides career jobs for neighbors, even though nobody knows of anyone in 8 to 1 six.
Speaker 4: That has ever had a.
Speaker 9: Career job at the National West. It has not happened in decades, but continues to be talked as if it is a benefit for the surrounding neighborhood. What is playing out here is the white supremacist tactic.
Speaker 2: Of look at everything the city.
Speaker 9: Is offering these people and they.
Speaker 4: Are not grateful.
Speaker 9: There is no.
Speaker 1: Recognition that what is.
Speaker 9: Offered is not what is needed.
Speaker 2: Or requested by the.
Speaker 4: Neighborhoods.
Speaker 2: There can be.
Speaker 9: No true input from community, no agreement, no commitments that mean anything unless the community is an equal at the negotiating table. Neighborhoods know what their issues are. Neighborhoods have solutions. I join with my neighbors and other concerned groups asking the bond not include additional public funding for an inequitable redevelopment of the National Western. There are other ways to to economic recovery that meet neighborhood needs. Please take a step closer to true democracy by keeping public land.
Speaker 2: In.
Speaker 4: Public hands.
Speaker 9: And public money to help every resident of Denver.
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Our next speaker, we're going to move to the online virtual format. We have Jack FINLAW, Amy Berman, Marilyn Masterman, Jessie Perez and Kate Barton. And then we also would like to we understand they had a little bit of trouble getting in Silvia Hernandez if we see Silvia Hernandez in the queue. And so we're going to go ahead and go to Jack FINLAW.
Speaker 3: Good evening, Madam President. I hope you can hear and see me at this point.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 3: I had a switch to my iPhone thanks to a new laptop that wasn't working very well. It's great to be here tonight. I'm a resident of Denver, a long time resident of Denver. I live in the Congress Park neighborhood. I'm a former city official. I worked for Mayor Hickenlooper and I served as chief of staff to mayor of DOL. And it's good to see so many friends here on the council and in the audience tonight. I'm here to really just speak to the lack of funding for this central library project. Was very disappointed to see that that $90 million project, which is underway and could be completed with another $90 million, is not going to be part of this bond package. We've had a lot of very articulate, passionate comments tonight about equity and equity serving institutions. And the Denver Public Library is probably one of our preeminent equity institutions that provides services to all the people of Denver and beyond for free. It is one of our greatest institutions, and while we're appreciative of seeing some funding for some of our branch libraries, the central library is where is the center of the action. It's where everything flows from. And so I would just urge you, urge Brandon and the city officials to find money from the capital improvement budget or from some other source to finish that central library renovation while it's still ongoing. Because if we stop and just have to start again, it'll cost a lot more money. So please keep the Central Library project in your in your budgeting process in the months ahead. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. And a quick time check. We've got about 18 minutes left in the one hour courtesy, public hearing. And so if folks wouldn't mind if you are repeating information, we'd appreciate you just being a little bit more concise. Next up, we have Amy Brymer. Okay. It doesn't look like Amy Brenneman is in the queue. We're going to go ahead and move on to Marilyn Muster, man. All right. No, Marilyn. Next up, we have Jesse Paris.
Speaker 2: Yes. Good evening. Members of council, those watching at home. One of them is just a missing person presume for Black Star Blackstar and move for self defense of the Mexican man for social change as well as the Unity Party of Colorado and frontline black males. And I will be the next mayor Denver in 2023. I am against. This. Tonight's the bond package tonight, especially in regards to the arena. Hearing the compelling testimony from the coalition and the solidarity with. I have to. Definitely go against this. This is going to cause more so after displacement than what is already occurring in the area of Swansea and Globeville. The unintended consequences of this arena are just. Unsalvageable at this point. No one within a two, three mile radius of this arena is going to be able to survive the unintended consequences that are going to occur from having such a structure built. This is not what the community needs. These communities have been neglected for decades and they do not need a thousand person arena. That is the last thing they need. The need services within their individual neighborhoods. Any grocery stores. They need access to free, healthy food. What they do not need is an arena that's going to cause more displacement, and that's already occurring throughout this city. This is going to be an epicenter of epicenter of displacement and gentrification. If you go through with this tonight so you can make a stand tonight, city council and you can say, look, enough is enough of this. We don't need any more unintended consequences from on more growth, more development that is going to cause rapid gentrification and displacement of our black and brown communities. Someone has to take a stand against the mayor. This is not okay. These communities have made a collective effort for decades, and it appears that they're just going to continue to do this and pass this to me. So we would ax you in solidarity with this coalition. It would actually not pass us to me and allow. Don't bring this to the voters. We don't want to vote on this. This is not something that these communities need. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Our last two speakers online for this set are Kate Barton and Stephen Bencic. And so we'll go to Kate Barton.
Speaker 4: In the evening.
Speaker 8: Members of council. Can you hear me?
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 8: Hi. Thank you so much for having me this evening. My name is Kate Barton. I'm executive vice president at the Downtown Denver Partnership. We are excited about a number of projects listed in the in the proposed geo bonds, many of which we have worked on or advocated for with our members and stakeholders for years. The downtown Denver Partnership's work is driven by the 27 downtown area plan. This plan created a 20 year vision for downtown Denver that is ultimately enhanced by long term investments through efforts such as the general.
Speaker 4: Obligation bond issue. We believe in.
Speaker 8: Investing for our city for the long term and applaud Denver City Council and the city for leading this process to determine key projects that will impact Denver now and into the future. The partnership has a long history of supporting geo bonds, and we believe in the economic impacts delivered by a number of elements of the bond package , including the National Western Housing, Mobility, Parks and Arts related projects. Several of the projects included in this bond issue support long term plans that were previously prioritized by the community. Others that address infrastructure needs will help to ensure that we are maintaining the current built environment and also building for the future. Recognizing that others have talked more about several projects listed in the bond package. We want to call out one of the projects that we've been deeply engaged in the 50 to 80 trail. The Downtown Denver Partnership has been leading the efforts to create the 50 to 80 Trail, a bold project that will transform how the public right of way is used in downtown Denver. For several years, the 50 to 80 will link neighborhoods and connect people by reimagining underutilized streets into the into the essential downtown experience uniting urban life with Denver's amazing Denver and Colorado's amazing outdoor culture. This Vision Visionary Project is shovel ready, with one section already underway on 21st Street and will create much needed public space in the heart of downtown. The Golden Triangle neighborhood has shown great enthusiasm about this project, and we believe that this connects to many key infrastructure and mobility projects, both in districts nine and ten. The 50 to 80 trail development proposed in the bond will not only create jobs and result in positive economic impact, but sets the stage for the future development of the to 80 trail throughout the center city, resulting in millions of dollars of economic impact. And we just provided we believe the 50 to 80 trail demonstrates a project that will help us build a city for today, thinking of the needs of tomorrow and we'll attract residents and visitors to our community. To reiterate, the downtown of our partnership is excited about many components of the proposed geo bond package, both city wide and downtown specific. We look forward to the great impacts that will happen as a result of these proposals, and we thank you for your consideration and leadership in making long term investments in our city.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Our next speaker online is Steven, Ben, Chick. And then the three folks that we're going to have in person in chambers after Steven speaks are Alfonso Espino, Brian Loma and Katie Blakey. So you can get ready or come up to the front pew here so we can get you up quicker. Go ahead, Steven, please.
Speaker 2: Although City Council, there are many things the city can do with $160 million. We can build streets where those walking or biking don't have to fear for their lives. We can build safe sidewalks in the 40% of the city that goes without them and maybe meet the city's self-imposed goal for miles of sidewalk constructed for the first time since we started measuring it. We can make improvements to transit along some of our big busiest corridors like Colfax and improve our air quality in the process. However, these things are not necessarily being considered by the city with this bond issue at the level that they deserve. The city is currently considering spending about $160 million on was effectively another Pepsi Center. This is the last thing we need right now in light of all of the issues I mentioned before, the city is not struggling for capacity for events between the Pepsi Center, Convention Center and Denver Coliseum, just to name a few. Its proposed arena would really do nothing but just line the pockets of a few politically connected individuals. There's a serious problem when this project's being given 160 million, whereas the critical infrastructure that I mentioned is being only given around 73 million. This money that this 160 million should be put into transportation bonds to give a state to have a safe streets, better transit options, and maybe finally, some sidewalks. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Our next speaker in person is Alfonso Espino.
Speaker 2: Good evening, counsel. Thank you for having me. And it's also really nice to be in person for once. And I hope you're all well. I'm here to speak again, sending the bond proposal in relation to the National Western's proposed arena and public market to not send it to the voters. I think that the process, or better said, the lack of process to have arrived at this decision to rush through a bond process, not just for the arena, but several years before the accustomed to ten year period in which bond proposals happen is ridiculous and unfair, not only to the people who I am here in solidarity with , because I understand that I do not speak for all the people in my own community. I do not speak for all of Denver, but who I do speak for, who I do stand in solidarity with, are those that have been historically marginalized. The people that are currently or have already been displaced. Especially in my community and this process. Or once again, lack of process that has been going on around the arena amounts to what I would view, and I think correctly so, as extortion. You have the people. That support the arena, always stating the health and the necessity for economically driving the success of the complex. So there's this diluted idea in this chamber right now that that amounts to the success of my community, that that amounts to representation of the people who I am standing in solidarity here with today. This extortion of we will give you everything that you've lacked for decades. Better set a century of existence. As some of the oldest neighborhoods in Denver. Only if you once again give up more concessions. Give it more, give it more. That's all I ever hear. That's all that's ever asked of us to do. And when we come down here and we beg of you to rethink this, not only for my neighbors, because I stand in solidarity with my unhoused neighbors who are sitting in the street right now. I'm standing in solidarity with the people across north Denver, east Denver, south Denver, who are also going through the same thing where these bond money, which is vital to the recovery. Should be going to instead. They're trying to push through an arena with a lack of process that will not address any of the problems that we are currently facing. We are not currently facing a lack of arenas in Denver. We have tons of them. What do we lack? Do I have to state them? I'm very sure that you all know exactly what's missing. I wish I could be up here today supporting this arena. I wish I could see it as something vital to my community. But as somebody who's been living in this area for all 25 years, right up the block from National Western, the only thing we ever got was parking where we used to charge people to park in our backyards. And now we don't even get that. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. That's your time. Thank you. Next up, we have Brian Lamar.
Speaker 3: Evening Council. I like this gentleman. Couple of important things he said. One of them is that we really don't have a lack of place to have events and. The bond issue. I was trying to figure out how this is going to get on the ballot. I've been out, as many of you heard earlier, for two months now, talking to Denver voters about what they want. And I've seen a lot of ballot measures and not once if I had anybody asked me if I would support tax dollars toward rebuilding the National Convention Center. So how are we going straight to the ballot with this with taxpayer dollars when, as we've heard time and time again. Illyria. Swansea is some of the strongest neighborhood community groups in the city of Denver. And I know because as Lisa Calderon's former field manager, they were the most active people working on getting out. Michael Hancock as well. Right. This is a far fetched idea that we need more places for more entertainment. We had 31 million people travel through Denver in 2018, 31 million statistic. And everybody's had plenty of places to go. There's not enough housing in the area. There's not enough housing anywhere. We just stopped a man from dying outside the outside this building tonight. We need housing. We need services for people to be off the streets. So when they come to Denver, people actually enjoy our community because it's pretty. And the houses are are for everybody and not the sidewalks for everybody. This is absolutely ridiculous that we're talking about millions of dollars for entertainment when people are dying in the streets daily. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Our next speaker is Katie Blakey.
Speaker 11: Hello. It's nice to see you in person again. Um, my name is Katie Blaikie, and I live in District ten. I'm here to ask you to please vote no on 20 1-092 for the jazz community has not been meaningfully included in the process. They'll be impacted the most by this construction, but will receive the least benefit.
Speaker 1: Katie, I'm sorry to interrupt you, but if you could pull the mic down a little bit so we can hear you. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 11: During the single meetings on this project, several of you asked some really good questions about the proposed ordinance. I really appreciate your attention to detail and thoroughness. In its feasibility study. The 1909 market success is contingent on the building of thousands of units and has not been zoned for that purpose. There's also no solid strategy for allocating funds to the community, and relying on a round up program is insufficient. With the city's lack of of through with 2017 bond and measure to sea funds, it's hard to believe that the money will reach them anyway. Another significant concern is the lack of overall vision for the arena. The details on it are sparse. The constitutes the majority of the bond allocation, knowing that this bond will not cover the full expenses expense of the project and that there's not even a projection of the cost of its completion. Putting this vanity project on the ballot means Denver taxpayers may be on the hook for hundreds of millions in additional costs. The jazz community has a cohesive vision for the site. Please vote no on this and consider investments into community led projects and neighborhoods that have been marginalized for too long and into truly affordable housing to combat our growing homelessness crisis. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. We're going to go ahead and transition back to online for a couple more speakers and then we'll be at our one hour courtesy public hearing time online. We're going to have Samantha Haviland, Harmonie Cummins, Lydia Pena and Theron Macleay. And so we'll go ahead and start with Samantha.
Speaker 8: Thank you. Good evening, honorable members of City Council. Thank you for the opportunity to speak this evening. My name is Samantha Havilland and the executive director of Career Development Student Supports for Denver Public Schools. And I'm here in support of a zero 9 to 4 to support the National Western complex. National Western has been an excellent partner, community partner with Denver Public Schools and has helped us to expand career exposure and opportunity for students in various fields.
Speaker 4: That they previously didn't know existed.
Speaker 8: And helped to identify areas and challenges within their communities. They also have been an excellent partner in helping us to address the affordability of college with providing scholarships and I think will.
Speaker 4: Continue to be.
Speaker 8: A great partner and a great opportunity for employment in high demand, high wage jobs within Denver for our students.
Speaker 4: So having said.
Speaker 8: That, I know we are short on time, so I will respect all of our peers and give that back to you.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you. Okay. Our next speaker online is Harmony Cummins, and it looks like we don't have harmony with us. All right. We'll go ahead and go to Lydia here.
Speaker 3: Whoa.
Speaker 8: Can you hear me?
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 4: Perfect.
Speaker 8: Okay. I am speaking.
Speaker 2: In.
Speaker 4: The Western Stock Show Arena. There's a lot of things that we need. And if I ask for bathrooms in our parks and I'm told we don't have the resources for these sort of things. I'm ask for our pools, our cooling centers, our city processes are on reduced hours or reduced services. From public comments, I was told that when I called in because we don't have the funding and that's how my years of savings civic center part ask about bathrooms, drinking fountains, solar panels so we don't have to have aerators on our food trucks. That's not something in our plan because we're making these things fountains. We spend a lot of money on things that we don't need.
Speaker 9: What about.
Speaker 4: Trash services? I asked the CASA office about trash services and everyone points to RTD or Dotti or someone else. Why don't we provide more trash services? Our city looks disgusting right now, and there's trash everywhere. And a recycling rate is terrible. What about housing? When I take my child to homeless sweeps and I had him talk to Evan Dreier and that's why we're sweeping the homeless when people are unhoused and poor and sick. And he tells me that this is a city connecting people to resources and it's working. I think we need to do a lot better than resources. An arena is definitely not. Let's see what else.
Speaker 8: Is an impasse and feels the pain of the earth. The last two weeks in Denver have been.
Speaker 4: Apocalyptically depressing $160 million. You want to know what? That's the same number as the task, the environmental task force recommendations for last year of what the city needs to address our climate goals. We need 200 million each year to a is going to provide 40 million and we're short 160 million. Why don't we take this $160 million and invest it in mass transit solar projects and have an equity lens on those things? Because you know what we all need instead of arena that only benefits a few and gentrify the neighborhood, we all need to be able to breathe the air here. Do you want to breathe? I want to be able to breathe and. Yeah. I don't know what this is about. I don't know if this is because our mayor wants to leave a legacy, but I don't want to be a part of that rodeo, and I don't think any of us should have to be. I spent a lot of time in the genius neighborhoods.
Speaker 9: And decades.
Speaker 4: After decades, it's one of the most poor.
Speaker 8: Polluted, and people are afraid of losing.
Speaker 4: Their homes. We need real housing solutions so people don't have to live in this fear. We need true jobs, not arena jobs. We need air to breathe. We need bathrooms in our city. We need trash services. There's a difference between needs and wants from a lot of people in this call. Who wants another arena.
Speaker 9: That benefits just the.
Speaker 4: Wealthy? Who can participate in it while also cause is more concrete and takes away from the things that we actually need here? Please do not support.
Speaker 9: This to go to the ballot.
Speaker 1: Thank you. And just to clarify for folks that was there on Macleay and our last.
Speaker 8: Harmony.
Speaker 1: Cummings Oh, well, when it's had that she was talking, it was there and meekly. But okay. Harmony Cummings, our last speaker this evening will be Lydia Pena.
Speaker 9: Lydia Pena, a sister of Loreto. And our graduate of Loreto Heights College. Years after graduation, I returned to teach the history of art that I did for 23 years. The made May biography theater for the Performing Arts was thriving during the years that I taught there. The theater is in a part of the city that benefited southwest Denver residents, as well as other areas of our great city. For many years, during the months monthly meetings that Westside Partnership has held for over two years, residents from all areas of the city were there in support of the theater. As a Latina who values diversity and inclusivity, I thank you all for the work that has gone into getting the Loreto Heights Theater on the Bond list. A bond that I wholeheartedly support because it will enrich many lives. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. And I'd like to thank the folks that signed up and both online and in chambers to speak. And that is we went a little bit over our one hour courtesy. And so we are going to go ahead and now ask for questions from members of Council on council bills. 864865866867924 and 868. And a reminder, this is your opportunity to ask questions. Once we closed the public hearing, we're going to go ahead and make comments and vote on on all of them separately. But we're doing questions within the hearing here. And so, first up, we've got Councilmember Cashman.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Madam President. I think this is for Brendan is. Well, you can pass it off if it's better for someone else. So I'm trying to understand why we're doing a bond issue at all now. So as we all know, we had Elevate Denver in 2017. And Emily Schneider was kind enough to get me some information out of the 484 projects that were part of Elevate Denver 268, or in the earliest phase of her project Life Cycle, the development phase 109 are either in design or construction, and 107 are complete. Of the 937 million passed as part of that bond issue. We've only spent 270 million, which leaves another 667 million to be spent. So it seems like we've got an awful lot in the pipeline to jumpstart the economy and at a time where it's tough to get people to do work. So I'm trying to trying to understand that. I mean, if you look through the list of projects, there's a lot of great projects in the rise. Denver Bond. But I'm just trying to figure out why we're doing a bond issue now.
Speaker 2: Sure. And Councilman Brennan Hanlon, the city's chief financial officer. So I'm going to have Laura Perry come up and talk about the status of Elevate. I think what we're trying to do here is lean into the Elevate strategy. So one of the things that we did in the 2021 budget was actually invest more funds and accelerate the Elevate Denver Bond program and went with a larger allocation from the market at the end of 2020. So this would be this issuance with rise would be paired with that paired with the remaining balance, which you're going to have Laura talk about. I think we have some conflicting numbers in terms of what the spend down is to date, but the goal is still to invest in capital like we have done during the Great Recession. That's a strategy that is that has benefited us in the past and continue to invest in our infrastructure, in our construction industry. One of the things that I mentioned was that the construction industry here in the Denver metro region was the fifth most impacted in the nation. So we're leaning into that industry and recovery around that industry. But let me bring up Laura to talk about a little bit of the status of where we are with with Elevate relative to the numbers that you just shared.
Speaker 6: Yeah. And the numbers I got came from Emily on the 13th of this month.
Speaker 4: Good evening. Members of City Council Laura Perry, Director of Capital Planning and Programing with the Department of Finance. So as Councilman Cashman stated to date, about 107 projects as of July have been completed and the Elevate Denver Bond program, and there's about.
Speaker 8: 50 projects.
Speaker 4: In the design stage and 59 projects in the construction phase. Many of our projects that are coming up are entering into the construction phase and are fairly large in nature. So the timeline to complete them is a little bit longer. And so we're anticipating construction on many to start soon as of all the 484 projects that have been started. There's about 268 in the earliest phase of the project lifecycle and 216 in either design construction or complete. So that's a summation of the numbers that I just gave you. On the financial side, as of July, we have spent $269 million, although $937 million authorized for the program. So that's roughly about 31% of the dollars. And to date, 94% of the projects are on schedule. And overall projects have remained on budget, with only 10% of the total programs purpose contingency being allocated to projects to date in terms of long term benefits of the bond in tandem with Elevate Denver. This prize bond approved by voters in 2021, will provide for a.
Speaker 8: Longer, more sustained job.
Speaker 4: Duration as it will be completed in tandem with Elevate Denver. In addition, it will deliver some enhanced delivery efficiencies for some projects, such as ADA projects. As a reminder, the city has a mandate from the Department of Justice that we need to reach, and certainly this bond will help us achieve the funding we need to address that mandate in a timely fashion. That's the other question.
Speaker 6: Last my my other question. Trying to understand the answer I got when I asked with all these projects left to do from Elevate. Now we're adding, I believe if all these were to pass 80 projects to that and try to understand so the some of the other elevate projects get pushed out even further then than they are now. The answer I was given is that now happen in parallel. And the only information I got that gives me a hint on how projects would be timed is that the arena, if it were to be approved design and construction early next year and completion in 25. So it's it's just it's hard for me to understand how we then take 200 million or I guess 160, because I don't think the answer included the nine or nine building. But how we then take another 160 million in construction dollars, get that done in that time frame and not bump other projects. So is there any one can.
Speaker 9: Adam, do you want to try to address delivery and.
Speaker 4: Optimization of contracts?
Speaker 2: Good evening, council Adam Pitts with the Department of Transportation and Infrastructure. Councilman, it's a good question. We want to make sure that when we resource our projects, we resource them so that we can continue to deliver them on schedule and on budget. When you look at the diversity of projects, the project count is just over 400 for Elevate the project count and this new bond package is just shy of 100, if I'm correct. It is with when you look at each individual segment like the Elevate Numbers and we've staggered our staff and we've resourced up appropriately to be able to do this. Part of the economic recovery is not just the implementation of the construction, but it's the design sector, it's professional services, it's program management, it's project management. And so when you see the layering of these bond issuances, it allows us to impact industries across the board, not just in construction.
Speaker 6: Okay. Those are my questions. I'll comment later on. Thank you for the answer. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Next up, we have council members say to Baker.
Speaker 4: Thank you. I have several questions. First, can somebody familiar with the framework agreement tell me what the timeline is in the framework agreement to figure out the funding for the arena? I believe it's page 35.
Speaker 2: I'm going to ask Jen Wellborn to come up. Thank you.
Speaker 4: I brought it counsel to Orson. I can flip right to it. 35. I'm John, and I'm with the city attorney's office. And the answer is that the. The city committed to. Moving conversation forward with how to finalize the master plan that was adopted by City Council in 20. 16. I'm going to say that wrong. And so we have an obligation in the framework agreement the city does to make attempts to complete the master plan. And that is the unfunded part was the phases three through eight. So that. The city is supposed to do that. There's not really a timeline on it except that what it says is that the partners can, if the city fails to accomplish that by 2027, that the partners, then CSU, the Authority and the stock show can bring forward a plan that is both financially and sound and construct able to the city. And then the city, pursuant to the framework agreement, is required to evaluate that plan and if it is feasible and construct able to make the land available for the construction of those facilities that are in the master plan phases three through eight. Got it. So in that sense, in short, we have until 2027 to figure out a plan for this, for the arenas. At least until then. Yes. Got it. In the feasibility study that was mentioned several times this evening. I don't know who else might be able to answer this question, but it does mention that 10,000 homes minimum would need to be created in order for the arenas to be successful in the market. To be successful. Can somebody speak to why we're choosing to operate in this order and put the arenas before the residences? I can't speak to the feasibility the feasibility study, but I will say that the master plan doesn't have any private development in it. And so the opportunity is for us to locate the, the phases three through eight facilities and see if there is land available. We expect that there is. But I think to to get to your order question without sorry, really addressing the feasibility study because I don't I'm not familiar with it. The order of these things is really because the the cultural facilities that that are created in the masterplan include this arena and the expo hall and the refurbishment in the 1909 building. And, and if there is to be additional land available or land of excuse me, land available, it would be after those phases are built. And that's I mean, that's just because the way the master plan works, I think. So along those lines, how much land was acquired from private owners. Before we pulled together all of our parcels for National Western. There's a total of. I'm sorry.
Speaker 2: Sure. Good evening. Council members Brad Dodson. I'm the deputy director for the mayor's office of the National Western Center. So, Councilman CdeBaca, thank you. Your question was, how many acres were acquired as part of the campus?
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 2: So the total campus boundaries is 250 acres. Now, that includes land the city already owned within the Coliseum area. It also includes land that was given by the Western Stock Association, as well as a private land that was acquired. I don't have the specific acreage of what that private land is.
Speaker 4: But overall, 250.
Speaker 2: The entire campus boundaries or 250.
Speaker 4: Acres of public land. So how much of the land in the triangle was going to be traded in the P3 to the private developers in exchange for the arena renovations?
Speaker 2: So I can defer to someone else on the details of that procurement. But the area that was commonly referred to as the triangle is roughly 60 acres.
Speaker 4: So we were going to give 60 acres away, essentially in exchange for the developers who received it to renovate or construct these arenas.
Speaker 2: That was the total area that was contemplated. So that included both public assets, private assets, infrastructure, open space, etc..
Speaker 4: Got it. And so is there. So given that it's public land and we're proposing to publicly finance the arena, renovation and construction, is there a plan to.
Speaker 8: Return that acquired.
Speaker 4: Land back to the public in some form, like the community land trust or something like that? I think your question is, is there a plan for what to do with the land after the public facilities are built? Correct. What? They acquired a lot of land. Yeah. I just want out here. I didn't necessarily need it. So within the proposed P-3 that was publicly available, we did have a plan that was it was, you know, you're going to do X amount of affordable housing. And and we had seen a little bit about what those teams were going to respond with in terms of what they were going to do with private land. And since we're not doing that, that was one of the advantages, frankly, of doing it all together, was that it all sort of moved at the same at the same time and at the same pace with with not doing a three. What we're doing is the first step, which is building in the public facilities so that we know what we have, because that's the completion of the master plan. But we know there isn't. So we, we haven't gotten there because it's now we're doing it sort of in a linear, sequential fashion instead of all in a. But we can't make those public facilities successful without the housing that was required in the feasibility study. So my question related to the plan was what was the overall cost associated with the plan for the triangle when we had the whole package together? Well, that that included that included the Expo Hall and include I mean, housing, all of that whole bunch of stuff. What was that cost going to be? Well, we we would not have made that public because it was I mean, we wouldn't have made any estimates that we had public because it was on the street. So I don't know that I have a number, but now it we certainly didn't have that. I don't know if we have an estimate that. So we made a plan and we could.
Speaker 8: And it's not.
Speaker 4: On the street for a contract. I just don't know. I don't I don't know that we have one. Can anyone share the number? I don't know that we.
Speaker 2: That was not a number that we made public. We had internal estimates and then essentially protected those. As we went through the negotiation process, we would have to follow up on what the details of those numbers were. I just want to clarify one thing, though, in terms of the mechanics of the 60 acres. That wasn't a one for one transaction that was being that was being dealt with. I think what Jen was trying to say is that the whole campus had a transaction that brought multiple public assets and that put in play certain areas of real estate at the same time, along with other community benefits that were defined in that procurement at the time. So it wasn't just a parcel that was dedicated to an individual asset.
Speaker 4: The issue here is that where we have somehow arbitrarily prioritized the arenas in that plan that we say we had for the triangle. And so what I'm curious about is if we understand that in order for this plan to be successful in the arena, to be successful and we're throwing out big numbers to the taxpayers to fund why didn't we ask them to fund the whole cost of the triangle to make sure that the community's priorities on the housing side were paid for as well?
Speaker 2: So I don't think that the that the strategy of of advancing the arena versus the reason that that asset was was selected was because it is that economic engine that Mr. Andrews had testified about. So it had the best return on investment. It provided the most activation for the campus as a whole. I don't think that the balance of the conversation around other community investment opportunities is precluded by starting with this one asset. I think what Jen was mentioning was that this is going to be a more prolonged process. Now that won't just end with this one asset. We're still required to fulfill the master vision for the campus as part of the framework agreement.
Speaker 4: So two.
Speaker 8: Questions.
Speaker 4: On that. What is the potential for you all to take into.
Speaker 8: Consideration what you've heard.
Speaker 4: From the community tonight and get that non-negotiable commitment to the community and investment funds request? Before this gets to us for second reading.
Speaker 2: So we heard a few things tonight, the you conditions, if you will, around support for the program. I'm going to actually ask Laura Perry to come up. We we received the list. I think we have some responses on some of the projects that were identified on there. We don't have answers for all of them yet, but we have we have the answers for some of them. And I want to just be sensitive to my role here in the city CFO. But the authority is the custodian of the Community Investment Fund in that process. So I might ask Brad Buchanan to talk about what the next steps are around the Community Investment Fund and commitments made through that process. So I think, Laura, if you could talk first about those first asks and then Brad Buchanan could come up thereafter. Thank you.
Speaker 4: So there are.
Speaker 8: Several infrastructure.
Speaker 4: Assets that had been made, including sidewalk improvements. And currently there is $70 million included in the Elevate Denver Bond, which is currently moving forward and making progress. There were several traffic calming infrastructure.
Speaker 8: Improvements on Lincoln Street.
Speaker 4: And 51st. The bike lane from North Lincoln to Washington Street is an active project and includes some traffic calming, which is funded via Skype and we are still confirming a couple of the other traffic calming projects requested. The replacement of LED water sewer lines. That is not something that is handled by the city. But certainly we can have conversations with Denver water regarding those assets. And the Washington Street Reconstruction Project is currently under the funding from the Elevate Denver Bond Program. Can I save you some time yet? That list. I'm not talking about projects that are already in place. I'm talking about the impact fee that the Community Investment Fund group is requesting a commitment on prior to this going to the floor. Thank you for that.
Speaker 8: Yeah.
Speaker 4: Sorry, I can come and speak to that. So many moving parts. I don't know who to call. So thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Members of Council Brad Buchanan, CEO of National Western Center Authority. So the Community Investment Fund process, it it was, as I said in.
Speaker 3: Committee a few weeks ago, it was embedded in the P3 process. When the P3 process was halted in January.
Speaker 2: We started working on and actually with with you Councilwoman.
Speaker 3: CdeBaca and Councilman Ortega in the.
Speaker 2: Formation of a community investment fund committee, which you seeded in and they began meeting.
Speaker 3: In.
Speaker 0: In April. That is the beginning of the process.
Speaker 2: It is not the end of the process. The the next steps for the community investment fund process. And I, I don't I don't know how we could commit to it, to providing an answer to what I think will be a.
Speaker 3: Much longer process in the next week around the Community Investment Fund.
Speaker 2: To me, the next step in the process is that we're going to one need to stand up a fiscal agent to receive those campus investment fund revenue streams.
Speaker 4: Denver Foundation is ready to go.
Speaker 2: Yep, it's great. That's great. And and then secondly, our community benefits committee.
Speaker 3: Chaired by Lucia Guzman, who's here tonight.
Speaker 2: And Ernst House, who spoke earlier.
Speaker 3: Is sits on that committee as well, working with myself and our chair, John Iker.
Speaker 2: And in talking with you council members as well. I've identified clearly that technical assistance advocacy for the communities is an important step so that they can have the resources they need.
Speaker 3: To.
Speaker 2: Be.
Speaker 3: Expert.
Speaker 2: Negotiators and to be able to identify best practices nationwide. And so we have been in conversations with the city and with the Department of Finance have had very favorable conversations. And we're going to be requesting $400,000 to be transferred to the authority, to then be transferred to the Community Investment Fund Committee so that they can go through the process of procuring and selecting a technical assistance expertize so that they can then formulate those their their their requests, their desires. They are the experts.
Speaker 4: Proposal on the table.
Speaker 8: Right now, because.
Speaker 4: What I'm hearing is what I heard in 2016 and.
Speaker 8: 2017 and 2018 and 2019 and.
Speaker 4: 2020, the community benefits agreement was baked into an MCU that happened many years ago, and the CRF was baked into the framework agreement, which was approved in 2016. And so we're in 2021 having the same conversation. We didn't invest in the community up until now. And so the community, from my understanding, has put a proposal.
Speaker 8: On your.
Speaker 4: Desk for the frame, for the authority asking for an impact fee, not a round up. Impact fee in addition to the roundup. What is the position of the authority on the impact fee?
Speaker 2: The position is that we've heard from two neighborhood organizations that have brought us ideas. We have asked that those be folded into the community investment fund process and considered with all of the community input that will be.
Speaker 3: Involved in that process.
Speaker 4: But we have no decision on the impact fee.
Speaker 2: Not at this time.
Speaker 8: Thank you.
Speaker 4: Can you speak to the ask?
Speaker 8: Have you.
Speaker 4: Guys done.
Speaker 8: Any kind of analysis or study on the impact of your public.
Speaker 4: Investment on the surrounding community? Maybe you.
Speaker 8: Guys, maybe.
Speaker 4: The city, anybody?
Speaker 3: I don't know, however.
Speaker 2: I might have to have NewCo come up and talk about the kind of neighborhood assessments that go into installing a project on the campus. Is that take us or Brad Dotson?
Speaker 8: And I bring this up.
Speaker 4: Because I didn't realize until public testimony how old the data was from our feasibility studies. A lot has changed, including the addition of Mission Ballroom and some other venues. So I'm wondering impact on community. Has that been studied and the feasibility of these venues? Have we studied it now that there are new venues?
Speaker 2: Good evening. Council members take us hallways like a director of the Mayor's Office of the National Western Center. I'm not sure that the feasibility, the intent of it was to study the impacts to the adjacent community, because the demand for those type of facilities as the campus builds out and also the convention center, I do know that there's others here that can speak to a little bit more of a feasibility study in itself. I think what you're hearing and seeing from us, though, is while that wasn't studied, we do want to continue to work through the true terms of community benefits, whether that's the lower case, community benefits and the return on investment that can come directly to the community through the Combined Investment Fund, the Community Benefits Committee. But also, as we continue to move forward, how do we continue to develop the land in a in an approach that is balanced with the community desires and needs and commitments, but also balance with the economic return that's needed for the economic development to support continue to support the operations of the campus. But also, like I said, the community needs as well.
Speaker 8: So how was that.
Speaker 4: Done prior to advancing this proposal? How did we how did we work directly with the community to balance the needs and priorities in this specific proposal?
Speaker 2: So I think to two fold. First of all, the requests that came out from the city was for projects to submit that are part of jobs and recovery for the city. So knowing that the campus, again, plans, neighborhood plans, 2013, the actual campus plan itself, 2015, identified these as public assets is part of the comprehensive approach to the campus itself. Again, can have a disagreement on the level of community engagement and who was involved. But over 500 meetings have been pencil to date with community members to talk about this again. So when the city asks for projects that can help support economic, short term and long term recovery for the city, the arena is one of the most economic stimulative projects that we have on the campus. And so we wanted to bring that forward for this discussion. Again, I think that the way that it sounds is it's more about an OR and what we're saying is it should be in and jobs and housing. There is a linkage, obviously, between the two. We know that the public asset with the arena can help us do economically. And what could we do for the campus as we figure out what the return on investment is for the community through Community Investment Fund and other things. But the land development process, which we speak about in the P three, of course, we don't have that mechanism anymore. And we want to be able to bring forward what a land development process is, while yes, addressing the community needs and commitments as well as jobs, housing, community oriented, retail, community supportive related items.
Speaker 8: My final.
Speaker 4: Question was there a single GSE resident that supported.
Speaker 8: This initiative tonight.
Speaker 4: Without conditions?
Speaker 2: So we can say that we have presented this material through the Community Advisory Committee, understanding we have a difference of opinion on that group with initial support for moving forward again with the campus and the arena in 1909. And so we do believe that there are individuals and community members who support this approach.
Speaker 4: And correct me if I'm wrong, the Community Advisory Council, led by National Western, is facilitated by CRL, who was also the registered agent on the negative mailer.
Speaker 2: I'm not sure about the mailer. Carol does help facilitate the conversation with the campaign advisor.
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 8: That's it for my questions.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you. Councilmember CdeBaca and the City and National Restaurant Authority folks that answered. Up next, we have Councilmember.
Speaker 9: Black.
Speaker 4: Coming up a a.
Speaker 2: Week.
Speaker 1: You need to honor our rules of decorum. We ask that you take a seat. We ask that you take a seat. Yeah, go ahead, Councilmember Black.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 8: A lot of the questions I wanted to ask were already asked, but I just wanted to clarify a few things. Based on some things that some of the speakers said.
Speaker 4: So I'm sure.
Speaker 8: Any one of you can.
Speaker 4: Speak to the master plan.
Speaker 8: It is from 2015. It was from March of 2015.
Speaker 4: I think.
Speaker 8: There's only a few council members up here tonight who.
Speaker 4: Who voted on that. But a number a few of the speakers said that the discussion about the arena in the 1909 building were rushed. And so.
Speaker 8: I any of you in the front row, you.
Speaker 4: Want to comment on what is.
Speaker 8: In the master plan specifically from March of 2015.
Speaker 4: Related to the arena in the 1909 building?
Speaker 2: So the planning process, I'm familiar with the planning processes. I was Executive Director at CPD when those plans were.
Speaker 9: Can you speak up, Bret?
Speaker 2: I was executive director of CPD when those plans were created, but the Globeville Neighborhood Plan.
Speaker 3: As well as the National Western Center Master Plan.
Speaker 2: And they did have the arena and 99 marketplace in the public market.
Speaker 0: As well as the.
Speaker 2: Expo Hall on the east side of the tracks.
Speaker 4: Great. Thank you. So it wasn't something that was just conjured up this year?
Speaker 2: No.
Speaker 4: Right. Okay. And then.
Speaker 8: Jen, you are our legal.
Speaker 4: Expert, and I know you worked really hard on that framework plan.
Speaker 8: But it was really helpful for me to hear you explain it as being linear instead of doing it all at once. And I know there's a great community desire.
Speaker 4: For housing on the triangle, but what I heard you say is that none of that is possible until the public facilities are built. And so once those are in place and we know where they're going, then you can start contemplating. Other things to do with the land, including many of the things that the community members are asking for. Thank you. I think you just said that much more clearly than I did before. Okay. Well, all right. That's all I have.
Speaker 8: Thank you.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you. Councilmember Black. Councilmember Sandoval.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Madam President. Brendan, I think this is for you. So I was doing some research, and I was trying to figure out, has Denver ever done a geo bond on land we own, but then we give to a third party entity? So I was looking at the 1989 when I was looking at the 2007 and I was looking at the 2017. And just to give context to my question, I know that we find for, let's say, the museum, but the museum owns that land we own. We bond for other cultural facilities, but they usually own the land. I see someone shaking your head. So have we ever bonded where we own the land, the taxpayers? We would build the project, but then we give it to a third party entity to run, not the city and county of Denver like arts and venues.
Speaker 2: Councilwoman I'm now stretching my memory like my mind automatically goes to our cultural institutions, but we retain the ownership of those assets. Laura. Laura, come on up.
Speaker 4: So there is one entity that the city consistently has included in our general obligation bond programs, and that's the Denver Health and Hospital Authority. They are a governmental entity under state statute, so therefore we are able to issue general obligation bonds for their benefit in constructing public health facilities that will benefit the county, city and county of Denver.
Speaker 8: And do we own the land? So in the national waste, we own the land right for the arena. And the 1909 building. Does the city and county of Denver own the land where the Denver health is?
Speaker 4: To my knowledge, we do not. But I can triple confirm that that's.
Speaker 8: That's what I keep thinking about. Where have we where the city and county of Denver own the land and then we bond to build the project. And then we turn it over to a third party entity.
Speaker 9: Those were city assets initially.
Speaker 4: Yep. The cultural, as Brendan referenced, other cultural institutions, the city owned land building for those entities, and they also participate in our joint obligation bond programs where we finance improvements for those campuses, for those facilities.
Speaker 8: So the Denver Art Museum, the city and county of Denver owns the land.
Speaker 4: I think the assets may be. Let's. Yes. Yes. I think that, John, we're in with the city attorney's office. The city the examples I would use are the Denver Museum of Nature and Science. The Denver Botanic Gardens and the Denver Zoo are, I think, the most clearcut examples of that, where the city owns the land underneath those facilities, owns the facilities, owns the collections, and the nonprofits actually have contracts with the city to manage those facilities.
Speaker 8: So that said, the Botanic Gardens, the the ones you just named are non-profits, correct?
Speaker 4: The operators are nonprofits.
Speaker 8: Is the National Western Center who we would give the 1909 arena to or the 1909 building and the Arena. Are they a nonprofit?
Speaker 4: Well, we're talking about, I think what we're not talking about giving them the building. We're talking about letting them operate the building. And the National Western Center Authority is a nonprofit. Yes, it is a nonprofit. Okay.
Speaker 8: Thank you. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you. Councilmember Sandoval, Councilmember, can each.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. My first question is we have some conversation in committee, I believe, about the library and the central library. And at that point, the only explanation of how it might be funded was maybe the CFP. We discussed the fact that the IP generally would be the entire amount for an entire year. So my first question is, has Finance had any further conversation with the library commission or, you know, the head librarian about funding that project since your last conversation to committee? So we do have a meeting scheduled coming up to further discuss that. And so it's important to note within the Central Branch Library project, there are individual scope components that have independent utility that can be funded through CIP. Certainly the full 18 million, as you mentioned, would comprise an entire year discretionary funding for. But those elements could be funded over multiple years to achieve the same outcome. Have you calculated the cost escalation of demobilizing and recontracting for those in phases versus utilizing the mobilized.
Speaker 2: Construction.
Speaker 4: Contracts that are already in place? We have not to date. Okay. Would you acknowledge that there will be a cost increase from separating out scopes rather than completing as a complete scope? Certainly there is there's always additional costs of mobilization, certainly escalation as time goes on and projects continue to progress forward. But certainly utilizing and optimizing existing contracts could mitigate some of that risk. And can I just ask a you know, this is it. I know there was a long list, but is there any other project that was already mobilized and had already approved plans that was passed up in this economic stimulus? Get people back to work as soon as possible. But. I wanted to get back to you on that to take a look. Yeah, I realize that's a tough one. I have a question that might be either for is maybe Brad, maybe Josh lately I see who's here. But Jen Wellborn answered some questions for my colleagues about that. You would have to do the public facilities first, and only then later would you figure out the private development. That's really not my understanding of what the P3 would have done. It would have programed both simultaneously and so I just want to have someone who was involved with the P3 solicitation just, you know, not to put you not to have you disagreeing with your colleagues. But I think it's an important question about whether it was going to be build a public facility and then figure out the private or really whether and how interrelated the two are and why they are. That this has been a theme and I have a few more questions on it. But would someone who was familiar with that RFP want to speak to that, please? No, no. I want you to follow up, but I just want to maybe correct the record because that if I said that, I apologize. That's obviously not true. What I was saying was that the P-3 actually did do everything together and that what we're doing now is considering because we were able to locate the public facilities at the same time. I'm not saying we can't do that now. It's just going to be in multiple stages. And so we need we need to know we at least need to know where the arena is going to go, for example, before we can say that there's land available for some other purpose, because the the framework agreement calls for us to finish the master plan. So I apologize if I was unclear.
Speaker 2: Did. So I don't want to belabor that. Sorry, Josh. Lately, chief projects officer for the Mayor's office. If that answer your question. But I think the quick of it is the P three. The concept was to do it all at once to your point.
Speaker 4: And I, I want to just, let's just take it to the next question then or the next, you know, consideration, which is that it's not just a policy choice where we thought we'd do them together before, and now we're going to do them separate. When you choose a location for this new arena, you will be considering whether that location would be better used and how it would be potentially impacting private development. Yes.
Speaker 2: Yes, we want to be informed with good land use decisions.
Speaker 4: So it's not really true to say it's just about the public facility first and we'll figure out the private later. We are going to continue to consider the two together. Yes.
Speaker 2: I think I'm going to I'm going to say yes to kind of both of those things. I think they can happen a little bit simultaneously. But there's also a legal agreement that we have with our partners that say we're going to move these public facilities forward. As we move those public facilities forward, we should have that conversation around as we develop this site out and we figure out where those public facilities go on the best use of land. Let's talk about what other uses of land can be opened up for other commitments.
Speaker 4: So I think that I appreciate you, you know, acknowledging the connection and you know, I hear you that the framework agreement. But I will just say I mean we I brought this up in committee and a few speakers have raised it tonight more so the 1909 building than the arena depends on private development, its feasibility, its actual like whether it's worth it to spend $30 million is 100% related to private development. Yes.
Speaker 2: I don't know about 100%, but I will say that the current investment is, I think, $30 million for 1909. There's some additional investment that's going to come in to kind of finish it out once we have the plan of exactly what we want to do. But this gets that mechanical and all those, you know, gets the bones of the facility back in. And then for the next phase of finishing out, hopefully we would have a plan to start activating with residential. Because you're right, 1909 needs residential activation.
Speaker 4: So I think that the reason I'm asking these questions is because one of the things we're challenged with tonight is determining whether this package for this particular project is ready to go or not and whether or not we understand the implications of the decision we're making well enough to send it to the voters who will not have the benefit of this level of detail. Right. They rely on this body. And I think that to the extent we've tried to say that, all the rest of that will get figured out later, I just think it's really I think that I mean, and again, you know, it's not just you, Josh, I just wanted to bring up the P-3, but. The idea that what we do with this funding decision has ripple effects that are not part of this discussion, that do not have answers, that do not have commitments and that do not have details that would have been done in conjunction with another method. And so I just you know, if you want to respond to that, I had to do have an actual follow up question, but I realize I'm sneaking a comment in.
Speaker 2: But no, I think you're right. I think, you know, previous procurement method, we would have laid out a large plan out in front of you with a contract that you all saw, the draft RFP that was about that thick with a lot of requirements in it and a lot of plans on what was going to happen in a rezoning that was going to go with it. All of that was part of that package. Now, as Ms.. Wellborn pointed out, now we're in a little bit more of a linear fashion if we're going to take down chunks at a time. And that creates challenges to figure out, okay, how do we walk through this process? The upside of that was last time you're going to have one decision and then we were going to sign a contract and we're going to have ap3 developer start, move it now. We're going to have we're going to come back with a contract for the arena. And then if we're going to develop land, we're going to come back with a contract for a developer. And there'll be many bites at the apple, so to speak, or many conversations to be had in the future of how this all gets done because we're in this more linear fashion. Yeah.
Speaker 4: So I'm going to change gears. I have a question it might be for you, former Senator Lucia Guzman. It's always a pleasure to have you here with us. But if you would, would you be willing to come up for a question, please? And if it's you instead, Brad, feel free to to work it out. But.
Speaker 9: Something happened to my shoe. It doesn't work.
Speaker 4: It's probably going to sail from the benches. So I appreciate that you're chairing the Community Benefits Committee. Have you had a chance to look at other major entertainment venues, community benefits in equity conversations nationally and how they played out? Is that something you had a chance to do as a committee yet?
Speaker 9: You know, I have.
Speaker 11: Earlier on, I know when.
Speaker 9: I was first working with Councilwoman Ortega, she had.
Speaker 3: Shared some.
Speaker 9: Information. And I think that you might have been part of that. So that so I know something about that, but not really. I think this is a major process that needs to happen with with the members of the community committee as well, is to really look at what others have done. This is a big deal. And how how has it been done? How how is it going to be how are we going to make sure that the community is responsible for this? Who's going to handle the money? How is that fiscally physically fiduciary going to be taking care of what how that happens. All the things that I have read and looked into really point to the need for a major I'm not going to say a director, but some kind of major facilitation, not not in the scope of taking over the community, but under the I guess in a way that the community, the members use this facilitation to their to benefit their goals and their aspirations for what this can be to to balance the correct kind of facilitation, you know, facilitator maybe with the community committee. And what they want to do is going to be very, very important.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I will just share that of the most successful community benefits agreements I'm familiar with nationally that were on major entertainment venues, Staples Center of the Nashville Soccer Stadium are the two most significant examples. Both of them negotiated agreements before they had a funding commitment from a public body. That's how it worked. One question I've been a little confused about in tonight's conversation. You've talked about the Community Investment Funds Committee, and then you have a community benefits committee. Is it your understanding that your committee or that committee is looking at the development questions and the land use questions and the affordable housing questions that the community has asked to prioritize? Or just this question of dollars?
Speaker 9: The investment committee that I've worked with and and saw is one of my responsibilities as the member of the committee of the authority board is to enhance the. Really the investment fund. What what's going to happen there? Now, there are people, as I understand it, that on serving on the investment fund, council or committee, I'm not sure what the formal name is yet, who are also members of the coalition that are very concerned about the land. But my involvement right now has not involved both of those both of those items.
Speaker 2: But I, I believe that the.
Speaker 9: Folks who are serving on the investment fund do not separate, you know, the interest of the coalition, some of the Coalition's interest and their interest where really my my work has really been centered on the major opportunity for that, for this, this group or council to receive officially be the group.
Speaker 2: That receives.
Speaker 4: Dollars.
Speaker 2: From the.
Speaker 9: Revenue that is due to them and how they set that up and how they then work with their community to decide how they want those funds to be used.
Speaker 4: So I'm going to ask. I forget if it was you, Brad, or who spoke about the capacity building dollars, maybe. Can I switch to the. If it was it was it the money.
Speaker 9: That we were asking.
Speaker 4: For? Right. Because this is a really big deal. Yeah. Money to build your capacity to receive funding and distribute it responsibly is very different than money to build your capacity to engage in a conversation about the land use decisions and the affordable housing requirements. And the equity principles that will be built into the overall development of the remaining acres. They're very different. And I want to understand, because I think we are using the terms community investment fund and community benefits interchangeably and we should not be doing that. They are not the same thing, right? The Community Investment Fund may be one example of a benefit, but it is not the thing that particularly where this much land is involved, it's not the largest thing. Right. It may be a factor. Right. If the dollars are used to support development on that land for affordable housing or if they're used for community land trust, they may overlap. But we've been talking about them like they're the same. So I need to understand that. $400,000 better. Mm hmm. So, Brad, did you want to talk about either of you? But which is it? Is it is it capacity building for distributing the funds, or is it capacity building for engaging in the overall use of the site and a full range of benefits, which might include co-op businesses and may include, you know, worker policies that help to make these really good jobs, which we have some that are coming from the city policy side. But every project I described, you negotiated unique job specific things on top of standard policy. So it's a much bigger package of questions than just what to do with the dollars.
Speaker 2: It is both of those things. We've been prioritizing the Community Investment Fund dollars piece because in 2022 the campus.
Speaker 3: Will generate community investment fund revenue.
Speaker 2: And obviously when the livestock center comes on and and we hope the arena.
Speaker 3: The dollars become much more substantial. Yes, there is a whole.
Speaker 2: Family of opportunities all around community.
Speaker 3: Benefits from those jobs, the sustainable jobs, the.
Speaker 2: Training, the small business, entrepreneurship, all the things that can happen here on the 1909, how that how that process is set up. 99 has been assumed to be operated by a nonprofit, not not the authority, but a community led nonprofit. So, I mean, all of that is going to take capacity building expertize to to to to help the community receive those those.
Speaker 0: Benefits and and to have.
Speaker 2: To create the outcomes that they want that they define. Not that we define.
Speaker 4: I have another question, but I'll go to the end of the queue. Madam, I understand. I am asking quite a few. Thank you. All right.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Kenny. Next up, we have Councilmember Ortega.
Speaker 9: Here we go. That my microphone was on. I wanted to ask Josh if you wouldn't mind coming up to the microphone. If if this were not ready to go now, how far down the road would this be? Punted. I mean, is this something that this administration would be able to continue to have conversations about and and try to move it forward? Or does this potentially get pushed so far down the road that we're talking about a whole different administration that's going to be having to deal with this?
Speaker 2: Sure. Josh, lately, chief projects officer for the mayor's office. I'd love to answer that. Yeah, we'd move fast and come up with a new plan and get that done. But I think reality would tell us that to come up with a new funding plan, which we haven't even thought of yet. Aside from this geo bond issuance we would have, that would take time and it would obviously take political support and community support, and it takes time to put those things together. So I think during this administration that is probably not going to happen.
Speaker 9: So this was the backup plan to the p three proposal to try to get it funded by a private entity.
Speaker 2: Yeah. And I just want to tweak those words a little bit because we didn't have a backup plan originally. We, we thought we were moving forward with ap3 and I think I joked with our CFO, Brendan Hanlin, like tourism revenue was never going to go down. Come on, we're Denver, Colorado. And then it happened and nobody expected that to happen. And so we had to take a hard look and reassess. And, you know, I was very engaged in that part of the project and it wasn't an easy thing to do. And this is this is how we retooled to say what is what is the next revenue generator that can help bring to fruition the campus in the master plan that was previously envisioned?
Speaker 9: So let me ask you a different question, because when this came to committee, one of my colleagues had asked a question about the tourism dollars, both the lodgers tax, as well as the car rental tax and. Why we would not be just looking to that. And as we all know, we were expecting that revenue to be coming through to take care of what was part of phase one in phase two. Correct. So can you just speak to that?
Speaker 2: Correct. And I can. If I mess up anything, the CFO Brennan will correct me. But yeah, that was bringing phase one and two to fruition. And then for phases three through eight, which were the triangle, we hadn't formally committed any dollars. The overflow of our tourism revenue goes into the general fund, so we hadn't committed those. That's what we would have done had we brought that contract forward, we would have asked you to commit those dollars.
Speaker 9: So technically, what was anticipated? To be for phase one. And phase two is not money we can rely on for phase three to do these these buildings. In other words, there are just asking the question in a different way.
Speaker 2: Correct. So let me see if I can answer it in a different way. And and hopefully to you, there is no current funding identified other than the geo bond for the triangle or the phases three through it.
Speaker 9: Okay. And I wanted to ask a question about whether or not we. Jeopardize any of the state RTA funding if we do not bring the arena online.
Speaker 2: I'm going to ask someone else to answer that one because I'm not. Brett Dotson. Good evening. Brad Dodson, deputy director from the mayor's office of the National Western Center. Councilman, your question? The arena was not prescribed as a required element in the in the RTA agreement or the RTA resolution.
Speaker 9: But it did it did project a certain volume of jobs being generated.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 2: The the RTA application talked about looked forward to an arena. However, at the time when we actually made the commitment as part of the RTA, the arena was not funded, it was not there wasn't a timeline established and so it was not included as a required element.
Speaker 9: So we think we're meeting those goals with the buildings that are being constructed today.
Speaker 2: Yes. And I think the if you if you take a step back by what the looking at the goals of the RTA, which was to increase tourism activity regionally, I think the arena absolutely gets to the spirit of that commitment, even though it wasn't defined as a required element.
Speaker 9: Okay. And you were Brad can answer this question. So a new arena is intended not only to serve national Western in the annual stock show, but any of the other partners on the campus could book that facility for any any number of types of activities or events. Correct?
Speaker 3: Yes, absolutely.
Speaker 2: So it's a it's a year round facility. 16 days in January, obviously, it'll be the National Western Stock Show with the rest of the year. It's it's a concert venue. It's an entertainment venue. GSA and high school sports events throughout the year, expo space, exhibition space. A lot of different kinds.
Speaker 3: Of users that have shown exhibited some interest in the in the arena.
Speaker 2: And if I could, I did we pulled some information from the 1909 market study because.
Speaker 0: As what I recalled.
Speaker 2: On the housing was that there were 10,000 units in the.
Speaker 3: Pipeline at that time.
Speaker 2: Of the.
Speaker 3: The market study. And we can we'll send around the exact language in.
Speaker 0: 20 and we can actually.
Speaker 2: Go and see how many of these happened. But at that time, there were 10,191 multifamily units in the.
Speaker 3: Pipeline within the five mile radius that they talked.
Speaker 2: About. So we do we.
Speaker 0: Do believe.
Speaker 2: That the.
Speaker 3: The market study.
Speaker 2: Requirements that were listed have been met. But please let us get that information of the facts secured and back to you.
Speaker 9: So does that potentially include all of what's going in along the Brayton court corridor, some of the big projects in the pipeline, for example, Fox Park. Some of those kinds of things. Yes.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 0: They they call.
Speaker 2: That a five mile radius from the from the triangle.
Speaker 9: Okay. My my last question is about a commitment to the process that will engage the community to be part of looking at the Coliseum property and what that timeline, the commitment to that timeline is. I don't know if this is something that Josh would speak to or Brad, if you want to speak to that. I'm. Because we know that. If these two projects move forward. We still have the 30 acres where the Coliseum campus is, and it's it's critical for the community to be engaged in that conversation about, you know, what happens there. We know that part of that is a conversation with historic Denver, for example, about whether the Coliseum stays or whether it should go. But at the same time, you know, there's there's a lot of land there. There's some environmental issues that have to be addressed as part of the the bigger picture of what would happen there. But and we've seen contaminated sites develop all across the city, Shattock Gates site. So this would be no different. Asarco has commercial, you know, development on that site. So. I guess I'm just asking for what that timeline would look like in the commitment to. To move forward with that process that would engage the community in a full blown way around all of that. I think that's. Josh, do you want to take this one? It's one of the things spelled out in the letter that the mayor and Councilwoman Gilmore signed that sort of went through all the documents and pulled out all of the community commitments.
Speaker 2: Yep. And and maybe you can elaborate more on the letter, I think would be good, but I think it is contingent upon development, right, where we've got an urban renewal area that is set to collect. You know, we would like to get a tip in Metro District in place to start doing things like that. Putting roads back in. Cleaning the site. It is an EPA Superfund site and we need revenues to clean that site up. And so this would generate some of that and would kick that process into play have.
Speaker 9: I don't know if you know the answer to this, but have we, the city, ever taken on doing our own tiff, or has that always been with a private partner to address some of those infrastructure improvements?
Speaker 2: I can't answer that one. I've come up in comments, not that I'm aware of. I believe we've always used the Denver Urban Renewal Authority as as our partner for that. Is that what you meant? Like. Transacting ATF on our own? Yeah. We've always leveraged our urban renewal partners.
Speaker 9: Typically, they leverage bringing a private development partner to the table to help do that. Right. Because I'm not aware I'm trying to think of so many different projects that have been done across our city, but they've all involved. A private development partner to leverage the tax increment financing?
Speaker 2: I believe so. I might look at the cost.
Speaker 4: Laura Perry There is one area that I'm aware of, East Colfax. So the urban renewal area and the project plan were established before a developer was at the table with Dura to bring forward a firm project for that area.
Speaker 9: That was the motel property, so correct. That was redevelop not.
Speaker 4: 100% on that one. I can't comment.
Speaker 9: Okay. All right, let me just make sure. So I didn't hear a solid time frame commitment to engaging the community. And in the letter, I'm working through it right now that says in I mean, if if you think about where we're at now, you know, by the time this gets on the ballot, that's November. Right. There'll be the whole process of all of the projects that everybody's going to be trying to get passed before the voters. And then we're going to be in December. So we're into 2022 before, I think in the letter commits to starting this process in 2022. So I've I've requested that we have funding to make sure that that process can move forward. And I don't know if that would come out of. You know, national Western funds, if, you know, the finance office is looking at someplace else that these resources would come from, but that process has to begin in 2022.
Speaker 2: I'll let Brendon speak to the funding in just a minute, but I do want to point out GE's coalition is actually we're meeting with them tomorrow morning, I think at 9 a.m. in our offices with our Community Benefits Committee. And we are setting up a special community benefits committee meeting for later for mid-month to meet with the Community Investment Fund Committee who wants to discuss their work so far. And then the Community Investment Fund Committee, I believe, is coming to our September.
Speaker 3: Board meeting as.
Speaker 2: Well and and agree that setting up timelines.
Speaker 3: Is, is first job, first thing of order.
Speaker 2: Do you want to take it from there? Councilwoman. We, Brad and I and a few others have begun that conversation. I don't have a transaction before council this evening. One of the things that at least finance is contemplated is this inappropriate use of a one time contingency transaction to help support this and give clarity and certainty immediately
Speaker 9: . So we should see something in the 2022 budget.
Speaker 2: I would try to transact that this year.
Speaker 9: Okay, great. Thank you. That's that's it for my questions.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Ortega. And we're back up for the second time. We've got councilmembers CdeBaca and Kenny. So go ahead, Councilwoman.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Just a quick clarification and also a request that we get a split of the 400,000 you guys are considering using on the CRF.
Speaker 10: Process and the CPA.
Speaker 4: Process. How would we split it? Who would be those entities? Who? Who is the CPA committee? I know the CHF group, but I would love to see that all on paper and just want people to recognize that there is not necessarily a process needed for the CIF that was promised to the community and embedded in the framework agreement. We only had not yet chosen a revenue source, so a roundup optional roundup was a baseline potential revenue source, but not the only one. And so community is proposing that plus an impact fee and there's not a lot of process needed around that. We can get a commitment on that before we vote on this. But the CBA process, I definitely would like to know who are we planning to involve? When are we going to have these meetings? When will it be completed? What's on the table? I would like to see all of that before we vote on this.
Speaker 8: And that's it for my questions and clarifications.
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you. Councilmember CdeBaca, is there any response or more to come, I guess, to those questions? We're in the questions for me to be.
Speaker 2: Following up and providing that information. All right.
Speaker 1: Very good. Thank you. Councilmember, can each.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Council President We've had just a teeny bit of debate about this study, and would you indulge me in answering a question that was raised about what the study says about the household proximity, just to put it in the record? Would that be okay before asking my final question? Thank you. So, page 60 of the 1909 study starts a list of challenges, and it says this. It's page 6061. Actually, that demand from residents within the five minute drive time area is not currently sufficient to support a market at this site. The difference in the half mile radius between Denver, we have about 1200 households within a half mile radius. Pike Market, which we've described as the model that we want with fresh food, has 11,000 in the half mile radius. So it is a significant difference. The other cities that have a small number of households in the half mile radius in this study, in this set of pages, 58 to 62, if you're short on time, focus on those pages goes into detail that they don't provide fresh food. They have markets, but they're more like flea markets. They attract tourists. So the comparable level of household. So if this vision is for a fresh food market, if you take each of the pieces of this study together, there are not sufficient households. It's very clear it says it black and white is not sufficient to support a market. It does rely on the additional development we can debate with. That number is right. It does make a point that there are 10,000 units planned in the area. There's there's several references to 10,000. But that that actually makes a point that most of those are at the edge of the radius. They're not. And it kind of interchanges, sometimes a five minute radius with a half mile radius, which I'm not, I will admit ignorance in not knowing which of those is which in terms of what they translate to for distance. But but I think that, you know, the study does have some pretty strong statements in it about demand needed for success. So, you know, it's all there. Page 58 to 62. So with that, just kind of in the record, just to emphasize that the the question was asked about, we never looked at any other options. And I guess I just want to ask the question, why not? So who from the city. And I really do want to hear from someone from the city. We have two thirds of a bond that's not yet spent. And someone walks in the door and says, Why don't we use a bond for this? What process did we go to to evaluate whether there were other options and why this was the best? What was our options analysis and did we do it? And if not, why not? But just I thought that was an interesting question that got asked and I wanted to understand more.
Speaker 2: And I might be calling Josh up to talk about that as well. But I just want to make sure I understand the question. How do we get to the place where we're considering this bond or this bond as a tool relative to the arena?
Speaker 4: Well, I wouldn't mind mentioned separate is we want them to think that they are because they feel like we are. You know, we have a centerpiece here and the rest was built around that centerpiece. Right. So. So I think, you know, but for for this purpose, let's ask you about the National Western Center exclusively. So they say we want to finish. You know, we want to fund these these phases with this source and we want to do it immediately. Can't wait till 20, 22, which I believe is still during Mayor Hancock's term. Yes, 2022.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 4: Yeah. So there is another election during this mayor's term, this administration's term. But so what what analysis did we do? What vetting of the idea what vetting of alternatives did we do before proceeding with this?
Speaker 2: So I just want to make sure I'm answering the right questions.
Speaker 4: National Western Center piece of the package.
Speaker 2: Correct. So. Okay. So I think this goes back to Civil War Josh was talking about we were dependent on that P3 transaction to fund the all of the assets on this campus. We did meet internally to talk about options of moving forward because we do have a multi-year commitment to deliver the assets of the campus. I think to the question that was brought up earlier about, well, why was this one asset selected relative to others? It was because of the economic return on the campus and the activation it brought with it, as well as to the activation it brought to other assets on the campus. So there was an element that went through the deliberative process with the bond executive committee was proposed by the NewCo team and supported by the authority. These were ideas that came in through that process and it went through that deliberative process and reviewed the mechanics that and the and the values that it delivered as part of the geo bond process.
Speaker 4: I'm just going to ask it a different way. Okay. You didn't analyze any other finance mechanisms for it, so you evaluate it. Is it is it a good project or not or doesn't meet the bond criteria? But I'm asking, did you do an alternatives analysis? Did you say, is there another finance mechanism? Is there a copy? Is there I mean, you know, I don't know what the list would have been, but did you look at other ways to pay for it?
Speaker 2: So, I mean, we considered other financing tools. So there's two things that were going on at the same time. There's the financing transaction. So that's that's going out to the market transacting a debt debt amount that would then finance a project. But then there's the revenue stream component to it as well. So we did look at other revenue streams that had a nexus with the campus. But as we discussed before, they were tethered back to the option, which was the P three and they have been very impacted by the pandemic. So we we we looked at those as a possibility, but they still had not been strong enough to to provide a sufficient alternative to provide not the debt service amount, but the revenue that would be needed to repay the debt service once it was issued.
Speaker 4: Last question, I promise, in terms of the amounts, right. I mean, it's concerning to a number of us that the the Central Library Project is not in here. And so was there any effort to find a mechanism or an alternative source that could have shrunk the amount of this ask in order to fund a core free service that provides safety net services to so much of our community? Right. Was there any attempt to value engineer the amount and find the the remainder from another source, any attempt to do that?
Speaker 2: So we reviewed the project list repeatedly, internally, repeatedly with with council members, individually as well, and tried to make sure that we were honing in on what that project list looks like. I think it's also goes back to Laura's earlier point about the next step in our work is was finding those increments of independent utility items that could be carved off. I agree that there are capital escalation that would come with that, but I think we've been trying to be solution oriented relative to individual independent utility scope items. But we also were trying to make sure that we were being true to the conversations that we've had with all of you around projects and prioritization
Speaker 4: . Okay. Thanks.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Koinange. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on council bills 864865866867924 and or 868. And a reminder, Council members, this is the only opportunity to offer any comments on any of these after the vote on 864864. Excuse me, the floor does not open back up for comments. Councilmember Flynn.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. I know that it only came up once this evening in the testimony, but I wanted to thank Sister Lydia Pena and also Guadalupe Lloyd, who is a neighbor whose backyard backs up to the Loreto campus for their comments on the efforts to revive reopen the May Bonfils Theater that's included in one of these packages, the city facilities bonds. This was something very important to my community in southwest Denver when we did the small area plan and talked about reviving the campus. This is an opportunity for the city finally to expand the arts and venues portfolio beyond that of downtown well and Red Rocks there's that. But to provide a performing arts facility to bring cultural opportunities, cultural growth to frankly, a very underserved part of town and high inequity part of town. A facility for performing arts that's accessible to small groups. A facility that would provide not only the stage for performance, but also meeting rooms for just for community meetings. I believe this facility can foster growth in the arts. Among, say, tier three SFD groups and foster establishment of new groups. Moreover, it has been nearly 30 years since the city last invested and a major community facility in southwest Denver. And I wanted to thank the Department of Finance, the mayor's office, for listening to the outpouring from Southwest Denver. The last facility that the city invested, I think, was from the 87 bond issue. That was the Southwest Recreation Center, which, by the way, just opened today after a year and a half of being closed due to COVID . So I just wanted to I know that most of the discussion tonight has been on National Western and the Arena and the 1909 building. But I just wanted to make note of one of the other significant investments that we have that I hope my colleagues will pass on to voters and let them decide whether to proceed with this. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember Flynn, Council Member Sawyer.
Speaker 4: Thanks, Madam President. There was something I heard from the public tonight that was it was really concerning to me, and that is when several people said, we don't want to vote. And that is really, really disturbing because when we're looking at what is going on across the world and we're looking what happened in Afghanistan today, the fact that someone has said, I don't want to vote on this. I don't want people to be able to use their voice and make a choice. That is the single thing that the United States of America has been built on. It's what we have been fighting for in Afghanistan for the last 20 years. It's what we lost today for an entire country that is extraordinary. And whether I agree with the idea that the package that has been put in front of us is worthwhile or not, it should go to the voters. It should go to the voters to decide to have this conversation, because that's what we do in America, because that's democracy. And frankly, there's not enough in this package for District five. But that's okay. That is a decision for District five voters to make. It is a decision for the voters of the city of Denver to make. And I feel really strongly, especially with what is going on in the rest of the world today, that we pass we vote, we pass this along, we refer it to the ballot, and we allow the people of our city to have this conversation and to decide for themselves whether this is something that they support or whether it's not something that they support, because it is too important for us to give up our vote. That's not okay. So I'm going to vote to refer these to our vote to publish them today. I'm going to vote to refer them next week. And I just wanted to make sure that I was really clear about that. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Council Member Sawyer Council member Cashman.
Speaker 6: Well, thank you, Madam President. It obviously a difficult, difficult decision to be made. I mean, I love the the National Western and I took my kids there for years and years, take my grandkids. I think it's an important asset to the city and county of Denver. I also love sidewalks that are in good repair and that are wide enough for wheelchairs to traverse. I love sidewalks where people walk rather than sleep because we have enough housing. I love libraries that are open when people need them to be open and in 2021 condition rather than, you know, 1995 condition. And I love that that we can breathe without our throats getting scratchy and mountain views that still exist on a regular basis. So this is is is difficult. It's not a matter of of anything. I'm not a hater of the national western. I'm not a hater of a whole lot that's in this package. But I'm struggling with, you know, how what I want to pass on to the voters and what I don't I very much appreciate Councilor Councilmember Sawyer's position and it's one I'll I'll take into account, but I'm still measuring my votes. I appreciate everybody's efforts in putting this together and answering questions, but it is troubling to me.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Cashman. Councilmember, can each.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Council President I first just want to say that I reject those who have cast aspersions and disparaged the folks who brought this package forward. I think that everyone has good intentions. And I take it as a fact that this. This package has things that are important in it and that are long delayed. And I also take it as a fact that even the project I've had the most questions about the arena is necessary and is a key to the the campus, the national western campus. And so and that we have some obligation to participate in the solution of of funding that. So I, I just want to make really clear that, that I think that that the intentions are good. I like Councilman Cashman struggle with the timing of this package overall with three quarters of a prior bond unspent, with the delayed nature of some of the stimulus that's coming, and with the ability that a year would have given us to answer more questions. Right. So I, too, am struggling. And I will just say I really appreciate Councilwoman Sawyer's point. I guess I would describe it a little differently. We are elected in a representative democracy to vet things in the first instance. And when I send something to the ballot, I think they're my questions were based on the idea that the voter expects that I've done some work to figure out the readiness of the issue and the implications and the future costs if you're going to have to demolish the Coliseum later and we're on the hook for that and there's no funding for it in this package. Right. That's an example of a consequence that I could be taking on with this vote. And that's not in the ballot language. And so so I do think that not everything always is appropriate to be referred, because that's why we're here, is to vet those things. And that's really important. It costs a lot of money to have an election and it's not equal footing. Everyone doesn't have equal information. And so I do trust the voters to make sound decisions, but they also trust me and the people up here to do some vetting. So that's why I think it matters a lot. If we feel like it's ready and we feel like it had the best vetting that it could have, the voters don't have a chance to say that they would have liked to put a project in. That's particularly what they don't get to do. Only we get to do that, and they're projects that were left out of this that would have an immediate stimulative effect. And I struggle with that, too. So thank you as well for all the answers to the questions that folks were able to give. And to my colleagues for your good questions as well. Thanks.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember Kinney. Councilmember Ortega.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Madam President. I want to thank everybody for being here tonight. This is one of our late nights that we've been here since we've come back to the chambers. And thanks to Councilwoman Sandoval, you now have cushions on the seats to sit on. So they're not hard seats. I've been involved with this project going back to when I was a staff member for Sal Carpio. And conversations have been ongoing about, you know, what kind of investment should the city be making in national western? Over time, we've spent money on various buildings from bond, you know, from the voters supporting various bond packages that built some of the buildings that that are there and are still being used. We know that the 1909 building needs major upgrades for that building to be usable for anything. And there's been a commitment made that it would be used as a public market. The the package of items that have come forward. Some of those were vetted with input from the community and some of that came from input from members of council, which is not unusual in this process. I can remember one round when we had a package moving forward and I wanted the bridge underneath that connected or the connection. It's a tunnel actually that connected the Coliseum to the National Western campus because 46th Avenue would have to be closed and residents would have to drive on I-70. And you know that that got put into the package. It's part of the process. It's not unusual for members of council to push for some of these things to be included in these bond packages. And what you have before you tonight is a reflection of accumulation of all of that input. The reason I put together or asked the administration to work with me in putting together the letter that Councilwoman Gilmore and Mayor Hancock signed was to take all of those commitments to the community benefits. And they're it's not it's not intended to be the entirety of what can can be for that campus. But that is what is memorialized in each of the documents. And that was done with input from residents, from the community. We had many people that sat on the the National Western. What's the right name of the group? The Community Advisory Committee. That's where many of those things ended up in the framework agreement because of input from the community. And same with the 1909. A number of residents from the community sat through those meetings to give input. We had the gentleman who ran Pike's Market in Seattle, who was the consultant that worked with the community to say, if you want this to be successful, it has to be a community driven program. It can't be something where you bring in chain restaurants and that kind of thing because that's not a public market. That's not going to work. It was intended to not be just food, but to have a variety of different kinds of things, very similar to Pike's Market that would have a robust interface with the community. We haven't gotten there yet. Right, because these these projects have not had the opportunity to move forward. We didn't get to the P3 process. This is the opportunity to really move in that direction with with these two buildings that are part of this package. And I would just say that if these two buildings are not part of the package for the national western campus, it will be punted so far down the road that we probably won't see it before some of us who are term limited leave in 2023. And I think this is an opportunity to ensure that the revenue that will be generated from these buildings will be added to what is already being proposed with the existing buildings that have been constructed or are getting ready to open that were funded in phase one and phase two, that lifts up how much more can be generated from the Community Investment Fund. And again, that is the floor, that is not the ceiling of what the opportunities are for these communities. And I just think that it will be a missed opportunity for the residents of these neighborhoods to not have this be part of the package that the voters should be able to make a decision about. And this is this is our opportunity as members of this body to put this forward and to create the opportunity to then engage in that conversation with funding that our finance office is going to find to make sure that we have that robust conversation to engage the community. And what happens with the 30 acres at the Coliseum if these two buildings are built on the north side of I-70? We still have all the land on the south side of I-70 to figure out what do we do with that and have the community involved in that conversation along with, you know, what are the funding, other funding sources that could be had to make sure that we have this these opportunities for the neighborhood. So I'm going to be supporting the full package tonight. I was adamant that if these two properties these two projects were not part of the package, I wouldn't support it all moving forward. But I think this is critical for the kind of jobs that are going to be generated and the benefits that will come to these neighborhoods. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember Ortega. Councilmember CdeBaca.
Speaker 4: I thought I was done, but I'm not. Thank you so much for letting me.
Speaker 8: Close us out on this. And I just want to.
Speaker 4: Respectfully disagree with Councilwoman Ortega. We've had several things memorialized on paper.
Speaker 8: Over the last 5 to 10 years related to the community commitments here. We've got an Emmylou.
Speaker 4: For the Community Benefit Agreement. We've got a framework that talks about the Community Investment Fund. And only.
Speaker 8: Now that we're.
Speaker 4: Asking the community to give up more, are we committing to that process in a meaningful way. And so I don't think.
Speaker 8: Another letter.
Speaker 4: Is going to get the community.
Speaker 8: What they're asking for.
Speaker 4: I think that we need community driving, how.
Speaker 1: We.
Speaker 4: Prioritize anything that happens within the next.
Speaker 8: Ten years leading up to our deadline.
Speaker 4: I personally feel that, you know, community consistently comes, shows up, testifies, tells you what they want, tells you what they're asking for, and we ignore them. Tonight there was not a single resident that spoke in support of this. This is the most marginalized community and the most impacted by these projects. Yes, we split it up. And I absolutely do not support the national western side of this. But I also think that it's irresponsible for us to be going to the voters, to the taxpayers, asking.
Speaker 8: Them to take out another.
Speaker 4: Loan when we have already expedited the debt on the previous loan we had them take out in the middle of an economic crisis. This is not a hotel and tourism tax. The reason that we didn't generate enough revenue is because of COVID, because that's not something people could attend, could do. We don't know if covid's over. So we're planning for a venue that will be shut down that we may or may not generate revenue on. And we're calling that an economic jumpstart. It's not. Were lying to the voters. We're not telling them the truth about this. This project won't even generate revenue for another 5.
Speaker 8: To 10.
Speaker 4: Years, if that. So I think the package is irresponsible. At a time like this, we're relying on the taxpayers and their property taxes, which we just raised this year, to fill the shortfalls of our of our revenue gaps.
Speaker 8: From last year.
Speaker 4: It's not a. We're at this time and I don't support the whole package, but I absolutely don't support the National Western package. And at minimum, I encourage my colleagues to pay careful.
Speaker 8: Attention to the National.
Speaker 4: Western piece and recognize that the people speaking here tonight did exactly what you asked them to do. And they don't want this piece. So please, at minimum do not support the piece for National Western. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember CdeBaca. And I'll go ahead and wrap up the comments and then we're going to go ahead and vote on each one individually. I hope we've heard a lot tonight about National, Western and 1909. Something that we haven't heard a lot about are all of the other projects that are part of this package that are transformational for other parts of our city. And folks have been waiting for some of these projects for decades and. It doesn't have to be an either or. It can be a yes. And earlier tonight, we approved a rezoning for a Costco in the Montebello neighborhood that's going to create well-paying jobs that have benefits. One of the things that we all saw over the pandemic, especially for hourly wage workers, are if you don't have access to benefits or PTO or sick leave, you're just out and you can't pay your rent. You can't buy food. That's why we had so many folks in food lines during the pandemic that they were just like, I can't believe I'm here, but I don't have sick time. My child got sick, my spouse got sick. I lost my job because I didn't have those benefits. This is something that we can start this process and start it over or re spark it so that there is the will of this body behind it to ensure that we get that 400,000 to see this work so that folks aren't able just to say what they want, but they can actually be at the table, community members can be at the table and negotiate around national, western and 1909 and we're going to find that 400,000. We've got the 2022 budget process coming up. If we don't have it figured out before then, I can assure you that there's going to be some sort of amendment that creates that funding stream, because the will of this body , we all feel that it's very important that we follow up on the promises that have been made to this community and that we make sure that we're empowering them to be at the table to make those decisions. I want to really thank Councilwoman Ortega for her leadership in. Pulling together that high level summary letter that really just puts everything in one place. So it's easy for the community to track, for the public to track for our city agencies and administration to track. This is something that myself and Mayor Hancock have both signed, and I feel a huge sense of responsibility to ensure that we see this through. We have had community organizations in Montebello, Montebello organizing committee that have been very, very successful in getting a fresh food market with affordable housing on top of it. There are models within our city that are already being funded and work, and so I hope that we can continue to build off of that. And then I also want to sincerely thank Council Pro Tem Torres and her partnership through this, because the amount of meetings and weekends that we have spent working with Brendan Hanlon, Laura Perry and your entire team, it's been quite a process. And was it going to be perfect? No. We knew that that wasn't going to be the goal. Was it going to be something that we could revive the economy and make sure that we were providing well-paying jobs with benefits and jobs that could lead to careers along with that partnership of our universities? Yes, that's what we were trying to accomplish. And I feel like we have done that here tonight. And so I am in support of everything that we have in front of us, because I know that the time has been short, but the need is great and now is the time for us to act on this. And so appreciate the community members for staying along with us on this and council. Bill 20 1864 is on the floor for publication. Madam Secretary, roll call on council bill eight six for please.
Speaker 4: Flag I.
Speaker 7: CdeBaca.
Speaker 4: No.
Speaker 7: Clerk.
Speaker 2: I. Swim I. Herndon, I.
Speaker 7: Cashman.
Speaker 6: I.
Speaker 4: Each I.
Speaker 9: Ortega, i.
Speaker 8: Sandoval, i.
Speaker 4: Sawyer, I.
Speaker 9: Torres, I.
Speaker 7: Madam President.
Speaker 1: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance submitting to a vote of the qualified and registered electors of the City and County of Denver at a special municipal election to be held on Tuesday, November 2, 2021, the question of whether the City shall be authorized to issue or incur general obligation debt for the purpose of financing and/or refinancing the cost of repairs and improvements to the Denver Facilities System; providing the form of the ballot question; providing for other details in connection therewith; and ratifying action previously taken.
Refers a question to the November 2021 ballot to allow the City to issue general obligation bonds for the purpose of financing and/or refinancing the cost of repairs and improvements to the Denver facilities system. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 8-3-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08162021_21-0924
|
Speaker 1: I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announce the results one day.
Speaker 7: 11 Eyes.
Speaker 1: 11 Eyes Council Bill 867 has been ordered published. Councilmember Cashman, we need you to put Council Bill 9 to 4 on the floor for publication, please.
Speaker 6: As Council President, I move the council bill 21, dash 924, be ordered published.
Speaker 1: Thank you. It's been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 924.
Speaker 4: Black eye.
Speaker 7: See Bucket.
Speaker 4: Hell, no, Clark.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 7: Flynn.
Speaker 2: I. Herndon, I.
Speaker 7: Cashman can each.
Speaker 4: Name.
Speaker 9: ORTEGA All right.
Speaker 8: Sandoval No.
Speaker 4: Sawyer, I.
Speaker 7: Torres.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 7: Madam President.
Speaker 1: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce results.
Speaker 7: Four nays.
Speaker 1: Eight eyes. Eight I's Council. Bill. 924 has been ordered published. Councilman Cashman, will you please put Council Bill 868 on the floor for publication?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance submitting to a vote of the qualified and registered electors of the City and County of Denver at a special municipal election to be held on Tuesday, November 2, 2021, the question of whether the City shall be authorized to issue or incur general obligation debt for the purpose of financing and/or refinancing the cost of repairs and improvements to the National Western Campus Facilities System; providing the form of the ballot question; providing for other details in connection therewith; and ratifying action previously taken.
Refers a question to the November 2021 ballot to allow the City to issue general obligation bonds for the purpose of financing and/or refinancing the cost of repairs and improvements to the National Western campus facilities system. Councilmember Black approved filing this item on 8-12-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08162021_21-0868
|
Speaker 1: Eight eyes. Eight I's Council. Bill. 924 has been ordered published. Councilman Cashman, will you please put Council Bill 868 on the floor for publication?
Speaker 6: Yes, Madam President. I move the council bill 21, dash eight, six, eight, be ordered published.
Speaker 1: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 868.
Speaker 7: Black Hi. CdeBaca No clerk.
Speaker 2: All right. Flynn, I. Herndon, I.
Speaker 7: Cashman. I can h.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 9: Ortega, I.
Speaker 7: Sandoval.
Speaker 8: I.
Speaker 7: Sawyer.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 7: Torres.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 7: Madam President.
Speaker 1: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 7: One. The 11 eyes.
Speaker 1: 11 Eyes counsel bill 868 has been ordered published. There being no further business before this body. This meeting is adjourned.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance designating the projects to be undertaken and funded with the proceeds of any general obligations bonds authorized by voters at the November 2, 2021 election.
Approves a companion ordinance designating the projects to be undertaken and funded with the proceeds of any general obligations bonds authorized by voters at the November 2021 election. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 8-3-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08092021_21-0909
|
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Sandoval. All right. Seen no other speakers this evening. Four announcements will go ahead and move on. There are no presentations. There are no communications. And there is one proclamation being read this evening. Councilmember Ortega, will you please read Proclamation 21, dash 909. Thank you, Madam President. Happy to do so. Proclamation number 21, Dash 909. Recognizing the annual brother's redevelopment and Denver employee volunteer opportunities into fun day in the city and county of Denver on Saturday, August 14, 2021. Whereas, through a partnership with Denver employees Volunteer Opportunity, otherwise known as Depot and Brothers redevelopment in 85 plus Denver employees will volunteer their time to paint homes of deserving senior homeowners. Four Brothers Redevelopment of 43rd painted sign and. Whereas, all painting will be completed free of charge for homeowners saving the city's fixed income seniors thousands of dollars in home maintenance costs. And. Whereas, volunteers will be beautifying homes and preserving home values in Denver area neighborhoods as a result of their participation. And. WHEREAS, The Paint a Fun is a great way to show city employees take pride in the community and care about its residents. And. Whereas, the paint often truly makes a difference in the line of in the lives of many Denver residents. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Council of the City County of Denver that the Denver City Council recognizes the date August 14, 2021 as brothers redevelopment in paint upon date in the city and county of Denver, and that the work of the city and county of Denver shall a test and affix the seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation, and that a copy be transmitted to the depot board. Thank you. Councilmember Ortega. Your motion to adopt. I move for the adoption of Proclamation 20 10909. All right. We've got the proclamation to be adopted. It has been moved and seconded. Comments by members of council. Councilmember Ortega. Thank you, Madam President. I was honored to be asked to bring this forward. I knew the former president, Joe Heatherton, and his co director. I guess I'm not sure that's the right title, but him and many martinis are the two that started Brothers redevelopment, which has been around for many, many years. And the Pentagon is one of many programs that they have done that serve the Denver community. And we as a community are are truly blessed to have them as an organization to do this work and to do it in conjunction with our city employees who volunteer their time to go out and help do some of these improvements on people's homes that had an opportunity to be at numerous properties and assist with some of this work that takes place. And there's a lot of camaraderie that happens as people are out there working hard. And I know our elderly folks in our community who have benefitted from this are truly grateful because they otherwise would not be able to afford to have these improvements done because of the fixed incomes that so many of them are on. So I just want to extend my appreciation to Brothers redevelopment, congratulate them for doing this for 44 years, and to our city employees who continue to do this important work in our community as well. I want to say a big thank you to them as well. Thank you, Councilmember Ortega, and happy to support this this evening, especially where we have Denver employees volunteering and supporting the great work that Brothers redevelopment does in the community as well. And so happy to support that. Madam Secretary, Roll Call Ortega.
Speaker 5: I.
Speaker 0: Did you get my vote? I said I. All right. Thank you. Council member.
Speaker 6: Sandoval.
Speaker 8: I.
Speaker 5: Sawyer, I. Torres. I am black.
Speaker 6: I see.
Speaker 5: Tobacco. I.
Speaker 1: Clark, I.
Speaker 0: Flynn. I can't.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 6: Cashman. I can.
Speaker 5: Each i.
Speaker 6: Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce results.
Speaker 6: 12 Eyes.
Speaker 0: 12 eyes. Proclamation 20 1-909 has been adopted. We have 5 minutes for the proclamation acceptance. Councilmember Ortega, we'll go ahead and start that timer. And I believe we have Chad LeBlanc, who's going to be joining us for the the acceptance. Correct. Chad, I just want to thank you for your 14 years as the volunteer manager that has been working with this program and all the volunteers that come in assist Brothers redevelopment with this great program. So the floor is yours.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Thank you, City Council for this proclamation and for your support of Denver employee volunteer opportunities and housing organizations like ours at Brothers Redevelopment. Since 2005, Depot and Brothers Redevelopment have partnered to serve our elderly and disabled neighbors by painting their home exteriors, cleaning up yards, performing light repairs, and by strengthening our strengthening our community bonds through service. Denver employees are indeed from the community and for the community. In the life of the devil painter THORNE 1700 diva volunteers have donated 13000 hours of time to paint 116 homes for deserving Denver residents. The value of this volunteer time is nearly $300,000. This Saturday, 100 volunteers from a wide variety of city and county departments will add to this legacy and lend a hand to six aging homeowners who would otherwise not be able to have this work done. It would cost our average plaintiff, an applicant, 25% of their yearly income to have their home paid by a contractor. So volunteers are not only providing a practical service, but they're also saving our vulnerable neighbors money for things like food, utilities and health care. Thank you. Denver City and county employees for being leaders in our community. Additionally, in 2021, brother's redevelopment is actually celebrating our 50th anniversary as a Denver based nonprofit housing organization. Brothers Borden Staff is a hardworking, creative team with a passion for providing safe, affordable, attainable housing and housing solutions with our community. Thank you for working with us to serve our cities housing vulnerable for 50 years. Thanks for your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you and thank you for all the work that you're doing on behalf of our residents as well in Denver. All right. We're going to go ahead and move along. Madam Secretary, please read the bills for introduction.
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation recognizing the Annual Brothers Redevelopment and Denver Employee Volunteer Opportunities Paint-A-Thon Day in the City and County of Denver on Saturday, August 14, 2021.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08092021_21-0659
|
Speaker 0: Ten eyes. Counsel build 20 1-523 has passed. All right. We're moving on to our second hearing. Councilmember Black, will you please put Council Bill six, five, nine on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 5: I move that council bill 20 10659 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: All right. It has been moved and seconded. The required public hearing for council Bill 659 is open. May we have the staff report? And I see we have James here with us.
Speaker 1: Good evening. James Van Houser with CPD. Right. Are you seeing my presentation?
Speaker 0: No.
Speaker 1: Okay. So today we have a requested rezoning at 1634 through 1680 North Sheridan Boulevard.
Speaker 0: Up. James, we're going to ask you to speak a little bit louder into your mic there.
Speaker 1: Can do.
Speaker 0: You.
Speaker 1: Today we have a proposed rezoning at 1634 through 1680 North Sheridan Boulevard. The request is to go from USC to and you are h382. You are x three. Properties located in Council District one Councilwoman Sandoval's district in the West Colfax neighborhood. The site is approximately 1.11 acres and concurrently contains several one and two storey single and two unit residential buildings. The proposed rezoning to Yurek three allows for residential mixed use development and the applicant intends to propose multi-unit residential development on the site. Existing land use on the subject properties a single unit and two unit residential. Surrounding area includes mix of park single and two unit residential as well as some multi unit residential land uses. This was before the planning board in early June. Planning Board unanimously recommended approval of the rezoning. We've gotten one R.A. comment letter from the Sloan's Lake Citizens Group and five public comment letters from members of the public. Four letters in support and one letter of opposition. Wanted to note briefly the previous action that had taken place on these parcels. There was a previous rezoning effort in 2019 to rezone the properties to UMC and UMC. Three Planning Board at that time voted five zero to recommend approval of that application and City Council voted to deny it 10 to 2 at a public hearing held on nine 1619. I will note that this is a completely new application with a completely new set of applicants and a completely new zoned district being requested. However, I thought that the previous action might be useful context. Existing zoning is U.S. C-2, which is a single unit zoned district that also allows detached ADAS as well as tandem houses and duplexes on certain corner lots as well as the U, r, h3a, which is a real house district. Just adjacent zoning. We have some OSA to the north and Flynn's like park you are H-3 also to the south U.S. two and you are H-3 to the east and across here at End Boulevard in Edgewater and Lakewood. There some are two or three and RMF something. Here's an aerial of the site for existing context of the building forming scale. Review criteria. Start with consistency of adopted plans. The proposed rezoning is consistent with a number of COP Plan 2040 goals as elaborated on in the staff report. Blueprint. Denver The future neighborhood context is urban, which is categorized by small multi-unit, residential and mixed use areas embedded in one and two unit residential areas and low scale multi-unit buildings are generally appropriate in this context. Looking at our future place type is a residential low medium, which sees a mix of low to mid scale multi-unit residential interspersed in single and two unit residential areas and building heights are three stories or less generally. Sheridan Boulevard is a mixed use arterial. 17th is a residential collector and any place to the south is a local or un designated street. Future growth strategy is all other areas of the city. Looking at the West Colfax plan. The land use concept for these parcels is the main street a scale of 2 to 5 storeys as appropriate. Creating a comfortable pedestrian environment is a stated goal of the plan, and a linear orientation to the street is also a stated goal of this type of land use concept. The Framework plan land use recommendations from the West Coal Flex Plan include supporting infill development as well as promoting a range of housing types and end costs at higher densities in strategic locations, including Main Streets, which as on the previous slide, this falls into. The District plan as part of the West Conflicts plan. This is again a main street, specifically the pig and whistle district. With recommendations to rezone to Main Street two and three. Those are old code districts that would translate to EMS five and eight in the current Denver zoning code. Staff finds the application consistent with criteria two and three. Justifying circumstance. The applicant cites change or changing conditions in the neighborhood and cites a few, few specific examples. And staff concurs that the change in changing conditions is an appropriate justifying circumstance. The application is also consistent with the neighborhood context zone, district purpose and intent. And CPD recommends that Council approve application 20 00168 based on finding or review criteria have been met. Staff is available for questions and we also have the applicant here in person.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, James, for the presentation this evening. We have one individual signed up to speak this evening and it's Jesse Perez. And so we're going to go ahead and try to bring Jesse into the queue to speak again. And if for some reason, Jesse, we're not able to hear you, we're going to ask you to log off and log back in, but we're going to go ahead and try it before we ask you. Okay. Good deal. I think we've got you in. Jesse, go ahead and please begin.
Speaker 4: Yes. Good evening. Members of council, those watching at home when I was just in Paris and I'm representing four black star Exxon Mobil for self-defense positive action for my face also signs 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 tonight. I just had a few questions. I wanted to know if there had been a study done, a neighborhood study done. Uh, also, what would the army level be for the housing at this location? From mixed use to residential well with the house in before this. Am I level B for this? And also, if there was a traffic study done this summer to answer those three questions, either the occupant or members of council, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Jesse. That concludes our speakers this evening. Questions from members of Council on Council Bill 659. All right. Seen no questions by members of council this evening. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 659. Council Member Sandoval.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Madam President. Um, this application before you today, this property was heard a while ago in front of us and voted down and the new owners have done extensive outreach into the community. And I just want to note that the height increase is pretty much it's not that big. The adjacent property to the south, that's where we got the height increase for this property. And one other note to talk about is that along Sheridan I do not have sidewalks on 17th and Sheridan it is a pedestrian path and this redevelopment will allow for sidewalks on Sheridan Boulevard. They are dedicating 16 feet of right away the entire length of the property, the block for a tree line and dedicated sidewalks. I ask my colleagues to support this. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Sandoval. And we are. Working on. I know that we had Councilmember Ortega. She had her hand raised. And so we're I'm getting some direction from our legal counsel. I'm going to go ahead and gavel back in and open the public hearing back up. And so we're going to do that so that we can include questions by Councilmember Ortega. All right. We have reopened the public hearing for Council Bill 659. Councilmember Ortega, please go ahead with your questions. Thank you, Madam President. I had lost audio there for a minute. I couldn't hear what was being said, but my questions for specific to the consolidation of the land or the assemblage of I.
Speaker 4: Am.
Speaker 0: Just trying to get an idea of how many units can now be built on that site, because that then raises some questions about whether the ingress and egress will be offered Sheridan or whether it's going to be off a 17th Street or maybe even 16th, because both Sheridan and 17th are busy streets. And it depends on whether you can take a left in from 17 to the site or, you know, just how that's going to work. I think it's going to be really important. It may be that the applicant is just looking to rezone for right now and doesn't have any immediate plans to move forward with the construction. But I think just understanding some of that will be really important to ensuring that we don't have accidents along that corridor. That is one of the streets that previous council members from this district have tried to ensure that we've got sidewalks along Sheridan Boulevard because there aren't any and we have a bus stop. And oftentimes you see people with strollers trying to walk their kids on a slanted dirt area that is very unsafe. This is the next block over. But all all of those factors just kind of come into play, particularly with this block as well. So I wanted to just ask those questions. I think maybe some of that can be addressed by our city staff from CPD, but maybe the applicant as well. All right. Thank you, Councilmember Ortega. We're going to go ahead and start out with James and then I believe we have the applicant here. So we'll just ask you to introduce yourself as well. But go ahead, James.
Speaker 1: Thank you for the questions. Councilman Ortega. Generally, we wouldn't get into site development plans at the rezoning stage. All of the, you know, requirements for egress and ingress have, you know, have to meet our standards and be built to our code provisions. However, I do believe the applicants have submitted in step already in anticipation of this rezoning. So I will defer to the applicant if he'd like to answer some of your specific questions, because I think there are specific answers in this case.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Hi. Thank you. Consul Mac Yardeni with us.
Speaker 1: Architecture 4164 Irving Street. Thank you for taking the time tonight to review this.
Speaker 4: We have, as Amanda stated.
Speaker 1: Reached out to the neighborhood pretty extensively to understand concerns, desires and mitigate as many of the impacts of the development as we go forward. As stated, we have already submitted our concept step. We wanted to understand further with Dottie and transportation as well.
Speaker 4: As access points.
Speaker 1: Throughout the site. We are going to have those meetings here later on Wednesday and we'll have better understandings. We have not performed any traffic studies at this time. However, we have had conversations with both CDOT and transportation about the upcoming improvements that are going to occur along both Sheridan and 17th, trying to make sure that we work with.
Speaker 4: The affected ingress and egress for the site to the question of total number.
Speaker 1: Of units under the new zoning, we have currently planned for 60 units and looking at parking that at a 0.75.8 ratio to mitigate any off site parking. The price point that we have tried.
Speaker 4: To.
Speaker 1: Identify going back to the previous question has really been to build a smaller product to fill in that missing metal by not building that concrete podium and keeping it a surface parking, we're able to build these.
Speaker 4: At a.
Speaker 1: Lower cost and therefore offer them to the community at a lower cost. Those numbers are still to be determined as we go through the construction process. And then, as Amanda stated, reconstruction of the entire length of Sheridan Boulevard with a future eight foot tree line and an eight foot sidewalk that is multi-modal, serving that connection between the Colfax corridor and the park, really trying to create that gateway for Denver. Any other questions?
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. We're going to go ahead, Councilwoman. Take care of your fist. A follow up, clarifying question on whether or not that was intended to be a for sale product or a rental project.
Speaker 1: It's currently in the for sale or sorry for rent.
Speaker 0: Or rent a rental car. Okay. Thank you so much. Thank you, Madam Chair. All right. Great. Thank you. And thank you, Councilmember Ortega. And seeing that, we wrapped up the questions by members of council. The public hearing is closed and we've had comments by Councilmember Sandoval. I want to give it a moment if there's any additional comments by members of council. CNN. I'll go ahead and chime in that I do believe this meets the rezoning criteria and will be supporting it this evening as well. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 659.
Speaker 5: Sandoval. I swear, I. Torres I. Black I. Flynn.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 6: Hynes. Hi Cashman. I can each.
Speaker 5: I.
Speaker 6: Take it. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 6: Ten Eyes.
Speaker 0: Ten Eyes Cancer build 20 1-659 has passed our third public hearing tonight. We're on to it. Councilmember Black, will you please put Council Bill 7 to 0 on the floor for final passage?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 1634, 1642, 1650, and 1680 North Sheridan Boulevard in West Colfax.
Approves a map amendment to rezone property from U-SU-C2 and U-RH-3A to U-RX-3 (residential mixed-use), located at 1634, 1642, 1650, and 1680 North Sheridan Boulevard in Council District 1. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 6-15-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08092021_21-0720
|
Speaker 0: Ten Eyes Cancer build 20 1-659 has passed our third public hearing tonight. We're on to it. Councilmember Black, will you please put Council Bill 7 to 0 on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 5: I moved that council bill 20 1-070 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you. I'm not seeing the second here. Oh, there we go. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. The required public hearing for council bills. 7 to 0 is open. And we've got Libby here. So may we get the staff report?
Speaker 12: Yes. Okay, good. It's on the screen and you all can hear me. Yes. Okay, great. I'm Libby Adams with Community Planning and Development. And I'll be presenting the map amendment in Sloan Lake and West Colfax to allow for to use. This application is sponsored by Councilwoman Sandoval. The Map Amendment reasons. All single unit residential properties and Sloan Lake and then six properties in West Colfax neighborhood to allow for accessory dwelling units. This application is located in districts one and three in the Sloan Lake and West Colfax neighborhoods. The proposed rezoning includes about 1400 properties or 239 acres bounded by Sheridan Boulevard, Federal Boulevard, 17th Avenue, and then 29th Avenue. The proposed Map Amendment intends to rezone properties between Sheridan Boulevard and Lowe Boulevard and then Irving to federal from U.S. to U.S., U.S. one. And then properties between Lowe Boulevard and Irving Street, from U.S. B to U.S. U, B1, and then properties between about Grove and Federal. From us you see what the use overlay three to use U.S. you see one with the use overlay three. So the proposed zone districts are the same as the current zone districts, except that they allow for an accessory dwelling unit. Either the accessory dwelling unit use either within the primary structure or within a detached structure. As I just stated, the existing zoning is us sub us you see and us you see with the use overlay three and you can see the surrounding zoning. It's mostly single unit two unit and then park an open space to the south. These single unit districts all allow for the urban house building form with heights from 30 to 35 feet. And then the US you see what the use overlay three. That's the historic use overlay that does allow for some limited office and commercial uses within a portion of the what are coalfield historic district. This lone leg view plane is applicable to the southern portion of this rezoning. So this results in a building height limit of 16 feet directly east of Sloane Lake Park and then 61 feet closer to Federal Boulevard. However, the Denver Revised Municipal Code Section ten 137 does allow for new structures to be constructed up to 35 feet in height so this new plane won't have any impact on any single unit development in this area. There's also a historic district in the area that's closest to Federal Boulevard. And so this is the Witter Witter Coalfield Historic District. And all proposed accessory dwelling units in this area are subject to design, review and approval from the Landmark Preservation Commission. So the site and the surrounding properties are mostly single unit residential uses. There's also some two unit multi-unit and public quasi public uses located within the subject rezoning and then surrounding it. There's a variety of residential office and commercial uses, as well as parks and open space directly south. Here are some images of the area within the proposed rezoning. So the top pictures proposed to be re zoned to us. You see one the middle pictures in the area proposed to be reserved to U.S. would be one. And then the bottom picture, U.S., U.S. one with these overlay three. And then this shows some of the properties surrounding the rezoning. So you can see some of the commercial sites on 29th Avenue and then Federal Boulevard and then, of course, Sloan's Lake Park directly south. So District one council office began the outreach for this rezoning last fall. It included fliers, two virtual town halls and an online survey. And this map amendment was complete at the end of March. And then this went to planning board in mid-June where they unanimously recommended approval. The Sloan's Lake Citizens Group took a straw poll at one of their meetings earlier this summer, and most in attendance were in support of the proposed rezoning. Staff has also received eight letters of support in support of the proposed rezoning, citing a desire inappropriateness for a slight increase in density in this area. And then the council office also provided 30 letters with the application in support of the rezoning. And then we've also received ten letters in opposition, citing concerns such as traffic density, height, and that this rezoning could allow for multi-unit and commercial uses. However, this rezoning does not allow for any duplexes, triplexes or additional commercial uses. So because this rezoning is legislative, there are three review criteria that are applicable. The first is consistency with adopted plans, and there are four plans that are applicable to this area. The proposed MAP amendment is consistent with several of the strategies in the comprehensive plan which are outlined in the staff report and on this slide. Blueprint. Denver maps this area as the urban context. So the proposed zone districts are consistent with this plan direction a predominantly residential areas that are generally single and two unit uses. And then the proposed zone districts are consistent with the future places mapping of this area as low residential, which is mostly single and two unit uses and where accessory dwelling units are appropriate. Most of the future street types are local as also residential arterials and collectors. And all of these street types are mostly characterized by residential uses, which is consistent with the proposed residential zoning. 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. So allowing a slight increase in density by allowing 80 use is consistent with this growth area strategy. There are also several other policies and blueprints that this rezoning meets. So the first is policy for of the land use and built form section on housing, which talks about diversifying housing choice through the expansion of accessory dwelling units throughout all residential neighborhoods. The second is land use in built form general policy 11, which talks about implementing plan recommendations through large scale city led or city led legislative rezoning such as this one. And then the land use and built form general policy five talks about the importance of mitigating involuntary displacement, which I'll discuss in the further slides . So all large map amendments such as this one should be guided by the equity concepts that are found in Blueprint Denver. So the Access to Opportunity Score is a composite of the Neighborhood Equity Index developed by Denver's Department of Public Health and Environment. Proximity to high capacity transit and access to centers and corridors. This area has moderate access in this category, with access to transit being lower and access to centers and corridors vary throughout the neighborhood. So the proposed rezoning to allow for adus in Sloan Lake and a portion of West Colfax will bring more residents to an area that has greater access to health care and parks and open space. And the proposed rezoning will not have a direct impact on creating new centers and corridors, as it will only allow for residential uses. The vulnerability to involuntary displacement score is calculated by the Department of Housing Stability and based on median household income, percent of renter occupied units and the percent of residents with less than a college degree. Sloan Lake scores as vulnerable based on higher median house price, scores as less vulnerable based on higher median income, having a lower percentage of renters and higher educational attainment than Denver as a whole. Whereas the six properties in West Colfax score as vulnerable on all three indicators. So this proposed MAP amendment will provide opportunities for existing 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 it may prevent it from becoming vulnerable. The housing diversity score includes five measures. So the percentage of middle density housing, home size, diversity ownership versus rental housing costs, and the number of income restricted units in the area. The western portion of Sloane Lake and the properties in West Colfax are considered less diverse. For the four measurements shown in bold, while the eastern portion of Sloan Lake is seen as are students having a greater housing diversity. So this map amendment to allow it to use will introduce a new housing type and bring more renters to a largely owner occupied single unit area. And then for jobs diversity. So this map shows the mix of jobs in the area with the dominant industry depicted by color. So this area has a higher proportion of retail jobs in the city as a whole. However, as you can see, there's good chunks of the map that don't are represented by a color. And that's because there's not enough data for us to determine which job is significant in this area. So and this map amendment will have a negligible impact on jobs diversity. And then housing and inclusive. Denver was adopted in 2018 and contains recommendations that are directly relevant to this MAP amendment. The plan recommends expanding the development of Adus as they incentivize affordable and mixed use housing. So the proposed MAP Amendment, which will expand access to Adus and is therefore consistent with this recommendation. And then the West Colfax plan is applicable to just the six properties that are at 17th and Meade. And this neighborhood concept for this area is urban neighborhood, which allows for single unit carriage houses, duplexes, row houses, townhomes and small apartments with heights two, 1 to 4 stories. So the proposed rezoning to allow adus in this area is consistent with the urban neighborhood guidance. This Map amendment will result in uniformity of district regulations, and it furthers the public health, safety and general welfare by implementing Blueprint Denver and by allowing more residents in an area that has greater access to health care and parks and open space. And it will also further the general welfare body of the city by providing housing, diversity and opportunities to help residents at a range of income levels continue to live in the neighborhood. So based on finding, all three criteria have been met. Staff recommends approval of this rezoning, and that concludes my presentation.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Libby. And this evening, we have three individuals signed up to speak and all of them are joining us online. And so we'll go ahead and go to our first speaker, Alan Cowgill.
Speaker 4: Hi. My name is Ellen Cowgill. I live in the 2100 block of Newton Street. First of all, I went to I am a member of the Stones Citizens Group. I'm not speaking on behalf of the group, but I am a member. I want to thank Councilwoman Sandoval for her community outreach. Her team members, Manny and Naomi, have been at many of our meetings over the last few months walking us through the process. I think this is a great addition to our neighborhood. Anything that we can do to add more affordability. I myself, we just bought our house six years ago and there's no way we can afford it today. So I would welcome more folks to share this neighborhood with, and I'm really appreciative of the work that councilwoman sent them. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Jesse Paris.
Speaker 4: Yes. Members of council, those watching at home, those that are in the chamber. My name is just Elizabeth and I'm representing four black sites to move for self defense, positive social change, as well as the Unity Party of Colorado in front line black males. And I will be the next November 2023. I'm in favor of this rezoning tonight. We need accessory dwelling units in all areas of the city, not just District one or three, but all districts of the city. I supported any use when I ran for City Councilor Large in 2019, when I got almost 15,000 votes with no money , and I will continue to support them in 2023 when I run for mayor. So I am for support of this rezoning tonight. My. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Jesse. Our last speaker is Patrick Murphy.
Speaker 4: Hi. Yes, I just want to call calling. I live at 2811 Utica Street in Councilwoman Sandoval's zone. And this this option for to use is a is a great step forward for our neighborhood. The presentation did a great job at the macro level. I just wanted to talk a little bit about the micro level and with the micro that we will be able to for for my family at this point, we will be able to actually have my, my, my ailing mother come and live with us in the next couple of years because of because of this resolution, it helps out so much for little micro micro scenes like that. And I appreciate you all for doing this. And we really look forward to having this aid. You are this age, you past. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. And thank you to our speakers for joining us. All right. We're going to go ahead and move on. Questions from members of Council on Council Bill 7 to 0. Council member Hines.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Council President You mentioned Sloan's Lake, Sloan Lake. Um, I don't know what you call it. Is it Sloan Lake? Sloan's plural lake? Is it Sloan's possessive lake? Can you help me solve that riddle?
Speaker 12: Yeah. So, Councilman Sandoval, correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is the statistical neighborhood is Sloan Lake, and the park is Sloan's Lake Park.
Speaker 4: And the lake itself is flowing. Lakes Lake.
Speaker 9: That? I don't know.
Speaker 4: Okay. Thank you for promoting it. Use in our city. Thank you. Council president.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Hines. And we'll get that cleared up. I think we're all going to be Googling, Googling that later. I want to take a quick pause. It looks like we don't have Councilmember Ortega is hand-raised. No questions from her. All right. Very good. Then we're going to go ahead. And the public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on council bills 7 to 0. Council Member Sandoval.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Madam President. First and foremost, I'd like to thank Libby. Libby from CPD in all your hard work. We started this over a year ago looking at a map of where the current entitlement was and where could we add it. So thank you for your due diligence. Second of all, I would love to thank Naomi Grendon for my office, who's my land use planner for North West Denver District one. She goes above and beyond with her community outreach and her due diligence and the way she puts together information in a meaningful and thoughtful manner so people can understand it, who don't talk zoning all the time. So big shout out to Naomi and then my other staff. So as we started this process, looking at where I could add accessory dwelling units, we were looking at how many one off ADOS were coming through and Sloan's Lake had the most at that point of time, not the most permits pulled, but the most homeowners coming and paying $1,000 and asking for a rezoning. As for the name Sloan's, I think it's called Sloan's Lake Neighborhood with an S. There is lots of back information on that, and I don't think there is a clear answer. I think it's Sloan's Lake, Sloan's Lake Park. I put a s on a lot of things that I probably shouldn't put S's on. I grew up talking that way, so it's probably maybe a Latino thing where you go, you add S's to certain things. So to 80 use are a perfect way to add gentle density in our single unit neighborhoods, which make up the vast majority of zoning in Denver. If we got a map not long ago from community planning and development that looked at where all the adus are being built and predominantly they're being built in northwest Denver. And I will say one thing we do not get for phone calls about accessory dwelling units, and we do not get complaints about accessory dwelling units. Most people don't even know they're there because of the type of gentle density that they're adding into the neighborhood. I will say that although we are changing the entitlement this half this evening for these parcels, there's many, many barriers still in the way of building an accessory dwelling unit. I'd like to give a shout out to council mentors, to partnering with me. When I looked at the map and I saw that there were six properties in her district, I called Councilwoman Torres right away and asked if I could lead the charge on her behalf of her constituents. She said yes. And then we reached out to West Denver Renaissance Collaborative. That's working in the West Colfax neighborhood to bring accessory dwelling units into homes for people who can use them for neighbors or their rent for their family, and to also be able to stay in the neighborhoods that they like. So thank you to Renee Martinez Stone and the West Denver Renaissance Collaborative with the release last week of the 2021 House Strategic Plan. I'm hoping resources can be allocated to CPD and host to work on this important topic of accessory dwelling units. If we really care about housing, we need to put money where our mouth is. And currently there are numerous barriers to building an accessory dwelling unit and I look forward to CPD bringing forward the task force to address these. One of them is a minimum zone lot size. I will be transparent, although I'm adding entitlement to this entire neighborhood. A big chunk of this neighborhood would not be able to build an accessory dwelling unit because of the minimum zone lot size. So I will have to tackle that next. I talked to the neighbors and said I would change the entitlement process for them and now I'm going to have to go in and figure out how am I going to deal with the minimum zone lot size so that these parcels can build excess. Three dwelling units if they'd so like with that. Thank you. Oh, I would like to think the residents of the Sloan's Lake neighborhood for participating in this survey. We had numerous people fill them out. And interestingly enough, of the people that were surveyed, only, only a very small percentage will actually build them. Right now, 32% said they plan do not plan to build an accessory dwelling unit, but would like to have the entitlement. So if you wonder if people read our emails or our postcards, 55% said they received a postcard in the mail and that's how they got involved. So for all my colleagues, please make sure that we're continuing to reach out to our neighborhood. And one last thing. Thank you, Naomi, for doing everything in English and Spanish. Although we only got one response in Spanish, it still proves that it's very important to have things bilingual. And with that, I ask all my colleagues for support. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Sandoval. And I'm not seeing any other hands raised. I wanted to make sure we didn't have any hands raised online. All right. Looks good. All right. Well, and I will go ahead and add that seeing this does meet all of the review criteria. I'm happy to support it tonight. And thank you, Councilmember Sandoval, for your leadership and partnership with Council Pro-Tem Pro-Tem Torres on this important topic. All right. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 7 to 0, please.
Speaker 6: Sandoval.
Speaker 5: I. Sawyer, I. Torres, I. Black, I. CdeBaca, I.
Speaker 6: Flynn.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 6: Hi.
Speaker 4: Hi.
Speaker 6: Cashman.
Speaker 3: Hi.
Speaker 6: Ken.
Speaker 5: Each hi, Ortega.
Speaker 6: I. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I am Home Secretary close to voting and announced the results.
Speaker 6: 11 Knives.
Speaker 0: 11 Eyes Council Bill 20 1-720 has passed. All right. Our pre adjournment announcement. Thank you, Libby, for a great presentation and for the community members who joined us on commenting on it. On Monday, August 30th, Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 21, Dash 759 changing the zoning classification for 2569 South Federal Boulevard in
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for multiple properties in Sloan's Lake and six properties in West Colfax.
Approves a legislative map amendment to rezone multiple properties from U-SU-B, U-SU-C, and U-US-C1 with UO-3 to U-SU-B1, U-SU-C1, and U-SU-C1 with UO-3 (allowing for accessory dwelling units), located in the Sloan Lake and West Colfax neighborhoods in Council District 1. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 6-29-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08022021_21-0770
|
Speaker 0: No items have been called out under bills for final consideration. Council Pro Tem Torres has called out bills 770 for questions under pending. No items have been called out. Madam Secretary, would you please put the first item on our screen? And Councilmember Torres, you can go ahead with your questions on Council Bill 770, please. Thank you, Madam President. Director McDonald, just a few clarifying questions as this comes through for final reading. I know in our in our second briefing, there were a number of things that came up that I just wanted to make sure we're we're clarified from my community questions that we might have been getting in any others. But the the jump from a $999 fine to $5,000, I wanted to give a little bit of time for explanation on what kind of is what created the the cause or the justification for that jump, because that was something that I think was important information to know.
Speaker 5: Sure. Well, thank you, Councilman. And before I answer the question, I would just like to say, I hope you're all doing well. We are still not out of the pandemic. So I hope I hope you're all hanging in there. So let me start out by saying that this initiative is not because of the pandemic. We were going to move this effort forward before the pandemic, before we ever had our first case, because what we've been seeing more and more is that our administrative fine authority hadn't been changed in decades. It's been at 999, and because of that, because it's over, the course of time has become outdated. We were seeing more and more where regulated industries were disobeying orders. Now, I want to I want to stress this, that I think that in Denver, I think we do very, very well. All regulated industries, I think, do a very, very well with complying with Denver's public health orders. But from time to time, in all industries, we have those that might disobey public health orders because the $999 cap was not enough incentive for them to comply. And we would see this sometimes during the course of our interactions with them during regulated or inspections, where we might hear that they're not going to do that because the cost of paying the fine is less than the cost of being closed. And that's that we hear that in a number of different regulated industries. So there's that. And then we would also see that sometimes when a responsible party in a regulated industry would comply while we're there, they might. Changed their mind and then not continue to comply after we leave. So, for example, if we were to issue an order for a particular venue, a restaurant, a swimming pool, a barrier facility or what have you. If we were to issue an order to them to close or discontinue using a piece of equipment, or they might comply while we're there thinking that maybe we're not going to come back in the evening or we're not going to come back in the weekend, and they would go ahead and move open back up or move forward using a piece of equipment that they shouldn't have used. And these are serious public health violations. We're not talking about a $5,000 fine for repeat violations. We're talking about some serious public health violations that are imminent public health risks. And I'll give some examples. Just set the context for why we're doing this. But again, I want to stress that the industries that will reference are not those that stand out to me in terms of where we see this the most. But if we were to issue an order for a body artist to continue using an autoclave, that's not working properly. If we left that facility and came back and they were using that, that could result in the transmission of hepatitis or HIV between people that are receiving tattoos. If we were to issue an order for a responsible party to close the swimming pool because there was no chlorine in it, and then we came back and they let kids and everybody get back in the pool. That could result in an outbreak of something called cryptosporidium, which is a pretty, pretty serious parasite from recreational waters when there's no sanitizer in the water, no chemicals. If we were to issue a restaurant in order to close because it was too dirty to operate and that that's rare, but it happens. I think overall the restaurant industry does a very good job. But we do occasionally find that where someone will go ahead and open back up or we condemn some food product during the course of an inspection and they agree to comply to throw it away. But then later on might try to use that that could result in a wide range of foodborne illnesses. So. So we've seen this in a wide range of regulated industries, more and more because that 1999 has been in place for decades, decades. And yet throughout the state, all local public health departments and their specialties, if they find someone who has not complied with a public health order, it is of up to a $5,000 fine. That in Denver it's 999. Not only is it $5,000 outside of the city of Denver, they will charge that person with a criminal violation and take them to court. You know, our goal indeed is to gain compliance with public health orders, not to assess fines and generate revenue. We we we will continue to use this with great discretion.
Speaker 0: And can you just reassure me of the process by which fines might incrementally increase or what that schedule looks like?
Speaker 5: Yeah. Thank you. So I don't I don't envision huge changes. Right now we have existing fines, schedules that will go up incrementally. It's just that, again, when we reach the cap, we need a little bit more of a tool that we can use for those that are resistant to compliance. So we did a lot of research throughout the country, and I wish I could say that throughout the country it's $5,000, but that's not the reality. It's quite varied depending upon the jurisdiction, depending upon the type of the public health violation. But we did that research and if we were to take the average of many, many municipalities, the average fine cap for all of them, the average is about 50 $500. But probably more important than what we're seeing is the average across the country is what is it? And the tri county health department, what is it in Jefferson County or up in Larimer County? In El Paso County, it's $5,000 for violating a public health order. So I think that that we've fallen behind with the public health tools that we can use. And that's just been that that's just become more apparent during the pandemic.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Director. I don't have any more questions about. All right. Thank you, Counselor Dan Torres. And thank you, Bob, for answering those questions.
Speaker 5: Okay. Thank you all.
Speaker 0: All right. 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 by otherwise. This is your last chance to call on an item for a separate vote.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance amending the maximum fines that may be assessed by the Denver Department of Public Health and Environment.
Amends Article XII of Chapter 2 and Article I of Chapter 24 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code to increase the maximum fines that may be assessed by the Denver Department of Public Health and Environment to $5,000 and to allow for administrative citations to be sent via first class mail. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 7-14-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08022021_21-0522
|
Speaker 0: Councilmember Torres, will you please put Council Bill 5 to 2 on the floor for final passage and move that Council Bill 20 1-52 to be placed upon.
Speaker 1: Final.
Speaker 0: Consideration and do pass. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. The required public hearing for council bill 5 to 2 is open. May we please have the staff report? And I see we have some here.
Speaker 1: Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Ed Henry. Yes, I am with CPD today and before you today we have 2208 North Street and the applicant is currently zone US U c which is a single unit zone district and they are requesting to change course to allow for an accessory dwelling unit. So it's currently located in Council District eight in Herndon in the South Park Hill neighborhood. So the site itself is a single unit, residential. It's just approximately over 6000 square feet. You can see City Park there to the west and it's between 23rd and 22nd Avenue. So the current zoning as you as you see, it's surrounded by us, you see, which is a single unit zoned district and you do see some open space which is at City Park. Um for the land use its current. It's currently single unit residential and it is surrounded by single unit residential in this area. And as you can see on the top right corner is the subject property. But you can see that in the close proximity there is a one story, two two story structures. And this went before the planning board in April and it was approved unanimously and has before you today as a present we have received two comments of opposition and those comments were around noise, the placement of the ADU, such as the setbacks, the height, as well as several visual impacts that can happen by the placement of the detached ADU. And you all received a response letter from the applicant that was responding to a lot of the concerns found in the opposition. That was by Bruce O'Donnell. Then he submitted that about Friday and I sent that over to you. Um, and so now whenever we're dealing with a rezoning case, we look at a specific review criteria that's found in the Denver zoning code. So the first one is consistency with adopted plans. And so we're really focusing on three plans here, which is a comprehensive plan, 2040 blueprint, Denver Land Use and Transportation Plan of 2019 and the East Area Plan of 2020 that was recently adopted. Um, there are several strategies found in comprehensive plan 2040 and that's specified in the staff report. And I would jump into your blueprint. Blueprint classifies this area as urban, um, which allows for small multi-unit residential and low intensity mixed use buildings. Um, and within the future place type classification, it's classified as low residential, which is predominately single into uses and accessory dwelling units are easy to use, are appropriate, and below street is a local street, which is primarily served by residential uses. As well as when we look at blue print, they have their specific policy that addresses AIDS, such as policy for funding the language in built form housing, which is the diversity housing choice through the expansion of accessory dwelling units in all residential areas. When we jump when we jump into the east area plan, the east area plan classifies this area as low residential single unit, which is predominantly single unit uses. And it does call that accessory dwelling units are appropriate. And when we look at specific policy and strategy language in the plan, policy six does talk about accessory dwelling units and appropriate locations as well as implementing and adopting city policies for the expansion of aid to use. And when we look at specifically Section four, South Park Hill, it talks about integrate accessory dwelling units in appropriate locations and then for the rest of the criterias are specified in the staff report. Therefore, CPD recommends approval based on all findings of the rubric right here have been met. I am available for any questions you may have as well as the applicant should be online.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. This evening we have it looks like. Seven speakers who are joining us and they are all joining us virtually. Our first speaker this evening is Tess Dougherty.
Speaker 8: Hi there. Good evening. Thank you for letting me speak tonight. Since I wasn't able to speak at the general public comment session, even though there were 3 minutes left. So I would just I just don't quite understand how that works. It seems like you're taking 3 minutes away from the people. But I was I wanted to talk about the the zoning and how it relates to gentrification and displacement. I'm in favor of this aid to you. I think we need to be providing more, you know, options and making it easier. I think the planning process needs to be easier and the criteria need to be updated to reflect the needs of the city. I don't think that that's been done and I'm still curious what is being done, because we've heard you all discuss how they're out of, you know, they're not effectively meeting the needs of, you know, of the city to protect people from displacement. And I'm I'm just curious how much of the history people in Denver know about displacement and the proposal, the recent proposal of the arena for the satellite area campus? Well, when the area campus originally came to be, it displaced, forcefully displaced people. And so when we're in these zoning, I would like to be hearing more of the the historical context that y'all are making these decisions from, because this city of Denver has a history of displacement. I mean, it goes back, you know, over 100 years. And and like that is a feature of this city. Zoning is displacement. And it doesn't feel like that is is at the center of your conversations about zoning. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Carol Kraft. And we have a dick crack. And so, Carol, if that's you, if you could, please raise your hand and we'll get you into the queue. But our next speaker is Carol Crack. Or there's a motley crew as well. So whoever is, Carol, we need you to raise your hand so we can bring you into the Q place.
Speaker 8: We're here all together.
Speaker 9: So it's Molly and Carol.
Speaker 5: Christine.
Speaker 0: All right, go ahead, please.
Speaker 9: We're the ones who own the property. My mom is. And so we're the ones making the request.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you for joining on this evening.
Speaker 8: Sure. I mean, we can tell you if you want to know a little.
Speaker 9: Bit about what we're planning on doing, I'm not sure if you know. But so my mother, who's lived in the house since 1975, is wanting to age in place. And so it was her idea that we explore the option of building a very tiny adu in her backyard so that.
Speaker 8: My husband and I, with.
Speaker 9: Our son, would move into the larger house and be able to take care of her so that she can age in place. That's our.
Speaker 3: Intention. We're available for any questions, too, of course.
Speaker 8: Do you want to make the request? Yes. I ask that you grant us the variance.
Speaker 0: All right. Very good. Thank you. We're going to go ahead and move on to our next speaker. We have Luann Erickson.
Speaker 2: Hello. So I really hate doing this because Carol is my next door neighbor. And it it is difficult when you put neighbor against neighbor. But what I have my situation is that I'm retired and my investment is my house. That is my legacy for my children and my grandchildren. And I'm looking to protect that investment. I'm looking to continue to have as much privacy as I can. The placement of the lady you shared with us right now is really an issue for me because it will be very close to space that I use on a regular basis. The front of the ADU would be where I can see it, not only from the outdoors but from the indoors. So that interest in and out of the location of the. The zoning requirements don't really define how you get access in and out of this unit. If it's placed where they shared, the closest way to get to the front door would be basically on my driveway. And, you know, making the gate into the fence that exists right now because there just isn't room on the property on that side of the residence. So I said a letter. There's a number of issues, but what I'm finding is that the zoning requirements, when you're trying to do a new build on to an existing small law, not where there's an existing two car garage that they're trying to convert or one of these very large lots that we have within the neighborhood. The neighbor that is closest to them, which just happens to be me, is the one who was impacted. And so what could be a very good thing for Carol ends up being a very not good thing for me, because I'm going to have to figure out how to spend money to try to undo the damage of privacy and noise and other issues by the creation of the. Are you basically sitting five feet from where I spend my time in my yard? So although, you know, I. I understand what Carol wants to do and I applaud it. As it currently stands. I just can't support it. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Our next speaker is Geoff Baker.
Speaker 5: Hello. Good evening, counsel. My name's Jeff Baker. I live at 2422 Tampa Street. And I am here in support of this. The crack family actually hired my company waiting for you to help with the build of this. A little back story on the crack family. For over four decades, Carole has lived in the house. Molly was raised in the house. And Carroll wants to age in place, which is a perfect example of what blueprint Denver is outlining. And we built or have designed a very small area that started at 480 square feet and 17 feet tall and was reduced after Logan's comments to 396 square feet and 16 feet. And this. I can't see a better reason to build one of these. This is exactly what Denver needs. Carroll is going to be able to stay on the property that she's been in. Molly and her family are going to get to move back into her home that she grew up in. And it's not going to change the character of the neighborhood. This thing is teeny tiny. There was outreach done. There was some support for it. There wasn't comments submitted because Carol does not want to get into neighbors arguing with each other. And then I'll address a couple of the concerns that. We ran mention so that the lot size is actually a medium sized Denver law and pretty standard for for most of the the bicycle aid use built on them. And there is um minimum lot size requirements in the code. The height and sun blocking that she's concerned with is addressed by the bulk playing in the code. Um, and the concern about the, the electrical feed and connection that is all addressed with utilities coming off the primary house. Um, access to the edu on the property is not outlined in the code, but the north side where she's describing has never been used in over four decades as a primary access point to the back and actually has a permanent fence there with no gate. That doesn't mean you can take it down, but that is not where there will be access. There's a driveway that goes all the way up on the other side. And as far as I see, yes, there will be a sea and many split unit which is similar to running an AC unit and the five foot buffer between the property is addressed by the set back requirement. I understand that that's too close for comfort for lou-ann, and I apologize for that. But that is what the code is. And we ask tonight that you support this and that you approve the reason of this property so we can build this adorable little cottage for Carol. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Rachelle Subfloor.
Speaker 3: Good evening, members of City Council. My name is Rachel Floor and I live in the Five Points neighborhood in Denver. Bruce O'Donnell, myself, are assisting the Craig family with the rezoning application. So I'll try to keep this short and to the point, try not to repeat.
Speaker 9: Too much information you've already heard.
Speaker 3: So first, the proposed rezoning was recommended by approval, by planning board.
Speaker 6: And.
Speaker 8: As it meets the rezoning criteria for.
Speaker 9: An 80.
Speaker 3: Map amendment. Second, it has plenty of planned support from citywide plans such as.
Speaker 9: Comp Plan 2040.
Speaker 3: Blueprint Denver 2019 Blueprint. Denver specifically speaks positively to the addition.
Speaker 6: Of ideas and most, if not all, residential neighborhoods, as they are a low intensity approach to.
Speaker 3: Diversifying the housing stock.
Speaker 9: It is also supported by Housing Inclusive Denver, as well as the land use and zoning goals and recommendations of the East Area Plan and the Parkdale Neighborhood Plan. And overall, they just add to the much needed housing stock allowing for development that is also in character with the neighborhood.
Speaker 3: In addition to the neighbor outreach conducted by Jeff Baker with a.
Speaker 9: Do for you and the homeowner. We reached out to local Arnaud's back in December 2020, including a phone call with Greater Parkhill. We informed them or them and the other several RINO's of the homeowners plans.
Speaker 3: To build a granny flat.
Speaker 2: And.
Speaker 6: Of the proposed rezoning as well, which would allow them to do so.
Speaker 9: We invited them to meet with us virtually so we could share more information if needed. The Arnaud's did not reply needing any additional information, nor did they hold a position.
Speaker 6: For these.
Speaker 9: Reasons that they meet the criteria. I ask that City Council members.
Speaker 3: Please vote yes on this bill for the.
Speaker 9: Rezoning of 2208.
Speaker 3: Miller Streets.
Speaker 9: And I am able to answer any questions about the application itself. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Our last speaker is Jesse Perez.
Speaker 1: Yes. Good evening. Member of the council. Those watching at home, those that are out of town full time. My name is Justin with some personal representative for black staff to move to self defense, positive action, Memphis, Memphis, The Times as well as the Unity Party of our auto and Frontline Black News. And I'll be the next mayor of Denver in 2023. I'm in favor of this 82 request tonight. It meets all the criteria that is specified in Blueprint Number and Comprehensive Plan 2040. So I have no choice but to vote in favor of this. I also live in Council District eight, which is good for this district and Northeast Park here. I supported 80 youth when I ran for city council at large in 2019, almost 15,000 votes with no money. And I continue to continually support these 82 requests throughout various parts of the city. We need more housing lost their aging mother to aging in place. I'm in favor of that. We need to have more of this across the city. We need to support our seniors and allow them to age in place in the communities that they. Have helped to build and grow and say over the years. So I'm in favor of this rezoning. Please pass this to. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. That concludes our speakers questions from members of Council on Council Bill five, two, two. I'll give it a moment. Seen no questions by members of council. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 522. Councilmember Herndon.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam President. I, I just want to say I believe the criteria has been met quite clearly, and I would urge my colleagues to vote in support of this. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Councilmember Herndon and I agree the criteria have been met and we'll be voting in favor of this rezoning. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council. Bill five two. Two.
Speaker 5: Herndon, I.
Speaker 6: Hines Cashman.
Speaker 5: I.
Speaker 6: Canet.
Speaker 8: I.
Speaker 6: Sandoval, i. Sawyer, i.
Speaker 2: Torres, i. Black. I.
Speaker 6: See. Tobacco. I. Clark.
Speaker 5: I.
Speaker 6: Flynn.
Speaker 5: I.
Speaker 6: Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 6: 12 hours.
Speaker 0: 12 eyes Council Bill 21, Dash 522 has passed. All right. Moving on to our second hearing this evening. Councilmember Torres, will you please put Council Bill five, seven, seven on the floor for final passage? I move that council bill 20 1-0577 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 2208 North Bellaire Street in South 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 2208 North Bellaire Street in Council District 8. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 5-11-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08022021_21-0577
|
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. The required public hearing for council bill 577 is open. May we have the staff report? And welcome back, edson.
Speaker 1: Hello everyone. At 21 years with CPD here. 4710 north Pennsylvania Street is requesting a rezoning to allow for an accessory dwelling unit. It's currently on Eastside, which is a single unit zoned district asking for us. You see one. It's currently located in Council District nine. Seelbach is a district in a Globeville neighborhood, so the site itself is just over 6000 square feet. It's a single unit, residential. It's across the street from Argo Park and they're requesting an accessory dwelling unit. The current zoning is ESU. D it's surrounded by you. You do have some, um, x three, which is a mixed use, up to three stories in close proximity as well as s, which is open space. And then when we look at the land use, it's a single unit residential with single unit residential, some industrial and open space across across the street. And the site itself is in the upper left corner. As you can see, it's a one story structure and the park across the street. And it went before the planning board in May and it was approved unanimously. And as a present we have received no comments for this item. And when we're looking at specifically a rezoning, we have specific review criteria that we analyze based off the Denver zoning code. And the first one is consistency with adopted plan. So we're looking at comprehensive plan 2040 Blueprint, Denver, L.A. and Transportation Plan of 2019 and the Global Neighborhood Plan of 2016. There are several strategies found in the staff report that this case is consistent with. And so I would jump into Blueprint Denver. And so Blueprint Denver classifies this area as urban, which where you see the small area plan as well as a blueprint deviate from what it's currently zone, which is the urban edge. And so urban edge is more a transition between urban and suburban. But this area is one of the few areas in the city where Blueprint Denver, as well as the neighborhood plan, specifically call out for a change in the neighborhood context. And so this neighborhood context is urban, which is a small multi-unit, residential and low intensity mixed uses buildings typically embedded in single unit and two unit residential areas , and it offers good walkability with short predictable blocks as well as when we look at the place type, the place type is single and two unit uses and accessory dwelling units. ADAS are appropriate as well as Pennsylvania Street is a local street which are primarily served by residential uses. As well as Blueprint has policy around AIDS, which is policy for which talks about the expansion of accessibility throughout all residential areas. And then when we when we dove into the neighborhood plan, the global neighborhood plan of 2016, this plan specifically calls this area a single family with an edu. And more importantly, the plan has specific recommendations, such as recommendations B one that says all accessory dwelling units. Units to enable aging in place, additional income through rentals, and to increase population density in the neighborhood without altering the character. And then, more importantly, this area says update the neighborhood context, the Denver Zoning Code's Urban Neighborhood context, as opposed to the currently mapped urban edge context, better reflects the use of the alleys limiting or prohibiting curb cuts for street access and the continuation of detached sidewalks where possible. As well as it talks about tailoring the minimum zone lot sizes in areas where existing zoning requires a 6000 square foot minimum zone that size. The Future Zone district should have a 5500 square foot zone minimum. So that's what the Zone District is doing here. But the applicant's applying for. There are several other review criteria that the staff report classifies and therefore CPD recommends approval based on all findings of the records. Your having met and I am open for any questions and the applicant Eric is also on as well.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Ensign, for the report. We have three individuals signed up to speak this evening and all are joining us virtually. The first one is Tess Dougherty.
Speaker 8: Is that me, Stacey? Yes, I did. Go ahead and say that. I'm so sorry. I didn't hear because it was changing over. So I'm in support. I think I actually mark the wrong thing for both of these ones on the thing. I just I don't know what happened, but I I'm in support of the aid to you. And I just, you know, this is in Globeville, where they haven't had they haven't had gas for three days. And, like, I don't know what's going on because, like, why why do we continue to allow the environmental racism in this town ? You know, there was a time in five points where they there was there wasn't even indoor plumbing because, you know, the city and county of Denver refused to service that area in the same the same time the rest of the city had it. And, you know, we've since renamed well, not we, some real estate developer renamed Fivepoint Reno, which is absurd to me. How about right? Never. It's five points. And I don't understand why we allow people to come into our spaces and to completely I mean, they got to change the name. And now we have clans named after with the rhino. Something clean. I mean, why did we even allow that to be named that? You know, and we have people in hilarious ones here who are literally in Globeville who can't even breathe right now because of the I-70. All the particulate matter in the air. Not to mention they're near Suncor, which we know went unregulated for 11 years. No idea how that, you know, just slipped the mind of everyone and, and like we have, I mean John Evans is one of two people who ordered the Sand Creek massacre and we have a mountain named after him. We have a boulevard. Like these are the things that we want you guys to start actually doing and taking ownership of because you have the power to change some of these things that are just racist and they're just blatantly racist. There's an unquestionable. And like in these meetings about zoning and all of these plans that are coming forward, where are the plans that address this? Where are the plans that address the racially restricted covenants of this city's zoning? We'd like to start seeing that as well in these plans because it's really gross to think that there's a mountain and a boulevard and a light rail station named after a man who slaughtered 300 women, children and elderly. And what would you do if you had to if your family was impacted by that, your ancestors and you had to hear people talk about Evans Boulevard every day? I mean, it's just the legacy of displacement and racial segregation is so strong in the city that we really need to start addressing it, thinking you.
Speaker 0: We're going to go ahead and move on to our next speaker. We have Helen Herron, Mushfiqur. And we're going to be able to allow them to speak.
Speaker 3: To.
Speaker 0: The camera. Go ahead, Helen.
Speaker 2: Hello? Hello? Can you hear me?
Speaker 3: Yes. Hello. I'm sorry I followed. Hello? You hear.
Speaker 2: Me? Hello? Can you hear me?
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 8: Yeah. I was going to speak at La La.
Speaker 2: Okay. I'm sorry.
Speaker 0: That's what we had to. HELEN So if it's okay, we'll go ahead. And skip over you for this hearing and we'll make sure we've got you. I believe we had you with Llama Lincoln Park as well.
Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Our last speaker for this hearing is Jesse Paris.
Speaker 5: Yes.
Speaker 1: This is all me.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Members of council. Those watching at home. Those who are still in the chamber. My name is just Allison Pearson. I'm representing for black sites a move to self-defense self the positive action command for social change as well as the Unity Party of Colorado and frontline black males. And I will be the next member in 2023. I'm in favor of this rezoning. So I of this 80 year request, this neighborhood has been rapidly gentrified, as already had alluded to earlier. So we need more accessible dwelling units throughout the city, especially in areas that have been rapidly gentrified and have suffered rampant displacements. So it meets all five of the criteria. So please pass this. You request to my good job, Candy. I think you got this one. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Jesse. That concludes our speakers questions from members of Council on Council Bill 577. Seeing no questions. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 577 council members say the Barca. No comments. This is something that I think.
Speaker 2: You know, we've talked many times about it.
Speaker 0: People shouldn't have to go through all of these hoops to get here. So I definitely support this idea. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Council members say to Barca and see no other speakers. I agree that this meets the zoning criteria and will be supporting this this evening as well. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 577 CdeBaca.
Speaker 6: I Clark.
Speaker 5: Hi.
Speaker 6: Flynn. I Hinds. I Cashman. I can. I. Sandoval. I. Sawyer. I. Torres. I. Black. I. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 6: 11 Eyes.
Speaker 0: 11 Eyes. Counsel Bill 20 1-577 has passed. Thank you, edson, for the staff reports and for the community members who joined us. We are on to our final hearing this evening. Councilmember Torres, will you please put council bill 758 on the floor for final passage?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 4710 North Pennsylvania Street in Globeville.
Approves a map amendment to rezone property from E-SU-D to U-SU-C1 (allows for an accessory dwelling unit), located at 4710 North Pennsylvania Street in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 4-13-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08022021_21-0758
|
Speaker 0: 11 Eyes. Counsel Bill 20 1-577 has passed. Thank you, edson, for the staff reports and for the community members who joined us. We are on to our final hearing this evening. Councilmember Torres, will you please put council bill 758 on the floor for final passage? I move that council bill 20 1-0758 be placed placed upon final consideration and do pass. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded the required public hearing for council bill 758 is open. And we have Karen here. May we please have the staff report?
Speaker 3: Good evening. I'm Karen with Landmark Preservation in Community Planning and Development. And we are here for the alma Lincoln Park Historic Cultural District. Landmark Preservation was established in 1967, and since that time, we have designated 352 individual landmarks and 56 historic districts. What I primarily wanted to point out is that we have one other historic cultural district, which is the Five Points District. If the properties are designated, all properties would go through Landmark Design Review. All of the individual structures are designated as is, so there is no requirement to make improvements or rehabilitate the property. However, if a property owner chooses to make any changes to the property on the exterior of the building that requires a building or zoning permit. They would go through landmark design review as part of this process as a historic cultural district similar to five points, there will be customized design guidelines. The preservation staff has worked through a yearlong community process in order to update the design guidelines to reflect the character of the neighborhood. We met with community members over the course of 2020 and 2021. These proposed customized design guidelines would provide greater flexibility on materials, cladding, porches and fences, which reflects the character of the neighborhood. LPC would review and approve it if this district is designated. The end point of this is to help preserve the character of the district while also allowing change for community members. So this proposed historic cultural district is located in District three. The map you see here reflects the amended legal description from the Fourth Amendment last week, and here's a list of the applicants for the designation application. Members of the community have been working on this for about four and a half, five years. They started doing preliminary research and outreach to the community. They applied to historic Denver's Action Fund in order to help write a historic context. In addition to that, as they were going through the designation application. They worked with long term community residents to do oral interviews and histories to ensure that they were getting a correct history, particularly for the Chicano movement. Throughout this time, they did a wide variety of community outreach as required in the designation application. They did listening sessions, community meetings, walking tours. Things like ice cream socials and flier the neighborhood multiple times, knocking on doors to reach out to residents. Landmark Preservation in CPD also did a community outreach on this and community engagement, or we set up a website for the proposed historic cultural district. We also knocked on doors and delivered fliers. We mailed fliers out to every resident and owner within the proposed historic district. And then we held two online community meetings, one in April and one in May of this year. After the community meetings, we had an online survey or questionnaire in order for residents and property owners to provide their opinion on the proposed historic district. Staff also held office hours and one on one meetings with anyone who had any questions about what it means to be in a historic district. And this is just a really quick process timeline where this started about four and a half years ago to tonight with a vote at Denver City Council. As you all are aware, in order for a structure or district to be designated, it needs to maintain its integrity. The district needs to be 30 years of age or of exceptional importance, and it needs to meet three out of ten criteria, as well as having the Landmark Preservation Commission consider the district's historic context. The LPC and CPD staff found that it met the following four criteria. First, having direct association with the historical development of the city. This was historically home to the Apache, Ute, Cheyenne, Comanche and Arapaho Peoples. This area was part of their migratory path and states along Cherry Creek were part of the indigenous peoples seasonal encampments. However, by the 1870s, with the arrival of the air of the railroad, this area began to develop. A.C. Hunt, who also served as territorial governor, homesteaded and platted this area. The current park was hot was his homestead, and the surrounding land, including Burnham Yards, was platted for development. The residents who resided there were prominent, primarily working class and immigrant communities made up of German, Irish, Italian, Jewish and Mexican residents. They resided within walking distance of work, which was typically Burnham yards or the other industries related to that. And they were well outside the Denver urban core. However, horse drawn streetcars and then eventually trolleys connected it to the city. But it was established as a community neighborhood with people residing there, churches that were established there, as well as commercial corridors along Hellmouth and then Santa Fe Street. Avenue. Sorry, the district is significant for the development of one of Denver's earliest residential neighborhoods, which was primarily a working class and immigrant community. The district is also significant for embodying vernacular yet distinctive visual characteristics of architectural styles and types. These vernacular buildings are modest, yet identifiable architectural styles of Italianate Victorians, front gable types, terrace for squares and bungalow styles. Vernacular structures typically are not architect designed, but rather are constructed by craftsmen and builders and tend to use common and readily available materials. Architectural historians Thomas Carter and Elizabeth Collins, calmly, in their invitation to vernacular architecture, talk about common or simplified building forms and styles, as well as handmade and industrial produced materials that are seen in vernacular architecture, as you can see here in the images and as well here. These buildings tend to be one or one and a half story simplified versions of architectural styles found in the surrounding areas, such as in Cap Hill or the Potter Highlands. You can see a shift in the popularity among the architectural styles from the late 19th to early 20th century, with the majority of buildings built between the 1880s and 1920s. This district embodies the distinctive, visible characteristics of the architectural styles of the late 19th and early 20th century. The district is also significant under criterion, each representing an era of culture or heritage that allows an understanding of how the site was used by past generations. So all the Lincoln Park architecture, with its layers of history and cultural significance, provides an understanding of how the site was used and changed by past generations. Over the decades, there have been changes to the structures within the district. While the original styles are still readily evident, the alterations occurred during the period of significance and reflect the community of people that altered them. When the area saw a change in population with a in-migration of Latino and Chicano residents, neighborhood began to take on the character, heritage and culture of the community. Community members began adapting the buildings, adding stucco or other siding, and including fences to extend living spaces. The layers of change reflect how new generations of residents, creatively and adaptively used the buildings and how the cultural history of the neighborhood is reflected in the built environment. The changes made by the people that inhabited the neighborhood became intertwined with the physical characteristics of the houses and illustrates how the district was used and changed by past generations. And finally, the district is significant under Criterion J. The historic cultural district is strongly associated with social movements and institutions that contributed significantly to the culture of the community, the city and the state due to its central role in the Chicano movement. In addition to the diversity among the neighborhood's earliest residents, many residents of the neighborhood Hispanic, Mexican-American, Mexican and Latino descent moved to La alma Lincoln Park during the mid-twentieth century. The Chicano movement represented the convergence of independent issues land rights and labor rights, opposition to the Vietnam War, and the fight for civil rights. As long as as well as fights for against long term discrimination, backward lack of equity in education, and the inadequacy of the political and governmental institutions to address these issues. In time, the neighborhood and the park than just called the Lincoln Park became the incubator for Denver's Chicano movement. As residents came to identify as Chicano or Chicano and advocate for social justice. Denver served as the forefront as one of the members of the forefront of the National Chicano movement. Residents of the district participated in the movement, and leaders of the movement resided in the district, including important organizers and early political leaders, as well as organizations within the district. One of the primary areas Chicanos fought for nationwide was education. The community fought ongoing unequal access to facilities. The lack of bilingual programs and an overall disrespect of the cultural heritage in many of the education programs. This led to high school walkouts that began in L.A. in late 1968. As we have recently seen in civil rights movements today, movements that begin in one part of the country quickly spread. The walkouts in L.A. helped spark the blowouts in Denver's West High School in the spring of 1969, with marches from West High School to Lincoln Park throughout the neighborhood. The walkout spawned a blowout among hundreds of students from other Denver junior high and high schools over several days in March of 1969. These marches, along with other events and activities, made the park historically important ground for Chicano rights in Denver and made the Alamo Lincoln Park neighborhood an incubator for the Chicano movement. Another significant part of the movement's connection to the neighborhood is through the murals that are in both public and private buildings. Artist Emmanuel Martinez, who lived in the neighborhood, is a key figure in the creation of these murals and in in developing the Chicano mural movement in Denver. Denver was one of a handful of cities in the US that simultaneously began to paint community murals in the late 1960s. Many times, Chicano artists drew inspiration from traveling to these other locations. Several murals in the OMA Lincoln Park remain, including two in the proposed district's boundaries and they are character defining features of the area. The movement grew out of a number of inequitable circumstances that pushed Latinos, Hispanics and Mexican-American communities across the country to push for change in government and systems. It was fostered in part through voluntary social service groups that helped organize individuals and groups in the movement, many of which were located in the district. The alma Lincoln Park neighborhood was central to the movement and provided safe places where Chicano movement organizers and supporters lived, worked and gathered. The Landmark Preservation and CPD staff found that the district met all of the criteria. The LPC also found that the district retained all seven aspects of integrity, as are seen here on the screen. They also discussed the historic context and found that it reflects the layered nature of the neighborhood from the permanent structures in the 1870s through the 1960s and seventies Chicano movement. They found that the historic, strong context is strongly associated with the criteria and is well documented in the designation application. Because this is also a historic district. Denver Planning Board reviews historic districts with respect to its relationship to the Denver Concern Comprehensive Plan. The effect of the designation upon the surrounding neighborhood and such other considerations as may be relevant. Just wanted to provide a little bit of context for the zoning here. The Blue Line represents the proposed historic district. It's primarily a two unit with a few other zone districts in there as well. And then 100 also provide you with existing land use. The yellow color is single family, so it's primarily used for single family with a little bit of multi-unit and two unit, as are noted in the peach in orange colors. Within that context, we can look at the proposed district's relationship to the comprehensive plan. The proposed historic district reinforces the visions of the Comprehensive Plan through the preservation of community cultural assets in the LA Elmo Lincoln Park neighborhood, as seen in the three goals under a strong and authentic neighborhoods, as are seen here on this slide. It preserves the city's authentic, historic character, enhances design excellence, and contributes to a strong sense of cultural identity. Additionally, it encourages the stewardship of city properties through the continued use of the Alma Lincoln Park and the preservation of the Alma mural on the wall of the Rec Center. Designation of the alma Lincoln Park Historic Cultural District preserves the important character and cultural heritage of the community and advances design quality through design review of new infill while providing flexibility for the proposed cultural historic district with a draft customized design guidelines. The proposed district also meets recommendations of policies and strategies under Blueprint Denver. It meets the recommendations related to equity in diversity in one, A and B, ensuring neighbors have equal access to design quality tools and exploring improvements to make design tools more accessible. This may include additional staff resources to support the neighborhoods and improved process guides to more clearly articulate requirements. And also talks about exploring the feasibility of programs to provide resource resources for design tools in underserved neighborhoods. CPD work to find ways to make the guidelines more accessible through a yearlong process with the community. We have drafted customized design guidelines to better reflect the neighborhood character. If the district is approved, the customized design guidelines will also be translated into Spanish. And it's also relationship to blueprint Denver under strategy to a to continue the city's commitment to existing historic districts and use historic designations to preserve the character of the district. Overall, the proposed designation is consistent with Blueprint Denver recommendations. And reinforces the policy plans. It is consistent with Blueprint's vision to embrace the city's existing character and cultural heritage through customized design guidelines. It would preserve the key historic features, ensure that changes and infill are compatible with the character of the historic district. Denver Planning Board also looked at its effect upon the surrounding neighborhoods because the Landmark Preservation Commission only has purview over what is within the boundaries. It would have little impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Throughout this process, we received public comments, we received nine comments from organizations or Arnaud's, and we received 18 public comments submitted from individuals. The letters from the organizations and Arnaud's. We're all in support. We received letters from 14 individuals in support and four in opposition. At the Landmark Preservation Commission hearing, 12 individuals spoke. Eight were in support. One was undecided, and three individuals were in opposition. The individual who was undecided later wrote and provided public comment that she was in opposition and was counted here in this group of four that are opposed. And then Denver Planning Board, seven individuals spoke at the Landmark Preservation Commission. Kathy Prideaux, who is an applicant, also spoke in support of the designation application. And this is a photo of her in 1869 protesting at the state capitol. And she's there in the center. Public comments were also received by a CPD hosted survey or questionnaire. We received a total of 73 responses. 50 were strongly in support. Four were neutral, six were somewhat against, and 13 were strongly against. And the map here on the right represents those individuals who are either within the historic district or just right outside the historic district. So we wanted to differentiate between the total number that we received and then those that are within the historic district. And then it also notes if the people who are providing the comment or a property owner or a renter. So in summary, the landmark designation application was unanimously recommended for approval by the Landmark Preservation Commission. They found that it was over 30 years of age, that it meant at least three criteria, that it retained its integrity. And the LPC considered the historic context. Denver Planning Board also reviewed it and unanimously recommended approval and CPD staff recommends approval as well. And I'm happy to answer any questions.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Kara, for the presentation. And this evening, we have 34 individuals signed up to speak and we're going to alternate between in-person and virtual participation for efficiency. So we'll call a segment of the in-person participants first and then we'll alternate to the virtual participants. And our first set of in-person participants that I'd like to invite to come to the front pew is in Tafoya, Felix Herzog, Shannon Stage Tan, Tanya Mote and Cathy Prieto. And so we will go ahead and start with Ian to for you, please.
Speaker 5: Do you have to push a button? No, you don't. Okay. I counsel you and Thomas Tafoya here. Want to start by in a cruel twist of fate, I somehow got it signed up in opposition. I want to make clear I'm not in opposition to this. I wrote op eds, did do a lot of work on this over five years. I do want to start by saying we're on occupied Arapaho, you and Cheyenne territory. This is how we start our historic tours that we give of the West Side and Chicano West Side that I've been a part of for the last five years . I'm here speaking for a couple groups that I'm a member of Latinos and Heritage and Conservation and National Organization of Historic Preservation Advocates, Green Latinos My Job Who Works in Public Lands and Cultural Respect? The Colorado Latino Forum, which I have the chance to chair. All of these organizations stand in support of this very important moment. You know, the Trust for Historic Preservation took such an interest in this that we had a chance to give them a tour. And it was through that that I was even welcomed to speak and do a land acknowledgment opening up at Red Rocks, which was a once in a lifetime experience. But I think it goes to show you that all eyes are on Denver to create the very first Chicano Heritage Cultural District in the country.
Speaker 10: You know, I heard Kara talk.
Speaker 5: About Blueprint Denver and the equity goals. I was a member of the Blueprint Number Task Force. I actually held it up for several months on behalf of RNC over concerns with equity. And so I would drive home what she has to say. You know, my personal connection my grandfather graduated West High School in 1929. My aunts and uncles were part of the West Side blowout, and my grandmother and my aunt also went to.
Speaker 1: Emily Griffith School.
Speaker 10: You know, there's so much to say.
Speaker 5: About how long this took. You know me, I'm an action oriented person. Five years was a long time in the making for me. I was hoping it would go faster, but I can say considerably. There was so much work done that I made friends in the community that I didn't know before.
Speaker 1: Some who had lived there their entire lives, some who are.
Speaker 5: Newcomers to the community. But I know those murals and Emmanuel Martinez and Veronica Barela.
Speaker 1: And Betty Benavides, these are people.
Speaker 5: Who I look up to for their fight for our community and for our culture. Again, I just want to say all eyes are on you and you can do the right thing, just like we did with La Raza Park of.
Speaker 1: Securing our heritage as gentrification and zoning or wiping away our people. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Felix Herzog.
Speaker 1: On the evening. I'd like to start off with a quick reference to a Bloomberg article that was published on July 19, 2021, and it say that fewer than 8% of designated historic landmarks in this country represent histories of ethnic minorities. Now, I think as a country that usually takes great pride in being a melting pot and really bringing together minorities and bringing people from overseas together. That's a really, really sad statistic. It's just I mean, there's a lot of us here and only 8% represent minorities. I think that's something that today there's a chance to really make a change to that and kind of creating a district that kind of goes against that statistic.
Speaker 5: When you look at.
Speaker 1: Groups like Hispanic Access Foundation and particularly the White Progressive Era, he stated that historic sites tell a very wide story, and I think that just shows that there is something that can be done. That being said, I moved to the Lincoln Park about six years ago and when I. Walk to the box of my dog in the morning and met people. Everyone's very welcome. He was very friendly and on one occasion I made the accident of shortening the name of the neighborhood from within contact with just Lincoln Park. And I was informed of the fact that the Amer translates to the soul. And I think that's what we're here to protect today. Over the last 15 years, a lot of things have changed in Denver and a lot of city parts of the city have gotten gentrified and culture has gotten washed away. And much of the minority neighborhoods are no longer what they used to be if they're pleasant at all. I spent a lot of times living up by Sloan's Lake, and Sloan's like, used to be very nice and welcoming. And unfortunately, over the last five or six years, a lot of that welcoming nature has kind of faded away and been replaced with big concrete jungle. So you just kind of walk down the street and there's concrete to the left and concrete to the right in the ongoing compact. That's not the case. We have lots and lots of front porches. You go down the street, people say hello to you, and I think that's worth protecting. That sort of saw that. But with income, parks still has where you can just meet people and everyone is friendly and welcoming. You have a combination of small homes and bigger homes, front porches and changing fences, all sorts of new and old windows. And no one wants to just simplify it and scrape it all the way along with the sad history of redlining from the 1960s. And. The idea being a food desert for many years where there was no access to good produce and just public access for food that was otherwise completely common. So by. Getting this designation. I think we can keep in mind that there's a very important history to that. I'm asking you to support the submission of this today. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Shannon Stage.
Speaker 8: Good evening, council members. My name is Shannon Stage and I am the manager of Grants and Preservation Services at Historic Denver. It feels so good to see and before you today in person on behalf of our organization to show our support for the law, the Lincoln Park Historic Cultural District. And we hope council sees the value, merit and effort that has gone into this proposal. We have been working with the law, the Lincoln Park Neighborhood Group, on this project for over four years, ever since some of the folks in this room and online apply to our Action Fund program back in 2016. We provided both financial assistance to support, research and inventory work, as well as technical assistance and outreach support. The four, four year long process took time because it was critical to engage both current and former residents in this effort. It was important to identify the right approach to honor and protect the deep layers of history in and Lincoln Park from its earliest years through the Chicano movement of the 1960s and seventies. To identify the right approach, volunteers, our organization and the R.A. hosted meetings to collect stories, oral histories and to discuss ideas how to honor the neighborhood's heritage. There were eight community meetings where some we had or where we had translators available, some professionally facilitated by Bill de la Cruz. Some dedicated to sharing stories and others with breakout sessions to talk about what people wanted to see for the future of this neighborhood. In between meetings, neighbors hosted walking tours, delivered fliers, conducted surveys, and gave updates to the R.A.. All of our communications were also translated. Out of these sessions, the neighborhood group heard, the community wanted to see the homes, spaces and Chicano murals in La alma Lincoln Park honored and preserved in order to avoid the loss of identity or lose places that have angered this neighborhood. The sessions also brought forth ideas on the kind of protections that were appropriate for the neighborhood, given its long and diverse history, along with the desire for flexibility in any proposed design guidelines. City staff agreed this was warranted for this district. So CPD formed the Custom Design Guideline Working Group in 2019, which was open to anyone in the community. Volunteers delivered an update about the potential designation effort and the opportunity to participate in the Custom Design Guideline Working.
Speaker 9: Group through door to door flowering.
Speaker 8: From August to September of 2019. The working group, led by the city, met a total of four times to develop the specific ideas for the custom design guidelines. Over the course of this effort, I personally have spoken to preservationists across the country about the code, about cultural districts, and how to increase access to preservation tools for communities currently underrepresented in local and national preservation programs. From this, I know tonight's proposal is special and will be among the first districts nationally to recognize the Chicano movement and seek to safeguard the cultural and physical environments that contributed to this important history. If approved. LAMB Lincoln Park would be the second historic cultural district in Denver, but the first district that honors the Chicano movement. And what better way to honor it?
Speaker 9: But that's all.
Speaker 0: We're going to go ahead and move on to our next speaker, ten year Moti.
Speaker 3: Hi there. I'm Tanya. I'm the associate director at Smooth Theatrical Cultural and Performing Arts Center. I support the La Palma Lincoln Park historic cultural district as an important resource for new residents, for people who have lived in the neighborhood for generations, for the city, and for all of us who care about culture as a source of resistance , hope and joy. Sioux Theater has a deep stake in the West Side, the heart of the city, the tight.
Speaker 8: Knit community of concerned.
Speaker 3: Neighbors that made sure all youth were well mentored, protected from police brutality and the racism of the outside world. A place where culture and the sweetness of everyday life was celebrated. A place that produced legions of activists, organizers and artists whose legacy stands and continues to evolve in its interaction with each new generation. When Suits set up shop in the West Side, we viewed it as an important reclamation of territory. The La alma Lincoln Park Historic Cultural District is also a reclamation of territory and an important engine for preservation, meaning making and even transformation. The great civil rights historian Dr. Vincent Harding, taught us that we have yet to achieve democracy, but our dreams of democracy can still be if we want to be a city that represents everyone from every socioeconomic sector, cultural background, sexual orientation and gender identity, then we must know every facet of our history. We must invite cultural exchange and dialog. We cannot erase and make invisible the histories and stories of people who have been too long marginalized. We have to see each other. We have to respect each other. La alma Lincoln Park historic cultural district is important not just because it commemorates what was, but because it acknowledges what is. Culture lives in people who pass it on in their DNA and through their commitment to carry on memory and tradition. We can start to build a better city tomorrow the type of democracy we would like to be by uplifting all histories, heralding all cultures, and being in genuine relationship with each other. Each of us embodies a past, a present, and the future. And each of us deserves access to the life of the city. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, we have Kathy Prieto.
Speaker 6: Hello. My name is Kathy Seattle and I live in long my area since 1969 and I love it. I wouldn't change my neighborhood for the world. Change has always come to us. In so many ways. We never had a chance to say we want that change or we don't. But I was in a lot of the marches, the movements that were there. The West High School blowout. I was involved and a lot of the homes on in the La Jolla, my area there, their beautiful homes, they've all got history. They have something to say. And each one of those homes, we've had beautiful neighbors that have come and gone. And I wouldn't change it for the world. My kids grew up there. My grandkids come over all the time to grandma's house. And it's a wonderful place to live. The people are beautiful there and I love the way la my is. And if we can make it a lot better, let's do it. Just take this big Band-Aid off and start putting it together the way it was. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. We're going to go ahead and transition. I believe if I've got we've got things marked here. All right. We have folks in the virtual platform. And so we have Adrian Prieto, Brook Whyte, Arthur Way and Winter Roy Ball. And we'll start there. And so we'll go ahead and start out with Adrian Prieto. All right. We're going to see. We don't it doesn't seem like we have Adrian in, so we'll go ahead and move on and come back if we need to. Next up, we have Brooke White.
Speaker 3: Hello. Can you guys hear me? Yes. Hi. I'm so my name is White. And, you know, and I was like, I mean, I don't have anyone. My husband and I were unaware that the historical research was being proposed until we have received via April of this year. And we were really shocked to learn that they had to find out that everything had already been pushed through. And so we were wondering, you know, over the idea war with this very complex and even thing that somebody had said, I've lived in my house since 2018, I've never known it hasn't might have been in 2019 and have been seeing our neighborhood on a Saturday afternoon. We found that about 40% of our neighbors on one street had not been informed of this change prior to 2021. And then that was proceeded with their statement that they had found out about it. And I think it's really unfortunate that that's how the process starts because my husband and I would absolutely love to support that. So we look to the neighborhood houses and heroes. This is the way to have support, but we feel like we've been cheated because we weren't aware that this was happening until the application had already been pushed through. And I know that it said that people were gone for years, that they did a lot of force, but by us and then the evidence that we found, we were out with people with custody of that. And so if this is to get approval, acceptance of what we are asking is that, you know, there's a six month period before those changes that actually go into effect that would allow people within the neighborhood whose houses are going to be directly affected to be able to make any property changes that they would like to know . Even in a meeting at the end, a few people were calling and say, Hey, what does this mean for us? How is this going to change my life? Or, you know, I don't think that my building should be designated as a structure. Look at that. And all those questions are going to be addressed to the neighbors who are going to be living there and that that process will be set, be fulfilled. And a lot of people who are actually going to have to make the changes that they want. Thank you so much for your time. And they say thank you.
Speaker 0: Next up, we have Arthur Wei. Okay. It looks like we don't have Arthur with us. Next up, we have Winter Roybal.
Speaker 8: Hi. Can you hear me okay? Yes. Perfect. So, hello, council. My name's Winter. I am speaking today as a constituent of District seven and as a recent graduate of the Historic Preservation Master's program at See You, Denver. I'm urging.
Speaker 3: You to approve Bill.
Speaker 8: 758 for an ordinance designating all the Lincoln Park Historic.
Speaker 3: Cultural District.
Speaker 8: I believe that this community lot designation effort will provide a benefit to the neighborhood, city and state of Colorado by recognizing the importance of our Chicano history. Denver has experienced exponential growth that has drastically altered the physical and cultural landscape of the city. These changes are most evident in the historically marginalized neighborhoods that have been subject to historic redlining, racially motivated development practices, disproportionate demolitions, and the physical and cultural displacement of residents. The city must do more to protect our historic landscapes and promote the diverse stories of our shared history. Preservation is often blamed as the cause of gentrification and displacement, but in this instance, the preservation.
Speaker 3: Can be.
Speaker 8: Used as a tool for the stabilization of the community. One of the things that makes this historic district different than others that we've seen is that the long time Chicano residents of long Lincoln Park have been the leading voices working on this project since 2016. It is your duty as council to help this community that is often underrepresented in our city's.
Speaker 3: Historic landmarks to preserve their culture.
Speaker 8: As you are aware, Denver is facing an affordable housing crisis as well, and increasing density is crucial to expanding housing in the city. Although the homes in Lincoln Park are primarily single family homes or duplexes, many are occupied by multi-generational families. This shared living provides density in a unique way. Additionally, most of the neighborhood's homes have garages that can easily be converted to additional dwelling units, ensuring that the city can achieve its density goals while also stabilizing the existing stock of affordable housing and preventing.
Speaker 3: Gentrification.
Speaker 8: And displacement. While this.
Speaker 3: Council cannot undo.
Speaker 8: Past transgressions, it does have the amazing opportunity to be a national exemplar in its efforts to change the future through an inclusive approach to preservation and development. Very few historic cultural districts exist in the U.S., and yet Denver stands to have two if Laemmle Lincoln Park is approved.
Speaker 3: Along with five points, which has.
Speaker 8: Already been approved. Finally, I would like to close by reminding Council of the city's goals for a more diverse and inclusive future. In the most recent version of Blueprint. Denver, the city decided that by 2040, Denver's neighborhoods should be completely unique and reflective of our diverse history. Additionally, the city and county of Denver put out a call for the community to bring forward culturally significant places to better preserve our Chicano and Latino history. This is the time to listen to our long time Chicano residents and preserve their neighborhood. A yes.
Speaker 3: Vote for.
Speaker 8: Lincoln Park will be a public display of Council's commitment to this vision and the values that support it. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Pamela Clifton.
Speaker 6: Okay.
Speaker 0: Am I on here? Yes.
Speaker 3: Okay, great. Good evening. My name is Pamela Clifton and I have lived in the.
Speaker 2: La alma.
Speaker 3: Lincoln Park neighborhood for a little over 20 years. But my connection to not only the neighborhood, but the West Side in general goes back even farther. When I was growing up in the Arvada suburbs in the sixties, my father, who was a teacher, became active in the Carol movement. I've vivid memories of him taking my little brother and I to marches and hearing speakers the likes of Cesar Chavez, Betty Benevides and Corky Gonzalez. I remember after one rally, he took me to a restaurant on Santa Fe called Joe's Buffet. He told me I was going to take the best Mexican hamburger on the planet. He ordered me an entire portion lathered in green chili. I didn't want to disappoint him because I was so excited about it. But that green chili was so hot. I actually got high. I started to hallucinate. I was only in the fourth grade, but from then on I was hooked. And to this day I have that chili sauce on everything. But later on, in 1985, I got a job working at the Buckhorn Exchange and worked there for about six years. So in the year 2000, when my father worried that as an artist I might end up homeless, decided he wanted to buy a house. It seemed fitting that he would start looking on the West Side, where he had so many memories and such a love for the culture, which is how I ended up here, and why making this sure this neighborhood receives the recognition and the protection it deserves is so important to me. I've lived here for 20 years and it's not only been, it's only been since my neighborhood association got involved with this project that I really became aware of the incredible and important history of this area. The murals, which I have always loved and appreciated, but I had no idea of the history and the importance of keeping them reject the notion that the Cheyenne and the Arapaho look on this land at one time.
Speaker 2: I've always walk my dog every.
Speaker 3: Day past that very house that Betty and Margo Benevides lived in. And I had no idea. I don't want other people to live in ignorance the way I have. Everyone in the city should know the importance of this extraordinary neighborhood and the impact it's had on the growth of Denver and all of Colorado. This designation would be a step in that direction. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. We're going to go ahead and transition back in person. I'll call out the next five speakers. We have Sara McCarthy, Erin McMillan, Annie Levinsky, Bob Bassett and Desiree Maestros. And so we'll go ahead and start with Sara McCarthy.
Speaker 2: Good evening. My name's Sara McCarthy. I live in the 300 block of South Clarkson Street, and I'm very honored to be here tonight to support the nomination of Lama Lincoln Park as a historic cultural district for its role in the development of Denver and as a very important ground for Denver's Chicano movement. The cultural roots stretch from the 1820s after Mexico gained its independence and established trade routes along the front range. 11th Street and columns align with one of these early routes the trappers trail that originated in Taos and Santa Fe and followed the west side of Cherry Creek to the confluence. I conducted the project's early research that involved more than two dozen interviews of West Siders, and I'm sure I missed two dozen more who had their own stories to tell of the 1960s and seventies on the West Side. Of course, I talk first to Veronica barela, who was married to Thatcher, infamous as the king of the high boards at the Lincoln Pool. Other West Siders interviewed included current and former city and state elected officials such as Ramona martinez and former state representative Selina Benevides, whose mother in law was a West Sider and Colorado's first Latina in the legislature. I had the privilege to interview the artist, sculptor, muralist Emmanuel Martinez, and I learned that there is an enduring West Side connection to the Sand Creek massacre spanning from Governor Hunt in 1865, who lived in Lincoln Park. That was his homestead. To a man named Jay O'Leary. Who was one of many who said to me. Once on the west side, always from the west side. When you hear the train whistle tonight, you will experience a tangible reminder of the West Side significance to Denver's history from the 1860s through the 1960s and seventies. Please vote yes on this nomination. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, we have Aaron McMillan. All right. Aaron McMillan. All right. We'll go ahead and move on. Annie Lewinsky. Good evening, members of Council. I'm Annie Levinsky, executive director of Historic Denver at 1420 Ogden Street. My colleague Shannon R.E. describe the long and in-depth outreach effort that's going on in Llama Lincoln Park. I was privileged to take the very first phone calls and attend the very first meetings of the group of volunteers working on this effort. And I can attest to their diligence, dedication and patience and their willingness to move slowly in order to build trust and craft something that is not cookie cutter but respects the history lived experience . Public Spaces, Art and culture of llama. Lincoln Park Historic Denver invested in this project through our Action Fund, which was intended to catalyze just this kind of grassroots activity and to support creative preservation efforts that reflect the full depth and breadth of our city's history. There were meetings, tours, news stories, PowerPoint presentations, door knocking and more. And I was privileged to attend many of.
Speaker 2: Those and learned so much from.
Speaker 0: The residents and former residents of this neighborhood and their inspiring actions to make our city and our state a better place. The custom design guidelines that Cara mentioned earlier on are important to this proposal as well. The guidelines, honor and respect that the attributes that make this neighborhood special are not only those that were established in the 19th century, but also those that came about in the 20th century. The modifications, creative and economical solutions and cultural preferences that add to the story of this place. The guidelines provide the flexibility and affordability. Community members.
Speaker 2: Asked for ensuring that.
Speaker 0: A wide range of materials can be used to renovate and repair the homes in the traditions that have existed here. We appreciate Cbd's willingness to work with the community on these guidelines. I also want to note that this is one of our first or our first cultural historic district proposal that includes public art, like the murals. And while it does not protect them in some of the same ways that buildings are protected, it does open them up for important historic preservation, financial incentive programs like grants from the state historical fund and tax credits for repair, as well as protections through other kinds of tools like preservation easements. So it is an important first step in ensuring that those pieces can remain a part of our city. I also want to note that while Lincoln Park zoning is compatible with this proposal, as you've already heard, ADA use are commonly constructed in historic districts and that can be the case here as well. The zoning in La alma Lincoln Park also allows for duplexes and tandem homes with a front and back unit, making it very possible for existing structures and parcels to accommodate greater density without demolition or loss of cultural fabric. The alma Lincoln Park is a complete neighborhood and many of the ways outlined in Blueprint Denver and, you know, including encouraging missing metal housing, supporting the preservation of smaller and a fair and affordable homes, and ensuring that neighborhoods have equal access to design quality tools. I want to just close by thanking the neighborhood residents that have dedicated hundreds of hours to this, along with the former residents, the key players in the Chicano movement for whom La alma Lincoln Park will always be home, as well as the staff of partners and institutions like Sue Teatro, the Denver Inner-City Parish News ADD and the Chicano Murals of Colorado Project, as well as Ferryhill and Company and Tonya Motel for their research and writing help. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, we have Bob Bassett.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Thank you, counsel. My name is Bob Bassett. I'm currently a Denver resident of District four. I was the chairman of the board of Historic Denver for two terms during which we founded the Action Fund. So it's very satisfying for me to see the results here tonight of that effort. I'm also a native of Denver. I grew up on the north side. North high graduate in 1968. Long time ago. But I have a deep appreciation of the cultural importance of the West Side as well as the North Side. I've been asked tonight, and it's my pleasure to read a letter that Councilwoman Ramona martinez wrote today and sent to council. I would like to read it into the record. Councilman Martinez says as a person who grew up in Denver and spent a great deal of my youth in Lincoln Park neighborhood, I am compelled to write this letter to you today and ask you for your support in designating Alma Lincoln Park as a historic district. Not many residents of Denver know the history of the west side of Denver. I'll editorialize and say, Order the north side. But the west side of Denver, when I go way back to the 1940s and as a child it was where I met other Spanish speaking families who came to Denver and settled on the west side of town. Descendants of those early settlers chose to raise their families in this part of Denver. Some even still live there and houses that their grandparents purchased or built. She continues. During my time on Denver City Council, there were a few tough choices about historic places. But I believe it is an imperative that we as a city protect the places that matter most to our history of Denver and its cultural heritage. Development cycles go up and go down, but it is what we commit to protecting that will remain at the heart of the city. Counsel, thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is does Ray Masters?
Speaker 6: Hi. My name is Desiree Masters. Kathy prepares daughters 1015 in the street. My whole life. I for the llama historic society. I think it's great that somebody is finally stepping in to help the people in the community that could really need help instead of trying to push them out of their properties. We have people that are standing up for them, you know, trying to get the. Trying to get their situations right and take care of our people. And I appreciate that. So I hope we win this thing.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. All right. We're going to go ahead and transition to our virtual folks. And so I'll go ahead and call the five names just so you're ready. So Fatuma here. She's Allison Crabtree, Travis Hill. Andrea Barela and Helen Herron misspeak. And so we're going to go ahead and go first to Fatima.
Speaker 2: Hello.
Speaker 0: Yes. Hello?
Speaker 3: Can you hear me? Yes. Okay. I guess you can't see me. That's unfortunate. But my hair today. Let's see. Well, here it is. Start video in the. Here we go. Okay. Hello, everybody.
Speaker 0: There you go.
Speaker 3: Name the team. Richie and I am one of the original applicants for the action fund from historic Denver.
Speaker 2: And.
Speaker 3: But the fund enabled us to have a deep dove into this history, into the history of this neighborhood that we moved to in the early or mid 2000. And as a as the first of two or three people who started this was beyond the project, as you've heard numerous times for four years now, four plus years now . And during our research and our delving into the history of this area, I was just completely taken aback by all the layers that are part of this community. I think that we are at a unique moment in time. And it's a historical moment and a cultural, cultural moment to give a designation to that speaks to like acknowledging the everyday person who often doesn't have a voice in some of these matters. I think authenticity is hard to come by, particularly when there are a lot of pressures around us. We heard the young lady talk about, you know, affordable housing. We talked, there was a comment about density. And there are many things around this neighborhood that are sort of driving some of the decisions that might be made by people to replace this authenticity and and sort of substitute sort of community and heritage that we've been hearing about. I think that what's interesting for me is that this community is about welcoming.
Speaker 2: It's about.
Speaker 3: Stories. A lot of stories. I'm not an original founder, as Kath Creado is, but I came to this neighborhood with a story. It's an immigrant story. We moved here trying to find people who wanted to be out on their porches and wanted to say hello and wanted to talk to each other. And it's at this moment where I met a lady from Chicago who was instrumental in getting, you know, a light fix for the alley so that it would be better lit for the people who walk down it to pick up their kids from school. That might be. So I humbly ask that the council recognize that just because it's a modest place does it at.
Speaker 0: The time when you have a lot of stories that are triggered and switch to our next speaker? I'm glad you got your camera working so we could see you. Next up, we have Alison Crabtree.
Speaker 2: Hi. Can you hear me? Yes. Great.
Speaker 8: So, four years ago.
Speaker 2: I was also one of the original applicants for the historic Denver Action Fund. As a resident of this neighborhood and also.
Speaker 9: As the president of the La alma Lincoln Park, R.A..
Speaker 2: And the goal was really to document the historic nature of this area of the neighborhood. And I am here speaking in support of this measure. One of the things that is so striking about this area is its sense of place and identity. And this sense of place is really.
Speaker 9: Reinforced in many ways.
Speaker 2: Visually in the distinct architecture, the rhythm of the houses.
Speaker 9: And the.
Speaker 2: Murals, but more experientially, the relationships and strong sense of community which goes back decades. And I feel very honored to have been folded in to that sense of community having only moved in in 2013. The homes represent a key period in Denver's growth as the railroads.
Speaker 8: Were being built and.
Speaker 2: Many workers and immigrants seeking opportunity and a better life. People who had been shut out of other places d boarded at Burnham yards in this neighborhood and stayed on locally to work in the railroads and Denver water to help build out Denver's foundational infrastructure. And more recently.
Speaker 9: This area was the center of the.
Speaker 2: Chicano Liberation Movement. This movement occurred at a time that the neighborhood.
Speaker 9: Had already been redlined, and the Chicano and Latin.
Speaker 8: People who lived here had very limited.
Speaker 2: Housing options and options for home ownership. And the residents of our sister neighborhood in our area were also being displaced. This community banded together and created its own social.
Speaker 9: Institutions.
Speaker 2: To support each other at a time when the city and the city.
Speaker 8: Government was not there for.
Speaker 2: Them. And as a result, it really strong sense of community.
Speaker 9: Identity and a bond developed.
Speaker 2: And leaders grew out of.
Speaker 9: That community and and.
Speaker 8: Denver has benefited.
Speaker 2: From that history and they have.
Speaker 3: Had a significant impact on Denver's history.
Speaker 2: These are achievements that Denver claims among those.
Speaker 3: That the.
Speaker 9: City is proud of. And throughout this process, and with the help of historic Denver.
Speaker 2: We have documented the history.
Speaker 8: Of the area lead history.
Speaker 2: History Walks.
Speaker 3: Hosted many.
Speaker 8: Community meetings and given this history and.
Speaker 2: Info back to the community and ask how they would like.
Speaker 8: To proceed with it.
Speaker 2: And the response has.
Speaker 8: Been what we've bring to you today.
Speaker 2: And I hope and I ask that you.
Speaker 9: Honor this legacy with the historic.
Speaker 3: Cultural designation. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Travis Hill.
Speaker 5: Good evening. Can you hear me?
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 5: All right. Good evening. Council members, friends, neighbors and allies. I have relatively few comments that would not just.
Speaker 1: Be echoing and mirroring.
Speaker 5: Many of the things that have already been stated by others in support of this designation. I'll just say for my part, but by the way, Travis Hill, I note a 1219 look at the street, which is within the proposed designated area. I've lived in the neighborhood for about five years now after.
Speaker 1: Effectively kind of being crowded out of my neighborhood in West.
Speaker 5: Colfax by aggressive development and infill projects that made the neighborhood rather unappealing. I was lucky enough to land here in my Lincoln Park and find a home that is not only comfortable but due to a visual disability functional for me where I can walk to what I need, I can get around the neighborhood easily and safely. In addition to getting to meet great neighbors and the aforementioned, you know, front porch culture and just getting to know people that have been here for a few years like myself or for generations again, I don't have a whole lot more to state. Other than that, I feel this designation would be a very positive thing for the neighborhood, and I respectfully encourage the council to please support this designation. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Andrea barela.
Speaker 2: Hello? Can you hear me? Yes. All right.
Speaker 8: My name is Andrea Barela.
Speaker 3: I'm the executive director of New Community Development Corporation. I serve on the board of the Art District Office on Santa Fe. I'm the board president for.
Speaker 8: The Santa.
Speaker 3: Fe Business Improvement District, and I'm a very proud board member of the Denver Inner City Parish. All of these organizations, our llama, Lincoln Park.
Speaker 9: Neighborhood.
Speaker 3: Nonprofit organizations. Just a big thank you to historic Denver for all their hard work and to all those who contributed to this historic effort.
Speaker 8: As the director of a lot of.
Speaker 3: Lincoln Park organizations whose sole.
Speaker 9: Purpose is to create sustainable families and.
Speaker 3: Communities, we see this project as unified with new sets core organizational values.
Speaker 2: On a personal note, I.
Speaker 3: Would very much like to see the neighborhood that my mom and dad grew up when I grew up in, preserved in its original and beautiful form. I would like to.
Speaker 2: See the neighborhood where I met my.
Speaker 3: Husband preserved for our grandchildren to see. I would very much not like.
Speaker 9: To see the displacement.
Speaker 2: Of our history and culture.
Speaker 3: Much like we have.
Speaker 8: Seen.
Speaker 9: And are still seeing in North.
Speaker 3: Denver and other historically.
Speaker 9: Significant parts of Denver. My hope is that this effort is successful and that it could be expanded to other parts of the neighborhood.
Speaker 8: Including to my grandma and grandpa.
Speaker 3: Beautiful white stucco house in the 1400.
Speaker 9: Block of Penn. In the words of my mother, who regrettably could not.
Speaker 8: Be here in attendance tonight. Long Lincoln.
Speaker 2: Park is rich with history.
Speaker 8: And culture, and every effort should be made.
Speaker 3: To.
Speaker 9: Preserve its character.
Speaker 3: Preserving cultural space is.
Speaker 8: More than a movement. It is creating.
Speaker 2: Opportunity for housing, business growth and services.
Speaker 3: That create a.
Speaker 8: Stable community.
Speaker 3: A historical cultural district.
Speaker 9: Will help the preservation of WAMU, Lincoln Park homes in Latino.
Speaker 3: Culture. I encourage all of you to vote yes. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. We've got one speaker left on our virtual platform, and I'll go ahead and call our next three in person so we can go ahead and get you to come up to the front pew. Matt Meldrum, Emmanuel Martinez and Lucia Luna. But first, we'll go ahead and go to Helen Herron music on the virtual platform. Go ahead, please. Helen.
Speaker 8: Okay. Can you hear me?
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 9: Okay.
Speaker 3: My name.
Speaker 8: Is Helen.
Speaker 9: Joan.
Speaker 3: I am a Denver resident and also the president of La Alma Neighborhood Association in LA.
Speaker 9: My alma is the soul.
Speaker 2: And it has deep spiritual meaning.
Speaker 3: For me.
Speaker 8: Not only.
Speaker 9: Is La Alma.
Speaker 3: The soul of the neighborhood.
Speaker 9: But it was the soul of.
Speaker 3: The Chicano and Chicano movement of the sixties and seventies and the struggle for civil rights. I was there during these exciting times, and I'm proud to say today and talk about my participation in this.
Speaker 8: These historic.
Speaker 3: Moments bringing about equality for the Chicano and Chicanos in education in which they have today. There are a couple of members of city council who remember these times.
Speaker 2: Also either because of their.
Speaker 3: Participation or the participation of their parents. Designating light hearted might as a historical and cultural district will.
Speaker 2: Cement this.
Speaker 3: History.
Speaker 8: In the pages of.
Speaker 3: Denver, along with the other indigenous history, such as the Northern Cheyenne and the Arapaho.
Speaker 2: I urge the City Council to approve this.
Speaker 3: Proposal to designate La Alma as an historical and cultural district honoring the thousands and I mean thousands because I was there of young people who sacrificed so much to bring about justice and equality in education so many years ago. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Matt Meldrum. And after him, we have Emmanuel Martinez and Luca Luna. Go ahead, please.
Speaker 1: Hi, Council. Good evening. My name is Matt Meldrum and I'm a resident at 13th and Le Pen in the designated area. I'm speaking in support of the Historical District designation as a resident.
Speaker 5: Property owner and real estate professional.
Speaker 1: My partner Ashley and I have only lived in the neighborhood for three.
Speaker 5: Months, but we moved to this neighborhood and love this neighborhood because.
Speaker 10: It's one of Denver's.
Speaker 1: Oldest residential neighborhoods rich in history. Culture, architecture.
Speaker 5: Arts and much more. Having lived in several other.
Speaker 1: Neighborhoods across Denver, I've seen how quickly.
Speaker 5: Neighborhoods can lose their.
Speaker 1: Charm, character and historical sense of community. This this proposal will protect and honor this neighborhood's rich history, architecture and soul. Which is why I'm in support of the historical cultural district designation. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Emmanuel Martinez.
Speaker 5: Thank you. I'm a former resident of the Lama Park neighborhood. My wife, Soledad, who is also an activist and and my two daughters at the time lived in the housing projects at 13th and Navajo from 1969 to 1972. During this time, I became a community activist and muralist. I was president of the Lincoln Park Tenant Council, member on the West Side Action Council and on the West Side in the West Side Coalition. I was also a lifeguard at the Lincoln Park School and I found a llama recreation center and served as its first director. In 1971 with community volunteers, we painted the first Colorado community murals on a swimming pool. Bathhouses. And the First Loma Recreation Center. Later in 1978, we volunteered to paint the existing mural at the new recreation center. Law firm of Lincoln Park is not only one of Denver's oldest residential neighborhoods. It is the center of how a community came together and took over the park to include community residents to work for Parks and Recreation. The actions we made at home set the example for other parks in Denver to follow, like La Raza in the North Side. Mestizo Curtis Park on the east side. Longmont neighborhood embodies Denver's history of civil rights and was the heart of the Chicano movement of the 1960s and 1970s. For example, the 1969 West High School walkout was inspired by this movement because of my past experiences. I have a very special place in my heart for this neighborhood. So for the last few years, I have been working as an artist with other community members on this project to document the neighborhood's history and buildings. We want to protect and honor the unique historic context and cultural heritage of the neighborhood from its beginning in the 1870s to its role in fostering Denver's Chicano movement. I was very involved in the police confrontation riots that took place in the Lama neighborhood and was arrested at the West High walk out. I support the project team that has worked so hard to develop the current proposal to create the Lama Lincoln Park Historical Cultural District. This designation will include flexible design guidelines to protect the things that make the neighborhood unique with historical significance. This will also send a strong message to the local and national Chicano community, especially to those of us who sacrificed a lot to give the neighborhood pride, dignity and a sense of brotherhood. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Lucha Luna.
Speaker 3: I thank you. So I'm director of the Chicano Murals of.
Speaker 0: Colorado Project and.
Speaker 3: Also associate.
Speaker 0: Curator of Latino.
Speaker 3: Heritage at History, Colorado. I'm going to repeat a little bit of what my father just said, but I felt I should tell you a little story.
Speaker 0: A little.
Speaker 3: My father and then a man led Martinez and my mother, Soledad, three, whom met.
Speaker 0: During the early.
Speaker 3: Years of El Movimiento. They traveled to California in 1966 to support Dolores Huerta and Cesar Chavez, participated in the L.A. High School walkouts, where my mother was.
Speaker 0: Brutally beaten.
Speaker 3: Over the head with a baton by a policeman. My parents made many sacrifices.
Speaker 0: To fight for a cause. They truly.
Speaker 3: Believed in social.
Speaker 0: Justice and equality.
Speaker 3: They were exposed to many dangers supporting the land rights movement in New Mexico. Supporting the movement in Denver as well. My father created art to support all three movements, but longed to paint murals that told and.
Speaker 2: Describe.
Speaker 0: The story of our rich heritage.
Speaker 2: Of the.
Speaker 3: Hispano, Chicano and Mexicans.
Speaker 0: That lived.
Speaker 3: In Colorado and were.
Speaker 0: Absent from all historical textbooks in the DPS.
Speaker 3: Curriculum. In 1969, my parents moved into.
Speaker 0: The Lincoln Housing.
Speaker 3: Projects and quickly began an arts youth program that my father.
Speaker 0: Mentioned earlier.
Speaker 3: In.
Speaker 0: Where we lived.
Speaker 3: In the Lincoln Housing Projects. My parents began with painting.
Speaker 0: The facade of the.
Speaker 2: Housing projects.
Speaker 3: And obviously the city was not very happy with that, but they.
Speaker 0: Were very determined to paint these murals. They later.
Speaker 2: Started.
Speaker 3: An arts and crafts program that my father mentioned, and.
Speaker 0: With youth.
Speaker 3: They built and they painted these first.
Speaker 0: Murals.
Speaker 3: And began the mural movement. Today, there is a supposed mural movement going on that.
Speaker 0: Fails to acknowledge this history. And we are also experiencing.
Speaker 3: In one of the cultural historic.
Speaker 0: Districts.
Speaker 3: Five points, the art washing that is currently happening. And I really hope that if this passes that it is not considered a.
Speaker 0: Target for.
Speaker 3: Lawma. We need to be responsible. We need to protect.
Speaker 0: Our murals.
Speaker 3: And our visual heritage. But we cannot.
Speaker 2: Allow.
Speaker 3: This to happen like it did in five points.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. All right. We're going to go ahead and transition. I believe the rest of our speakers are on the virtual platform. Next up is Christine Spargo.
Speaker 2: Hi.
Speaker 9: Hello.
Speaker 0: Hi. Go ahead.
Speaker 9: Hi. My name is Christine. All right. Christine Sprague and I am a resident at 1165 Lappin Street. So I'm house in the designated area. I'm currently serving as the president of the Lincoln Park Neighborhood Association, which acquired the grant back in 2016. And I am here in support of the. Historic cultural designation just in the time I've been involved with the association the entire time, but not in the.
Speaker 5: Actual cultural.
Speaker 9: District process. But just in going back on my notes, I counted over 15 in-person meetings. For the community that were held, as well as numerous door knocking and firing opportunities that happened. So I think there's been a lot of opportunity for lots of great feedback and I appreciate the council considering this. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, we have Anthony Garcia.
Speaker 5: Hello.
Speaker 9: Recording in Progress.
Speaker 1: Performing Arts Center on seventh in Santa Fe. I was born in the what is called the agrarian neighborhood on seventh and Tampa, but I lived also at 1111, Santa Fe and on 10th and Kalamazoo as well. I lived in a Denver that was incredibly segregated, north and south somewhat. I remember when I was a kid working out, walking down on first and and Broadway and some kids pulled up, white kids pulled up in a pickup truck and they yelled at me to go back to where I came from, which kind of stumped me because I thought they meant the West Side, because that's the world I knew. That West Side neighborhood that we lived in was actually a place where there was some elements of protection that existed there for us in a very in a racist world. The the neighborhood by the time I got to the seventies, as I was growing up, the the the arts, the cultural movement began to grow should they outgrow, which I'm a part of. We had one of our first spaces was at the Denver inner city parish. And Manuel Martinez, as you heard, he's very modest. He doesn't mention that he studied with the great David Siqueiros, one of the great three great muralists of Mexico, bringing that tradition from its origin point to to Denver. Now we talk, as Lucia was saying, we talk about the great muralist movement here in Colorado, in Denver, and we forget that it actually began in in Denver and it began in Lincoln Park, La Mullica Park. One of these days, we're going to walk by that mural in Longmont, and we're going to say that mural is Emmanuel Martinez. That should be a landmark for our city. I think we have a way. We forget sometimes how important we are in that national movement, that the West type blowouts was not only significant by what it changed here, but it's about how it influenced the national dialog taking place among Chicanos. It was where it began. A spirited stand was developed in order to influence all these other people. So I would offer that this is really a story about community culture and social justice and how those come together. But also it's about a question of place who belongs here and who doesn't. When those murals went up, when the theater performed in the parks, it was a conversation that said We actually belong. This is a ratification of that concept. The video.
Speaker 0: All right. I think we might have lost Tony and. Oh, there we go. We've got you, Tony. Sorry about that. I think we had something in our. Channel eight that interrupted you. So I'm sorry. Go ahead and finish your comments, please, sir. Can you hear us? Tony. All right. I think we've maybe lost the audio feed for Mr. Garcia, unless. Tony, can you hear us? Okay. We'll go ahead and move to our next speaker and see if we can figure out the audio issue that we're having here. But thank you, Mr. Garcia, for your comments. Our next speaker. We're going to go ahead and try to shift to our next speaker, Jessie Parris. All right. I'm not quite sure we're going to try. We're going to get our. Okay. It's saying that the Zoom feed has been denied for some reason, but I think we've got our next speaker up here, so we'll go ahead and try to continue on here. So go ahead, Jesse. We've got Jesse Paris up next. Go ahead, please. And I know we've I believe we have you unmuted on our side, but we're going to go ahead and just take a quick second. Just hang on for a second, Jesse. We're having a. Oh, there we go. Uh huh. Go ahead.
Speaker 9: Just recording in progress.
Speaker 1: I'm represented for Flextronics to move for self defense. Positive action can move for social change as well as the Unity Party of Colorado. Front line Black knows and I will be the next mayor of Denver in 2023. I am in favor of the preservation of Lincoln la la la llama Lincoln Park. So my I am a West High graduate. I graduated from West High in 2005 with two diplomas, one from West High and one from the Denver Center International Center for International Studies. And yeah, I am very familiar with the history and the culture of the West Side of Denver, so I am definitely in favor of this. Please pass this tonight. This is a long time coming. The only thing I'm concerned about is the fact that. This being a cultural district. The second after five points, which is the first culturally black district in Denver. This will be the first culturally Hispanic or Latino district in Denver. The essence of the significance of this would be more rapid gentrification of the area. Five Points is not. Affordable anymore. They're rapidly gentrified out of it. So though it has a cultural significance of historical significance and designation. It does not mean that the neighborhood, the people that made the neighborhood what it is, can still afford to live there. So I would hate to see that happen one week apart in the surrounding area of Lincoln, part of the neighborhood of Lincoln Park. But. That aside, I am in favor of this rezoning for my preservation tonight. Please pass this. This is a long time coming, as heard from the numerous speakers tonight. This will be the first of its kind in Denver or the second of its kind in Denver of this sort. So please pass this. The first vocal minority of people of color communities in Denver.
Speaker 9: Recording in progress.
Speaker 1: Fact in history from the history books it needs to be incorporated. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Laura Gomez. All right. It doesn't look like we have Laura there. We're going to go ahead and go to our next speaker, Alexis Prieto. All right. Our next speaker, we don't seem to have Alexis, Aaron or Leo. Okay. It seems like we lost some of our virtual participants. We'll go ahead and go a layup, though. Zachary Lovato. No. Okay. Elvia a regular. All right. Our next speaker is Tess Storti.
Speaker 8: I thank you, counsel. And I just want to acknowledge that we are on these stolen occupied land of the Arapaho, Ute and Cheyenne and and that we still see the the history of colonization and and extraction capitalism going on in this city today. And I just want to thank all of the organizers and everyone who worked on this. It's a really historic moment. And and it's really beautiful to see in the city that has not historically represented this type of preservation or action for people of the global majority. And so. I. I just am I really I was I've just been thinking about what some of what the other speakers said. The the comments about, you know, who belongs and who is allowed to to hold on to the ties to the land and to the houses that their that their ancestors lived in and helped create in this city. Because we, you know, before long the Lincoln Park. Well, not before, but, you know, alongside the area neighborhood, the oldest neighborhood in Denver existed and through a through federal tax dollars and a bond that Denver voters voted on, that money was used to displace people and build the and build the college campus. And there's a lot of that history that feels very feels very relevant today and looks like it may be repeating itself. So I just encourage us to think about. Making more decisions like this that don't require a historic preservation or five years of plus years of organizing, or that this be the norm, that this become the standard that is used rather than the exception, because that's what we need in the city. And that's what we would like. And. And it doesn't feel like this is the norm at all. So, you know, it shouldn't take this for people to be able to remain in the spaces that they have helped create in the city. So thank you. Thank you. Please pass this.
Speaker 0: In our last speaker this evening is Rosemary Rodriguez. And it doesn't look like we have her in the Zoom platform either. So that is going to conclude our speakers this evening. Questions from members of Council on Council Bill 758 Council Member Sawyer. Oh, you know what? I know this is in Councilwoman.
Speaker 9: Torres's district, so if she would like to go first, she's welcome.
Speaker 0: To. All right, we usually do that for commerce, but we can go ahead and do that on questions as well. Go ahead, Councilor Pro-Tem. Thank you so much. Thank you, Councilman Slater. One, if Tony Garcia is still in the zoom, I wanted to see if we could give him an opportunity to finish his comments. No. He's gone. Okay. Thank you so much. I do have a couple questions. Both probably for Karen, as well as any Levinsky. And I think we've heard quite a bit and some very specific numbers around outreach that was done. So I think my questions were answered throughout the process on what took place there. I am curious, Kara, if you can provide some insight on the custom design guidelines specifically because we got questions over email. How does it provide flexibility? That's been mentioned a couple of times. And affordability.
Speaker 3: Yes. So the customized design guidelines are currently in draft form when Preservation Commission couldn't prove or adopt design guidelines for a district that was not in existence. So if this is approved tonight, it will go to the Landmark Preservation Commission tomorrow at their meeting for a discussion item. What the customized design guidelines currently in draft form provide flexibility on primarily materials and on fencing, which are two of the things that we found through work with the community, that these are things that are part of the character of Alma Lincoln Park because the proposed historic districts period of significance or the time period that it's important goes into the 1980s. Materials like vinyl siding and vinyl windows, premise stone, those are all things that are part of the historic character of the district as we have walked the neighborhood. We would guesstimate about 80 to 90% of the windows have been replaced with things like vinyl windows. So it's a lot of flexibility with the types of materials that could be used if they were wanting to make changes. So that's primarily where the flexibility lies as currently drafted.
Speaker 0: Okay. So there's. So the flexibility is what provides for some of the affordability because you have more options to choose from.
Speaker 3: Yes. Yes. Yes. So it does so so that you don't have to go back and replace vinyl windows with wood windows, which would be a more costly thing. So the flexibility provides a lot more affordability in terms of materials that can be used on both contributing or non contributing houses. Great.
Speaker 0: Okay. The next question I have is about the impact of designation on property values. Either what you've seen take place in other districts, whether they're and I know property values throughout Denver have just exponentially increased. So if it's hard to tell, I think that's telling as well. But I'm interested in what you've seen with other designations.
Speaker 3: So there's been studies on both a nationwide level and on the state of Colorado about historic districts. And they've studied three different districts within Denver, and they basically have found that the property values in historic districts are slightly above the property values of those surrounding it, but very slightly so. It's pretty much a stabilizing influence, however, in today's market. The studies have not really looked at something like this that has this amount of exponential growth and rising costs.
Speaker 0: Okay. Um, and then my last question might be actually for Annie. If you can describe a little bit about what kinds of funds owners can tap into if they're if they live in a historically designated area that they could in before. Sure, yeah. The primary financial program for residential owners is the state preservation tax credit. So it's a state level credit. It can cover 20 to 25% of qualified rehabilitation costs. So the kinds of things you need to keep the building.
Speaker 2: In good condition roofs.
Speaker 0: Foundations, windows, heating and cooling systems, you know, the basic things that you need in the house can can be eligible for that credit and owners can spread it over ten years. So if they have a relatively small tax credit or tax burden, it's something they can spread over a longer period of time in order to take advantage . There are other programs that are not tied specifically to the designation, like Debra's Home Homeowner Program, which we did share with owners as we were working on this project to make sure that people knew there were a variety of tools. There are also state historical fund grants. The grants are typically best for nonprofit owners, so some of the institutions in the district like Denver A.C Parrish, would certainly be competitive for those single family homes. Less likely, although if it's a highly significant home, there is always a potential for those grants as well. They're just a competitive program. Great. Thank you. Those are all my questions. Thank you. All right. Thank you, counsel pro tem Torres. All right. We're back up to Councilmember Sawyer. Go ahead, please.
Speaker 9: Thanks, Madam President. Just had a question for I guess probably this is for Annie around the arts. So we heard a lot of testimony this evening about the murals and how incredibly important they are to the character of the neighborhood. But it doesn't.
Speaker 0: Seem.
Speaker 9: Clear that they will be maintained. So how does how does that work? Can you just.
Speaker 0: Tell me a little bit more about that? Sure. I'll do my best. And certainly you could speak with Luca as well, because we've been working with Lucia on project, on efforts around murals in general. So the the I guess the the catch is that in historic districts, in order for something to be designed, reviewed, it has to require a permit. And painting doesn't require a permit.
Speaker 3: So there's no sort.
Speaker 0: Of nexus at the city permitting level to review that. But the designation does make the murals eligible for other programs just by virtue of being on contributing buildings in the district. So I mentioned the grant program, so restoration and repair of the murals would be eligible also by becoming contributing buildings in a district. Private preservation easements could be put on the buildings now, probably not on the public rec center, but potentially on the on the private properties, working with the owners to put in more intensive protections. And then we're working with Lucia's organization on other ways that we can enhance the protections for murals citywide, not just in this area. So it's an evolving conversation, but this is a first step.
Speaker 3: Got it. Okay. Thanks. Thanks so much, Madam President.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Sophia. Next up, we have Councilmember Flynn.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Madam President. I care. I have a couple questions I just need some clarification on because some of the. Material is gives us sort of a different type of district than more traditionally, especially in the use of nonstandard materials and their allowance. And so I just want make sure that I understand and that the property owners understand also. So with the houses that have not yet. Had any alterations of any significance from their original state be permitted to use some of the nonstandard materials if they needed to upgrade, say, original windows, would they be permitted to use vinyl windows in? I just want to be really clear on this that I understand it.
Speaker 3: Right? So what we discussed with a lot of the community members in the working group was that the importance of things like Windows and Doors was that the proportions stayed the same. So you didn't enlarge the windows, you didn't enlarge the doors, but that the materials weren't particularly important. And so that that that's what's currently drafted in the design guidelines. It does, however, call out a few character defining windows that are there are few like leaded glass windows on the front facade. So it's on really readily visible facades, which would be the front or perhaps a little bit corner on the side for those. But the currently as drafted, the design guidelines call for the retention of the the size and the proportion of the window, but not necessarily the materials.
Speaker 7: Okay. Would they, for instance, would a replacement window work to be vinyl? Would it have to resemble the original window or could it be, you know, double hung, that sort of thing?
Speaker 3: It currently calls for it to be of a historic operation. So if it was a slider, it could be a slider. If it was a double hung, it should cost for it to be a double home.
Speaker 7: Is there some concern? Is there an added consideration here? If we were to not permit, for instance, windows that could not be operated, if they were if replacement Windows had the same operation as the original, might not be operable, say, by a person who could not stand up or was in a wheelchair. Would there be accommodation for that?
Speaker 3: There could be an accommodation. I actually am looking at my manager who does more design review than I do. And so if you can allow Jennifer Capello to answer that question, she might be a little bit better to answer how that would be.
Speaker 7: Thank you. Hi, Jennifer. The reason I ask is because I know that this was a consideration in the in one of the restorations in my district.
Speaker 3: Okay. Good evening.
Speaker 0: I'm Jen Capello. I'm Landmark Preservation Staff Manager.
Speaker 2: So to answer the question.
Speaker 3: Is there accommodation for accessibility? Is that okay? We work closely.
Speaker 0: With the building department on whatever their requirements are. And so our.
Speaker 3: Requirements.
Speaker 0: Typically don't override accessibility requirements, but we try to work on.
Speaker 3: Some common ground so that there can be we.
Speaker 0: Can achieve compliance with the code as well as compliance with preservation.
Speaker 3: Requirements.
Speaker 7: Okay. Flex flexible.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 7: Okay. Kara, thank you. And I'm very happy to hear that. By the way, I think this is this is maybe a little a hole in the hole in the wall that might lead to a little more flexibility elsewhere. Does including the park itself in the district convey any review powers to landmarks, staff over the Parks Department or the Parks Department to want to do some additional work in the park? I know that we have some districts that include parks like, I believe, Alamo Placid. The park is included in that historic district, but I don't think there are any habitable structures there here. We do have one. So is there was there discussion with parks about any potential conflicts or how to resolve those things?
Speaker 3: Yeah. So there was discussion with parks and within the design guidelines, there's intent linkage at the front of these customized design guidelines with the intent that the continued use of the park is paramount and that it's called out within the designation that there are a few contributing buildings or structures. So the rec center, there's an amphitheater, an a still a stone wall, and then what was historically known as the neighborhood house. So those are called out as contributing structures. And so if parks would pull a zoning R building permit, that would go through landmark review. However, as it's zoned as. OSA. I believe there are not particularly there aren't a lot of zoning permits that are pulled under that zoned district. So Landmark would have review if they made changes to the rec center. But it's really clearly called out in the intent language. That landmark is not going to review vegetation. It's not something we have purview over. We wanted to specifically call it out and that it is important that it retains its use as the nature of a park. And that landmark does not want to review changes to their walkways or changes to, if they want to put some change , a baseball field to a basketball field. That's not something that we want to be reviewing.
Speaker 7: Okay. Oh, thank you for that. By the way, I've always been intrigued by that. Stonewall talked about the one on Osage. Correct. On the west side of the park.
Speaker 5: Is that and.
Speaker 7: How old is that? We know the providence of that structure.
Speaker 3: I believe it's the 1930s I. It could be related to, you know, a key project or some site of sort of public works. But I believe it dates to a 1930s. Okay.
Speaker 7: Last question to you. Zoning, would the designation of this as a landmark district have any significant impact or design restrictions or on the potential for a property owner to add on or. I know there was Annie. I believe you talked about a tandem house, for instance, that sort of thing. Could you talk a little more about what you see is the impact on developing a single unit lot under the to use zoning as as a twin unit or a two unit, rather.
Speaker 3: Yes. So Landmark is supportive of things like to use in tandem houses that provide density to a historic district. It would follow the design guidelines for infill construction, which is not something that's really proposed. There aren't many changes proposed in that for the draft design guidelines, but Landmark would be supportive of take them house or EDU, something like that. That would provide additional density if the primary structure is a contributing structure. It is unlikely that it would be allowed for demolition. It would go to the Landmark Preservation Commission for their review and they very, very rarely approve contributing buildings for demolition. But if they wanted to add a tandem house at the rear, that would be something that would be supported by landmark staff.
Speaker 7: Right. Certainly not talking about any demolition, but about the potential for within the rules to add on, say, in the rear. And I'm supposing that staff has looked at all of the the setbacks and what percentage and how far back in the lot on a historic designated parcel can be built, etc.. And we're satisfied that tandem house, for example, could be a building for them.
Speaker 3: I mean, that would probably be more zoning in terms of like where it could be placed in the landmark.
Speaker 7: All right. Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Flynn. And seeing no other speakers in the queue. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 758 Council Pro Tem Tours. Thank you, Madam President. I want to express such sincere thanks to all of the public speakers tonight and the residents and organizations who have worked this effort through for for nearly five years. All anyone had to do was connect with the R.A., with the local organizations, to know that this has been a priority and it's been discussed consistently over that entire time. Historic designation is our human attempt to ensure our roots are forgotten, erased, built over. And every day in Denver, I see our city disappearing. Our roots are in events, they're in buildings, they're in people and arts and murals. All of these are at play in this proposed district. It is a deeply emotional designation and one that I think we all take really seriously. The addition of culture to our landmark criteria opened the door for some long overdue acknowledgment in this case of the birth and impact of Chicano history in Denver. Our effort is supported by multiple neighborhood associations and residents who collaborated and hosted walking tours and community meetings for over five years to shape and support this proposal. We are long overdue for this recognition of llama Lincoln Park. We will collectively, as an entire city, miss these homes if they are raised. I would like to actually see the boundaries expanded over time. I think there's a lot more of the neighborhood that could stand to be preserved. Buildings and property exist in context. And the context here is the history of the neighborhood. They are hand in hand and there are few tools to capture and retain their importance. Zoning alone doesn't protect historic homes. The loan doesn't protect. Murals and it doesn't acknowledge historical roots or culture. Our action here tonight is what protects them. I have heard concern on multiple sides of coins that designation will increase property values or decrease property values. This neighborhood's property values are increasing, which is exactly why this designation is so important because of the funding streams that open up for residents to stay in those homes. There's been a lot of effort to ensure that design standards for community developed and with intentional flexibility to ensure updating remodeling can still be done well into the future while still maintaining the character of housing and identity aimed for preservation. Tonight, my colleague, Councilman Sandoval, pointed me to two builds in the Potter Highlands historic district that look very different from one another, but both of which comply with the district designation rules as well as design overlay. These things are possible. I want to point to a section of Tony Garcia's letters in support tonight, because it was. One of the most compelling things that I read as we seek collectively new solutions for the problems of gentrification, we must also shift our understanding of the people we are displacing and the cultures and histories we are embracing. Communities have long histories and their physical presence and emotional resonance comes from the people who call the community their home. The project provides a crucial understanding of who we are and who we have been. It gives us insight. We need to move forward to create a future that is more just an equitable, rich and evocative and represents the inclusive and dynamic community building that is so important to neighborhoods that thrive. My thanks to soothe the outro to new said to Museo de las Americas to the Casa Maya, Denver, Inner City Parish, Chicano murals of Colorado and Manuel Martinez into for you. And thank you to the applicants Fatima Allison, Felix, Mary and Kathy and everyone who provided support tonight and thrilled to vote yes. And I asked my colleagues to support tonight's cultural historic district in llama Lincoln Park. Thank you. Thank you, counsel pro tem Torres. Next up, we have Councilmember Sandoval.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Madam President. It is my honor to support this application tonight. I was thinking back to my work in Council District nine in the Lamar Lincoln Park neighborhood, and when I started in there working for Councilman Monteiro, it was just Lincoln Park. The park was not named La Alma. And I remember doing research, reading article after article about the history of the West Side, the marches that happened in the West Side, learning about Emanuel and his mural and La Alma the soul. And I think that that resonates the most with me tonight sitting here. So it is my honor to be up here and be able to vote on this. I was a council aide and we worked on adding the honor to Lincoln Park officially to make it the whole entire neighborhood, LA on the Lincoln Park and make officially the park llama. And it is my great pleasure to support this cultural district. I want to work on one in my neighborhood for the Orthodox Jewish community, and I think this paved the way to how to do it, especially the design standards that are more equitable. And I think of what Ian Tafoya said in his comments about Blueprint Denver and working on equity. And I remember when you held it up to talk about equity, so thank you for doing that because tonight we have outcomes from that work that you're doing. So thank you for all the sponsors and thank you for all being here with us in person and those who are virtual. And you have my support. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Sandoval, Councilmember Flynn.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Madam President. And thank you, Councilwoman Sandoval, for what you just said, because this city has such a rich history and it's a lot of it is on the west side. And it's just my pleasure to support this tonight. And it's long overdue. The this la alma neighborhood has such is so deep in history from before before the white settlers came along. And it has a rich history that is also very sad. It was this is not in this district boundary, but just to the west of it where Camp Weld was located in the in the Hunter subdivision from where the Colorado volunteers set out for Sand Creek. So there's a lot of a lot of terrible Colorado history associated here as well. When I about 15 years ago, when I was at the newspaper and RTD was starting its West Corridor Light Rail project, I had the opportunity to produce a series on the corn , the history of that west corridor. And it started right where the tracks diverged from the RTD main line, and they went right through the north part of this neighborhood. And one of the most profound experiences I had in learning about the history, the human history of this city and the rich history of LA and the Lincoln Park was when I went down to the Western History Department of Denver Public Library and looked at the criss cross directories. And I remember around the turn of the century being so moved by the diverse population of this neighborhood. And I know that the staff report spoke to this in in in just in general detail. You could you would see Mexican names. You would see Eastern European. You would see a synagogue next to a a a Latino church. And it was just very rich and it's all gone. All of that is gone. Star Bakery is gone. You know, a lot of the foundation of this neighborhood is gone. The the railroad, the Burnham yard is gone. But we can't forget. What they produced here. And this will go a long way to preserving that history. And I think it's long overdue and I'm happy to support it. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Flynn. And I'll go ahead and add a few remarks here. I want to thank the community members and advocates who shared their stories with us tonight. That becomes your history and culture when people are able to share stories and the history of the area. And your love and your passion for your neighborhood came through tonight. And it was hard for me not to too to say, well, you're repeating some things, but really you didn't because you all gave such personal stories about why this area is so important and why we should vote to make it a historic and cultural district. And I'm very, very honored, having been here in person, listening to the stories both in-person and virtual, to support this tonight and want to congratulate Council Pro-Tem Torres, because this is a huge accomplishment and a huge left. And I know exactly how you were able to accomplish it because you had the community walking beside you with you every step of the way. And I'm happy to support this, this evening. All right. We will go ahead, Madam Secretary. Roll call on Council Bill 758, please.
Speaker 2: Torres. I black. I.
Speaker 6: CdeBaca. I. Clerk.
Speaker 5: I.
Speaker 6: Flynn.
Speaker 7: I.
Speaker 6: Hines.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 6: Cashman. I can. Age. I. Sandoval.
Speaker 8: I.
Speaker 6: Sawyer. I. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 6: 11 Eyes.
Speaker 0: 11 eyes counsel build 20 1-758 has passed there being no further business before this body. This meeting is adjourned.
|
Bill
|
AS AMENDED A bill for an ordinance designating the La Alma Lincoln Park Historic Cultural District as a district for preservation.
Approves the designation of La Alma Lincoln Park as a district for preservation, roughly bounded by 14th Avenue on the north, Kalamath Street on the west, 10th Avenue on the south, and Mariposa Street and La Alma Lincoln Park on the west in Council District 3. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 7-13-21. Amended 7-26-21 to reduce the size of the proposed historic district by amending its legal description. The new legal description removes 2 noncontributing properties on the edge of the proposed district boundary.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_07262021_21-0758
|
Speaker 0: No items have been called out. Madam Secretary, please put the first item on our screen. Council members say to Barca, Please put Council Bill 21, Dash 758 on the floor for publication.
Speaker 6: And move that council bill 21, Dash 758, be ordered published.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It's been moved and seconded. Councilmember Torres, your motion to amend.
Speaker 9: Thank you. Thank you. Council President I move that council build 20 1-0758 be amended in the following particulars. Online five strike online on page five, line nine strike and on page five, insert two new lines after line nine to read as follows. BLOCK 14 lots one through 20 and lots 25 through 40. BLOCK 23 lots one through 14 and lots, 19 through 38. And on page five, line ten strike 14 and 23 respectively.
Speaker 0: Thank you. We have the motion. We need a second. Are we good, Madam Secretary? Okay. We're going to see here.
Speaker 7: Yep. It's been seconded. Thank you. Has it.
Speaker 0: Been seconded? All right. We weren't seeing it show up. Thank you. There's a little bit of a lag with the system. All right. It's been moved and seconded comments by members of Council on the Amendment. Council Pro Tem Torres.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Madam President. So the purpose of the amendment is to remove corner non contributing lots of the proposed historic district by amending the legal description. And the new legal description removes two non contributing properties which are on the edge of the proposed boundary. I've been in communication with the owners of the two lots, the cultural historic district applicants who are residents of Lamar Lincoln Park, Historic Denver and the Landmark Division folks on this and all agree that removing the parcels suits with the stakeholders and doesn't impact the integrity of the district boundaries or the integrity of the process that's been done thus far. We have folks in the room if there are any questions.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, counsel. Pro Tem Torres. Not seeing any hands raised to speak or request to speak now. Madam Secretary, roll call on the amendment.
Speaker 7: Torres, I Clark. I see. Tobacco. I Flynn. I Herndon. I Cashman. I commit i. Sandoval, i. Sire, i. Madam President.
Speaker 9: I.
Speaker 0: Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 7: Ten Eyes.
Speaker 0: Ten Eyes. Council Bill 20 1-7 58 has been amended. Council members say to Barca, Please put Council Bill 20 1-0758 on the floor for publication as amended.
Speaker 6: I move that council bill 20 1-758 be published as amended.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It's been moved and seconded. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 20 10758. Councilmember Torres.
Speaker 9: No comments.
Speaker 0: All right. Seen no one else asking to speak. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 21, Dash 758 as amended.
Speaker 7: Last. I see tobacco. I when.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 7: Opened in.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 7: Cashman. I can each I. Sandoval, i. Sawyer, I. Torres, I. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 7: Ten Eyes.
Speaker 0: Ten Eyes Council Bill 20 1-7 58 has been ordered published as amended. That concludes the items to be called out. All other bills for introduction are ordered published. Council members remember 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 CdeBaca, 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. These are all 21 series 763 764 765 766 771 768 769 589 seven 6762 seven, 54, seven, 51. And that is it.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. It's been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, Roll Call.
Speaker 7: Black Eye CdeBaca. I swing. I Herndon. I Cashman. I can each find Sandoval, I. Sawyer, I. Torres, I. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 7: Ten Eyes.
Speaker 0: Ten 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 21, dash 526 changing the zoning classification for 401240404046 and 4058.
|
Bill
|
AS AMENDED A bill for an ordinance designating the La Alma Lincoln Park Historic Cultural District as a district for preservation.
Approves the designation of La Alma Lincoln Park as a district for preservation, roughly bounded by 14th Avenue on the north, Kalamath Street on the west, 10th Avenue on the south, and Mariposa Street and La Alma Lincoln Park on the west in Council District 3. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 7-13-21. Amended 7-26-21 to reduce the size of the proposed historic district by amending its legal description. The new legal description removes 2 noncontributing properties on the edge of the proposed district boundary.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_07262021_21-0553
|
Speaker 0: Per council bill 553 on the floor for final passage.
Speaker 6: Yes. I move that council bill 20 1-5 53 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 553 is open. May we have the staff report? And I see we have James here. Go ahead, please.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Madam President. James Van Duzer, CPD. It's a pleasure to be presenting in front of you in person. I presented in front of you a lot, but I've never seen your face.
Speaker 1: Well, welcome to the street.
Speaker 10: Before you today requested rezoning at 930 North Bryant Street 2449 West 10th Avenue, one North Walcott Way. The request is to go from x eight to see m x 12. Located in Council District three. Jamie Torres is district in the Sun Valley neighborhood. This property is located within the Denver housing authorities. Sun Valley Homes Affordable housing development is approximately 3.28 acres and currently consists of one and two story multi-unit residential buildings. I will note that many of these. How about that full screen? Most of the buildings are currently vacant in anticipation of the larger redevelopment of the Sun Valley homes. The proposed zoning district is to go to Cemex 12, which is a mixed use district that allows for mixed use development. The existing zoning is S.R. eight, which is an eight storey residential mixed use zone district. The property is surrounded by OSA and other C are x eight parcels. Existing land uses multi-unit residential surrounded by other multi-unit, residential and industrial to the south. Some photos for context. The photos on the left are typical of the Sun Valley homes and affordable housing complexes of the school to the north, and then some industrial buildings to the south and to the west. Process. This was unanimously recommended for approval at Planning Board back in May and Luti sent it to the full council on May 18. Looking at our review criteria we have for consistency with adopted plans, we have current plan 2040 Blueprint, Denver, Housing and Inclusive, Denver and the Decatur Federal Station Plan as outlined in the staff report. The proposed rezoning is consistent with a number of plan 2040 goals. Looking at Blueprint Denver for the Urban Center Neighborhood Context. The Urban Center context is intended to promote safe, active and pedestrian scaled diverse areas through the use of building forms that clearly activate the public. Street and urban centers are characterized by a high mix of uses throughout the area, with multi-unit, residential, typically in multistory and mixed use building forms. The proposed TMX 12 zone district is a mixed use district which are focused on creating mixed, diverse neighborhoods. Looking at our future place types. This parcel is in a community center, which is a mix of office, commercial and residential uses. Buildings are larger in scale than local centers and orient to the street or the public spaces and building heights are generally up to 12 stories. Looking at our street types, this parcel to be re zoned is also currently undergoing an infrastructure master plan with our colleagues at Development Services. We will see a reconnection of the historic grid, including a reconnection of 10th Avenue and a reconnecting of Bryant Street. 10th Avenue is designated as a main street pursuant to the Decatur Federal Stationary Plan, and Brien Street will remain a local or a designated. Future Growth strategy. A community center where we anticipate seeing 25% of new housing and 20% of new employment by 2040. Looking at housing inclusive. Denver One of the goals of this plan is to promote development of new, affordable, mixed income and mixed use rental housing. There are a number of restrictions currently in place on this property and that will go into the future, including a current HUD declaration of trust recorded against this property which restricts it to use as affordable housing. And then there will be a land use restriction agreement filed with chapter for a 40 year term of affordability. And finally, this property is subject to the agreement between the city and DOJ, which requires permanent affordability on this site. Looking at consistency with the Decatur Federal Station Area Plan is located in a transit oriented development character area, which sees the highest intensity of development and mixture of multi-family, residential office and commercial land uses. The plan also states that the urban center neighborhood context menu of zone districts are the most appropriate for this location. I will mention the federal station. The Decatur Federal Station Area Plan has high guidance of up to five stories. However, staff does find that the requested CMCs 12 stories is consistent with the totality of plan guidance from the Decatur Federal Station area plan and the plans in general. Criteria. Number two is is a uniform zoned district furthers criteria three, furthers public health, safety and welfare by the implementation of adopted plans and providing better health outcomes through increased physical activity that is inherent in mixed use districts where you can live, work and play all in the same area. The applicant and the staff report list change or changing conditions in the neighborhood and West Denver in general as a justifying circumstance. And the proposal is consistent with the neighborhood context, district, purpose and intent. Filing the application to be consistent with all five criteria CPD apologists, I should say. City Council Planning Board. CPD recommends City Council approve the application.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, James, and great to see you here in person. After an entire year of seeing you via Zoom meetings, we have three folks signed up to speak this evening and we've got a couple of folks in chambers. So we'll ask you to go ahead and come to the first pew here. We've got Ryan Tobin and Jean Granville. And once Ryan gets up here, Ryan, you're first.
Speaker 4: First.
Speaker 3: I'm sure. Well, I was just so glad to see you right out of that chief real estate investment officer for Denver Housing Authority. And I'm overseeing the redevelopment in Sun Valley. I can give you a few details about the project if you want. I didn't have any formal remarks. Oftentimes, I would love to address questions if you have them use the time that way. Generally speaking, the project proposal on this site is a collective effort between multiple housing sites and different years of textured applications. The one specifically that is tied to the 12 stories old district is a senior high rise, 100% affordable, serving 0 to 60% am I. Over half of those units are proposed to be subsidized to support very low income, while the remaining balance of those units will be at 60% of your money. The adjacent building that will start construction later this year is also benefiting from the proposed rezoning, with the second story utilization on a ground floor commercial space that will provide a greenhouse to allow for production of food and access to healthy food in our neighborhood on a year round basis. So each of these programs are part of a total redevelopment that's underway. The first phase has just opened up here in the last couple of months and are starting to be occupied. But in total, almost 960 units of total housing that will be really a catalyst to the redevelopment that's mentioned and in conjunction with the large infrastructure plans that are also nearing completion. And we'll start construction by first quarter of next year. With that, I'll take a few moments for any questions you might have.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Ryan. We're going to go ahead and get through our public speakers and we'll bring you up if anybody has questions. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, we have Jean Granville.
Speaker 6: Good evening. My name is Gene Gristmill, here in support for S.B. 553.
Speaker 0: We might need you to go ahead and pull the mic just right down closer to you, Jean. Yep. Perfect. There you go. And just speak right into it. We should be able to pick you up.
Speaker 6: So I'm here in support of CB five, five, three. And thank you for your consideration tonight. And I'm here to really represent the Sun Valley Community Coalition, which is the registered neighborhood organization, and here to reaffirm our neighborhood position that was taken on April 6th in support of this zoning rezoning. And I might just say that the plan the plan that was submitted is one that is many iterations in the planning phase. And it's really to the credit of DHS staff, as well as consulting planners, that they really listen to the community. And so this really becomes a very exciting rezoning for us. While we have, I think, four major housing, affordable housing projects already under construction, two of which have been completed throughout the neighborhood. This really brings together a lot of the elements that we think speaks to what the whole idea of Choice Neighborhood is about, which is to really not just build and allow for housing security, which we know is just critical, but to also provide an environment where our families and our residents can really thrive and succeed. So it's providing and really supporting a home value of healthy living, which is trying to move our gardens from just seasonal gardens to year round, growing growth that can really help support not only residents themselves, but also the Decatur Fresh Market, which having been a food desert for so many, many years, it's just critical and has been at the top of the list for outdoor. It also provides gathering spaces. Now, one of the things that we were a little concerned about is that this is some three plus acres and quite a bit of it will be sold for private development. But it's our understanding that by developing design standards and guidelines in establishing a design review committee which has agreed to have community representation on that committee and not to move forward without community resident representation with private developers, that we can really implement the vision for that total parcel as the neighborhood sees it. So, so really urgent. Thank you for your support. We're very excited for this.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Our last speaker is Jesse Perez and he's joining us online. Go ahead, please, Jesse.
Speaker 2: Even with the council, those watching at home, those that are in the chamber. My name is Jesse Larson, Paris, and I'm representative for black stocks. The move was the first positive action to move for social change, as well as the Unity Party of Colorado in lone black nobles. And I'll be the next mayor of Denver in 2023. This rezoning tonight underscores. The fact that this criteria is not working. When you say affordable, it is not affordable. What we need is not 0 to 60%. And my house, we need 30% in my house. In the fact that. Zain is so happy about there being subsidized housing here. It's not. It's not good. This is not good at all. This is more redevelopments in an already rapidly gentrified neighborhood, area of town of Sun Valley of the West Side, which has been rampantly justified to size low below five points in other areas of town were predominantly black and brown residents. It sounds good on the surface. It really does. I like the fact that this is going to be a green house there. I like the fact that there's going to be subsidized housing, especially for seniors. But the fact that together with a private developer, there's no guarantee that any of this is going to come to fruition in terms of affordability or attainability, of which you really should be using inference criteria, not affordability, because the average area median income in Denver is like $71,000 a year. So all this development you're doing is pricing people out because the people that live in this neighborhood are not going to be able to afford to live in the 60% Army units. Building, build building. So I would really like for you in the near future real soon. To reevaluate your criteria because this clearly does not increase health and safety. It. Even if you did reach out to the community, as Jane stated. I honestly don't think he did enough outreach because we would know that 60% and my is not what this community needs. At all. I really wish I could get it through your head that this criteria that you're using is not working. You keep creating development that nobody can afford. And the people that have been here for decades, generations, can afford to live in. So I would ask you kindly and politely not to pass tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. That concludes our speakers questions from members of Council on Council Bill 553. Counsel Pro Tem Torres.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Madam President. Ryan, thanks for being here. So the building will increase by four stories. Can you remind us the number of units total? And am I levels for the building?
Speaker 3: So the particular project that's benefiting from the additional height currently is proposed at 212 total units. Of those 212, 83 are proposed to serve below 30% of a mine. That's a mix of 73, 79 one bedrooms and four two bedrooms. The balance of the units, 21 one bedrooms at 50% and another two bedrooms at 50% and by 102 units at 60%. And mine and two bedroom. There's four more units at 60% in line for the total of 12.
Speaker 9: And what I remember happening in some of the other conversations around Gateway, which are the buildings that are you're currently putting residents into there, they're constructed. Is that even the 60% and the 50%? My folks with project based vouchers.
Speaker 3: In the Gateway North and south, there's a total of 70 replacement units, as we call them, of the 333 that existed there prior to our redevelopment. Each of those are going to be replaced one for one bedroom style. And we have very large bedroom units throughout. So in the Gateway North Project, which just opened in the Gateway South Project. Seven of those residents that were living previously in Sun Valley will come back into those two buildings unless they choose to move into one of the other buildings and wait for that move.
Speaker 9: I'm asking if the the buildings that are under rezoning right now, if the 60% units, if those folks will have that same opportunity to use a voucher on that to reduce that income obligation.
Speaker 3: That's right. So 83 of these units will have the subsidy available for them in the form of a housing assistance payment or Section eight balance.
Speaker 9: But the remaining will not they'll be set at 60.
Speaker 3: That 50 and 60%.
Speaker 9: Okay. How much space is dedicated for the gardens? So if it's the second floor, how much.
Speaker 3: You talking about in the greenhouse is about 5500 square feet.
Speaker 9: And who's going to run it.
Speaker 3: So right now we're looking at a partnership with the Botanic Gardens. The Botanic Gardens currently operates our garden that's in the open space along the Platte River. So those would be looked we would look to operate those in concert. Obviously, there's some negotiations that need to happen there, but there's been a long term commitment as a partner of ours around the healthy living initiatives. And so that's at least where we're starting our consideration right now.
Speaker 9: And then how how would the food then get to the community?
Speaker 3: So we currently under the trust grant, we have people connectors and we'll have staff. So not only as the as Jean mentioned, our new market that's opening will be run by a youth employment academy. And so we would envision continuing to work with our youth employment academy to focus on jobs and training and education around all of the agriculture and the production and then sourcing that food either into the marketplace for we'll call it a pricing of food or as needed on a daily basis, is how we're doing it now.
Speaker 9: So it could go to like Osage Cafe as.
Speaker 3: That's right. Osage Cafe is run by a youth employment academy as well. And so there's kind of a collective growth in scale that's allowing us to continue to build on the momentum that the food source has allowed us to do and on the jobs and training that go along with it.
Speaker 9: Got it. Any more? So the private development, how much land of the total DHC land in Sun Valley will be turned to private ownership?
Speaker 3: Currently as proposed, we're looking at approximate 12 acres.
Speaker 9: Out of how much.
Speaker 3: We start. There's 33 acres on the existing Sun Valley housing site. Keeping in mind that to help with the concentration of low income, we acquire additional sites outside the footprint and also allow us to mitigate floodplain concerns that were there, which would have precluded us from building housing on site originally. Now, through the infrastructure, we've been able to work with the city and our agency partnerships to alleviate those concerns that will allow us to start moving forward with building on the existing housing sites. Okay.
Speaker 9: And does the 33 acres include the tank farm and.
Speaker 3: No, it does not. The 33 acres was our existing housing site, and that includes all of the new right of way that we're required or required out there in addition to the four acres going to Parks and Rec. Okay.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Ryan. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: I thank you, Counsel Pro Tem Torres and Ryan, for answering those questions. Next up, we have Councilmember Flynn.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. James, could you address a question that's puzzling me about this? And that's the the use overlay for historic structures. Certainly in the staff report, it says that there are no historic structures to which this could be applied. So plus, we're we're considering rezoning it to a a classification that to which it wouldn't apply in the first place. How did the use overlay come to be placed upon this larger site where it is when there are no historic structures on it? How'd that happen?
Speaker 10: Thank you for the question, Councilperson Flynn. That was before my time. I do not know the answer to that. However, it is only applicable to residential zoned districts. You could apply it to any residential zoned district. It was applied here. Presumably the 2010 code and it will be moot if this moves to a mixed use home district.
Speaker 3: Okay. You know, that doesn't stand in the way of my vote or anything. But I'm just curious if is now claiming that there are no historic structures to which you would apply? Why the heck was it applied in the first place? It's almost seems like we were. Or someone in the planning in the 2010 rezoning was thinking that the that the buildings as they existed at the time might be considered historic. Is that a reasonable assumption?
Speaker 10: It's not a bad guess, but I can tell you that the three overlay is found in other places without historic structures currently on them. So it's not completely out of line for this to exist.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Thank you, Madam President. I think I might ask CPD for a list of of all the applications of the new oh three overlay in the city so we can see if this exist somewhere else. Because it just seems odd to say we're removing an overlay that had no point in the first place. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman. Flynn And yeah, definitely I would support getting that overlay so that we can understand if there's any other situations like this. All right, next step, we've got Council Member Cashman.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. Yes, Councilman Flynn. So many things do seem odd nowadays.
Speaker 1: James.
Speaker 3: Oh, I'm sorry. This is actually for Ryan. You said something early in the presentation. I missed the context. You said something about 960. That's the total redevelopment that's ongoing out there through the four phases proposed right now, including these 200 and some. That's correct. That we're talking about. Okay. Thank you. That's that's all. Thank you for the clarification.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. And that concludes the questions from members of council. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 553 Council pro-tem us.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Madam President, and thank you for being here and representing the residents and organizations in Sun Valley. I know the discussion has been lengthy and over many years, so I appreciate the work that's gone into this. I just want to be very clear. I think about the the the expectation this affordability is guaranteed. And because it's Denver Housing Authority and because of the partnership between them and the city, this housing is is is necessary and and deeply valued. And what I hope is that future conversations about how residents will be engaged with one another will be really important. There used to be local resident councils that brought folks together to talk about common interests who lived in housing authority sites that I haven't seen and hope to see revived kind of in the in the next phase of Sun Valley life. So thanks to the Denver Housing Authority team for keeping this moving forward and keeping your commitment to that neighborhood. Thank you, Madam President. I'll be voting yes tonight.
Speaker 0: Thank you, counsel pro Tem Torres and seen no other speakers in the queue. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 553.
Speaker 7: Torres, I black. I see. Tobacco. I. Flynn.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 1: Herndon, i.
Speaker 7: Cashman.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 7: Can each. I. Sandoval. I. Sawyer.
Speaker 8: I.
Speaker 7: Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 7: Ten Eyes.
Speaker 0: Ten Eyes Council Bill 20 1-553 has passed. Thank you to the staff and our speakers and community members who joined us both in-person and virtually. Our last hearing this evening is coming up. Council members say to Barker, Will you please put Council Bill 532 on the floor for final passage?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 930 North Bryant Street, 2449 West 10th Avenue and 991 North Alcott Way in Sun Valley.
Approves a map amendment to rezone property from C-RX-8 UO-3 to C-MX-12 (urban center residential mixed use to mixed use), located at 930 North Bryant Street, 2449 West 10th Avenue, and 991 North Alcott Way in Council District 3. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 5-18-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_07192021_21-0636
|
Speaker 2: I move that council bill 20 10636 to be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded questions or comments by members of Council on Council Bill 636. All right, CNN, Madam Secretary, roll call on council Bill 636, please.
Speaker 3: Like I. Clark.
Speaker 1: All right.
Speaker 3: Flynn.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 3: Herndon.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 5: Hines, I.
Speaker 3: Cashman. I can eat. I. Sandoval. I. Sawyer, i. Torres, I. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 3: 11 Eyes.
Speaker 0: 11 Eyes Council Bill 20 1-0636 has passed. Our pre adjournment announcement on Monday, July 26, Council will hold the required public hearing on Council Bill 21, Dash 0532 Amending Section two, Dash two, four two and Section 2-243 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code regarding the Denver Food Commission on Monday, August 16.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance amending Article VI of Chapter 27 (Housing) of the Revised Municipal Code relating to incentives for affordable housing to implement incentive requirements for the Downtown-Golden Triangle zone district.
Amends Chapter 27, Article VI of the Denver Revised Municipal Code to establish affordable housing incentives in the Downtown Golden Triangle (D-GT) zone district as revised through a concurrent text amendment to the Denver Zoning Code. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 6-8-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_07192021_21-0577
|
Speaker 0: All right. We are going to go ahead and move along here. The next item up is Council Bill 21, dash 0577. Councilmember Sawyer, will you please put Council Bill 577 on the floor to take out of order, please.
Speaker 2: I move the council bill 20 1-0577 be taken out of order.
Speaker 1: I can.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Comments by members of Council. Council Member Herndon.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. We need to move this item out of order so we can postpone the public hearing date.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 3: Black. Hi, Clark.
Speaker 1: Hi.
Speaker 3: Flynn.
Speaker 1: Hi.
Speaker 3: Herndon.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 3: Hi.
Speaker 5: Hi.
Speaker 3: Cashman. I can h i Sandoval. I. Sawyer, i. Torres, I. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced results.
Speaker 3: 11 Eyes.
Speaker 0: 11 Eyes Council Bill 20 1-0577 may be taken out of order. Council Member Sawyer Will you please vote? Council Bill 577 on the floor for final passage.
Speaker 2: I move the Council Bill 20 10577 be placed upon final consideration and to pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It's been moved and seconded. Councilmember Herndon, your motion to postpone, please.
Speaker 1: Yes, Madam President. I move that final consideration of Council Bill 20 120577 with its public hearing be postponed to Monday, August 2nd, 2021. Thank.
Speaker 0: Thank you. We've got the motion and I think we got the second there from Councilmember Sawyer. I think I got that right. Comments from members of Council. Councilmember Herndon.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. We need to move the public hearing date in order to meet the posting requirements that was not posted appropriately in a timely fashion. So moving into August 2nd will fulfill that requirement.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Secretary. Roll call.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 3: Hi. Hi. Cashman. I can each I Sandoval.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 3: Sawyer, I. Torres. I. Black eye, Clark.
Speaker 1: All right.
Speaker 3: Flynn.
Speaker 6: I.
Speaker 3: Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 3: 11 days.
Speaker 0: 11. His final consideration of Council Bill 21, Dash 0577 with its public hearing has been postponed to Monday, August 2nd. That concludes the items to be called out this evening or onto the Bloc vote. Any 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 Sawyer, would you please put the proclamations and resolutions for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor?
Speaker 2: Absolutely. I move that proclamations and resolutions be adopted and bills on final consideration be placed upon final consideration and do pass in a bloc for the following items. This is all 21 series 08210817074807550753. 0756.
Speaker 4: 0625.
Speaker 3: 0626.
Speaker 2: 0627. 0749.
Speaker 3: 0752.
Speaker 2: 0730. 06900691. 06930703070507060572. 06980728. 0731073506580697 and 0712.
Speaker 0: Dagen thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Madam secretary, roll call.
Speaker 3: Black eye, Clark.
Speaker 1: All right.
Speaker 3: So when.
Speaker 6: I.
Speaker 3: Turned in.
Speaker 1: And.
Speaker 5: I.
Speaker 3: Cashman.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 3: Can each I. Sandoval.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 3: Sawyer, i. Torres, I. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 3: 11, eight.
Speaker 0: 11 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 21, Dash 0405 changing the zoning classification for 3133 North Raleigh Street in West Highland and a required public hearing on Council Bill 21, Dash 0635 relating to
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 4710 North Pennsylvania Street in Globeville.
Approves a map amendment to rezone property from E-SU-D to U-SU-C1 (allows for an accessory dwelling unit), located at 4710 North Pennsylvania Street in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 4-13-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_07192021_21-0405
|
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. Council Member Sawyer Will you please put Council Bill 405 on the floor for final passage.
Speaker 2: And move that Council Bill 21 deaths 0405 be placed upon final consideration and duties.
Speaker 1: Back.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. The required public hearing for Council Bill 405 is open. May we please have the staff report? I see. It's in. You've already got it up and going. Please go ahead.
Speaker 1: Perfect. Can you hear me?
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Good evening, counsel. My name is Ed Senate Finance and I am an associate city planner here and representing family planning and development. Before you today, we have 3133 North Browns Street. It's currently zoning U.S.A. and the request says to three zone to us one, which is it's currently a single unit zone district and it's requesting for a single, single unit zoned district with an ADU. So right now the site itself is currently in Council District one, understandable in the West Highland neighborhood. And the site itself is just pretty close to the corner of Wylie and 32nd Avenue. It's just over 6000 square feet. And it's a single unit residential. So this so the zoning that is requesting is a single unit zone district, us ua1. But as you can see, U.S.A. one is directly to the north. That was reason for Nadir, but it's in an area of U.S., A-1 as well. As you get us, you see a SUV, which are all a single unit zone districts based on lot sizes. And the existing land use for this site is single unit residential. But as you can see, there are some two unit residential uses nearby as well. So as you can see, the subject property is on the upper left corner. And it's a one story structure. And then on the. On the picture on the on the top right is the property directly to the north, which is a single unit property with an ADU on the top of the garage, as you can see. And then across the street on the bottom left, you see just a two unit property there. So this went before the planning board in April and it was passed unanimously. It was our consent and it's before you today. And as a present we've received two comments of opposition and six letters of support have been received for this case. A lot of the concerns were regarding multiple aid use on a single block and being in close proximity to one another. The potential for parking concerns and noise issues. And the applicant has reached out to these individuals that had concerns to try to answer any questions you might have. And also the applicant is here to answer those questions as well. So whenever we're looking at a rezoning, we have specific review criteria that we analyzed based off the Denver zoning code. And I will dove into it right now. So the first one is concisely what Dr. Ponder really focused on the Conference Comprehensive Plan 2040 and Blueprint, Denver, L.A. and Transportation Plan. There are several strategies found in a comprehensive plan for 2040 that are specified in the staff report. And so I will jump into the blueprint Denver Blueprint. Denver classifies this area as urban, which is predominantly residential. And then within the feature place type, it's classified as low residential, which is predominantly single integrated uses and accessory dwelling units are appropriate here. As well. Blueprint does have specific policy that mentions accessory dwelling units such as the land use and built form housing policy for which is a diversity of housing choice through the expansion of accessory dwelling units throughout all residential areas. And this specific rezoning is consistent with the other criteria specified in the staff report. Therefore, CPD recommends approval based on all findings and all review criteria have been met. And I am open and available to any questions that you may have. And the applicant is here presenting answering questions as well.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you for the presentation, Edson. This evening, council has not received any written testimony on Council Bill 21, Dash 0405 and we do not have any speakers signed up to speak this evening. And so questions from members of Council on Council Bill 405. All right. Scene one, the public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 405 Council member Sandoval.
Speaker 4: Madam President. And this reasoning fits all of the criteria, and I hope you all would support it. I've met my office has met with the West Highland Neighborhood Association that represents these areas where there are no and they are looking and going to start doing outreach about rezoning that entire neighborhood. Stay tuned so that we don't have to continue to do these one offs. So when we do some community outreach and go out to see if there's support, maybe the whole entire rezoning application will be coming forward. Thanking them. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Sandoval. And I'm happy to support this this evening, saying that it needs all of the rezoning criteria and seeing other hands raised. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 405, please.
Speaker 3: Sandoval. Hi. Sawyer, I. Torres, I. What I. Clark.
Speaker 1: All right.
Speaker 3: Twin. Herndon.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 3: Hines.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 3: Cashman. I can. I. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 3: 11 nights.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 3133 North Raleigh Street in West Highland.
Approves a map amendment to rezone property from U-SU-A to U-SU-A1 (allows for an accessory dwelling unit), located at 3133 North Raleigh Street in Council District 1. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 4-13-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_07192021_21-0635
|
Speaker 3: 11 nights.
Speaker 0: 11 days Council Bill 20 1-0405 has passed. All right. We're moving on to our second hearing. Councilmember Sawyer, will you please put Council Bill 635 on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 3: I move that.
Speaker 2: Council vote 21 just 0635 be placed upon final consideration and do.
Speaker 5: Second.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Councilmember Hines, your motion to amend.
Speaker 5: I apologize, Madam President. I don't have my script in front of me.
Speaker 0: All right. Well, go ahead and do it. Okay.
Speaker 5: Thank you.
Speaker 2: I move that council bill 20 10635 be amended in the following particulars. One on page one, line 17 strike 20210054 and replaced with 202100602 on page one. Line 18 Strike June 16, 2021 and replaced with July 14, 2021. Three. On page one, line 27. Strike 20210054 and replace with 2021000.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. It's been moved and we've got the second there. All right, perfect. Council member Sawyer, do you want to go ahead and explain this amendment before we go on to the public hearing?
Speaker 2: Absolutely. The purpose of the amendment is to change the building form standards for general and point tower building forms. In Denver, zoning code sections 8.6.3.3 A and 8.6.3.3 B. Specifically, this amendment changes the primary street build to range from two feet, minimum ten feet, maximum to zero feet minimum. Ten feet maximum. This is a correction that fixes an inconsistency with the required primary street setback.
Speaker 4: For these.
Speaker 2: Buildings.
Speaker 4: All right.
Speaker 0: Thank you. The required public hearing for council Bill 635 is open. Now we go ahead and get the staff report. And I see we have Christopher here.
Speaker 5: Yes. Thank you, Madam President, and I am happy to answer any questions on that floor amendment as well once we get through the staff report. So give me just a moment to share the screen. Okay. Are you able to see that?
Speaker 0: I am not.
Speaker 5: Now. Let's try that again.
Speaker 1: How about that?
Speaker 0: All right. Go ahead. Thank you.
Speaker 5: Great. Thank you and good evening. Council members, as as noted, we are here to discuss a text amendment to the Denver zoning code. This is Council Bill 21, dash 0635. And then also, as you heard earlier, there is an amendment to the Denver Revised Municipal Code that we will also consider after the consideration of the text amendment , that is, Council Bill 21, dash 20636. And just so you are also aware, there is an additional associated amendment for for the Golden Triangle area that's associated with this larger set of regulatory updates. And that is something called the Downtown Design Standards and guidelines that will be adopted as the community planning and development rules and regulations. And that hearing has just recently been scheduled for August 10th. We'll touch base on that in a little bit. So Councilmember Councilmember Hines and District ten has sponsored this text amendment and the Associated Amendment to the Denver Revised Municipal Code to do two primary things implement the regulatory goals of the Golden Triangle Neighborhood Plan Blueprint of Denver and our other adopted plans, and then to apply more current and inconsistent zoning approaches and procedures for this particular area. The downtown Golden Triangle District you can see here outlined in red overlaps, primarily the Civic Center statistical area, but does extend to the east slightly into the Capitol Hill area and the zone district itself. You can see it there shown in the yellow in the map on the left. Was last updated in 1994. So when the Denver zoning code was implemented back in 2010, it really just simply changed the name from the old classification to the new DJT.
Speaker 4: Naming.
Speaker 5: Convention. It is a floor area. Ratio based system does not have any building forms that we are sort of comfortable with within the Denver zoning code. And there's relatively few design or street level types of standards that are related to this area. The allowed height limit currently is approximately 175 to 200 feet, depending upon the location where you are within this particular area. And also they should note that there are some applicable view plane restrictions that cover portions of this Golden Triangle zoning district as well. And as I mentioned, there are also design guidelines and design review that apply to this particular area. Those were last updated in 2002. So both the zoning and the design guidelines are either just shy or a little bit more than 20 years old and are in need of an update. The overall update, then I'll give you a preview of the Golden Triangle Neighborhood Plan really formed. The basis of all of our decisions over this two year process are now more than two year process that we have been engaged in and identified several key objectives that can be effectively addressed through zoning updates. And those objectives generally fell into three categories of land use, building form and then the street level experience. So the zoning update includes a number of changes that will implement and reflect upon those recommendations from the neighborhood plan, in particular for the land use. It will encourage a more broad mix of uses across the neighborhood. It will eliminate some outdated parking requirements for this urban downtown location and support more affordable housing in this area as well. There are a number of new standards that are also being introduced to lead to a variety of different building outcomes and shapes and sizes more effectively, shape those larger projects as well, and ensure that they contribute back to the human scale of the neighborhood and also some things that encourage the protection of smaller historic buildings that contribute to the collective character of this particular area of downtown. And then finally on the street level experience category, the zoning changes focus on introducing active uses at that street level and really address the experience that most of us will have in this particular area, because most of us will likely not own property or live in this particular area, but would frequent it to visit some of the cultural activities or other aspects that happen here. And so a number of things are relating to creating more space for outdoor dining and retail types of uses on the outside of commercial space, creating public gathering spaces, ensuring that there are, if there is room and space for stoops and entry and landscape into residential units when those are on the ground floor and really introducing a number of things at that street level, including recommendations to encourage more public art in this particular area. The zoning update also refines the current incentive system that exists in this particular area. It really focuses the density bonuses in the future on affordable housing and historic preservation. Now, the neighborhood plan does identify other priorities, things like open space and public art. And we have chosen to address those through zoning standards themselves and other types of alternatives, as opposed to creating density incentives around those. So, for example, public art and open space are allowed as alternatives to requirements for a nonresidential active use of the ground floor. This portion of the of the zoning update. And this touches on the amendment to the Denver Revised Municipal Code as well. We chose to use sort of an off the shelf to order that already exists and that uses a multiplier of the existing linkage fee system and the unit coefficients that are currently in place to calculate the number of affordable housing units or linkage fees that would be necessary to access that additional incentive floor area. It's important to note that in part why we chose to use off the shelf system is that the citywide expanding housing affordability project that is currently underway will lead to a much more comprehensive and robust system that will apply citywide and will ultimately replace this. So we wanted to make sure that we weren't spending too much time in creating a truly unique system for the Golden Triangle, knowing that it will ultimately be changed and replaced by by that citywide expanding housing affordability system, whatever that looks like in the future. So under the under the proposed zoning projects that are within that base floor area, we're using floor area instead of height in terms of creating that base and incentives. And if you are below that base floor area, there would be no extra requirements. You would have the option to pay linkage fees or provide affordable housing units under the building alternatives, but then projects that do take advantage of the incentives that would be required to meet that higher requirement for for the incentive area. At four times the current typical coefficients for fees and units, residential projects would be required to provide the units. Nonresidential projects still have the option to pay fees or to provide units. And then importantly, this, the system here in the Golden Triangle is is distinct from the other two incentives systems that are in place for 38 in Blake and the D.C. districts in that it does require units that are provided affordable units that are provided in a rental project at 60% ami a for sale residential unit could still be at 80% AMI for to meet those affordable affordability thresholds. And just a reminder, you know, we're talking about that 60 to 80% range. And so these are income levels that may include people like nurses, teachers and emergency service workers, somewhere with incomes in the range of about 45000 to $85000 per year per household, depending upon the size of the household. And creating housing opportunities is the priority for this area, but also the neighborhood plan. And certainly our feedback that we heard from the community. It was very important to also support landmark historic structures and the preservation of some of these structures within within the Golden Triangle. So the zoning update increases the current bonuses or the current incentives that exist today increases those pretty significantly for the rehabilitation of the structure, and then also increases the ability to sell or transfer those unused rights to other locations within the Golden Triangle. That's that's an existing opportunity that we've allowed for additional area to be sold or transferred to those other sites. However, we have limited the application of those historic preservation incentives to only that topmost portion of the maximum as they are from 12 to 15. So if we were to use one of those preservation incentives, you would have to meet the affordable housing first for that portion between eight and 12, and then you could potentially then use those historic credits for that type of area from 12 to 15. I should note, too, that this is really also intended to increase and support the additional designation of structures in this particular area. A sort of preliminary overview by our landmark team that we did as part of this project identified there, there's at least ten structures within the Golden Triangle that are very likely to meet the criteria for landmark designation, and there could be upwards of as many as 40 structures within the neighborhood. Upon further review and research. So this is just an example of how that incentive system would work under a couple of different scenarios. You can see on the right hand side a a typical project that is roughly the same sizes as what we see today would generate a certain minimum number of seven affordable housing units under this particular scenario. Utilizing that for incentive, that would increase to at least 18 affordable housing units. Again, those numbers sort of depend upon what types of uses are within the buildings. So those would be minimal numbers. And then that example on the far right shows how you could potentially use those historic preservation credits for that topmost portion of that project. Associated with the the ability to build additional floor area as part of an incentive if you're providing additional affordable housing because that increases the scale and bulk of the structure. We also want to increase the allowed height so that we have some greater flexibility to shape those buildings and avoid those really large, bulky outcomes. And so right now, as I mentioned, the existing height limit is 175 to 200 feet in the future. Under the general form, it would all remain 200 feet and under the point tower it would be 250 feet. But if you were leveraging those incentives and you were providing additional affordable housing or protecting those landmark structures, then there is some additional height that would be allowed up to 250 or 325 under the Point Tower. As I mentioned, that there are a couple of new planes that do apply to this particular area. You can see these Cheesman Park Botanic Gardens View plan that's in the purple there and extends over the eastern portion of the site there of the of the zone districts. And then the state capital view plane extends over a portion of the northern part of the neighborhood. So really, it's it's the area that I highlighted and outlined in yellow there where those tallest buildings would be possible. The existing height limitations in those plans still apply going forward. And this is just an example of some of the research and studies that we did. There were some concerns raised by some neighbors in the Cheesman Park area about potential impacts to views of the mountains in that in that portion of the neighborhood where the view does not extend. So we did some modeling and looked at what a full height, 325 foot point tower at the far southern end of the of the neighborhood would look like. And you can see that the existing trees and buildings in the Capitol Hill neighborhood generally blocked most of that building. And if you zoom in, you can see that even at that full height, the majority of that mountain view is protected. And we are confident that that the height limits that are posed are still consistent with the with the intent of the Cheeseman Art Botanic Gardens to plain and would not have a significant effect on those mountain views. As I mentioned, the final portion of this regulatory update is to update the design standards and guidelines that apply to this particular area. We're doing this as part of a larger strategy to create a more comprehensive and predictable design review process for for many of our downtown neighborhoods. And so we're actually taking three different design guidelines, documents that apply to Arapahoe Square, Central Platte Valley area and the Golden Triangle, and combining those into a single one stop shop of the downtown design standards and guidelines. And those would be those would be used by the Downtown Design Advisory Board, which is a group that's already already exists, and reviews projects in those other two locations. It's currently seven members and we would be expanding that board membership to nine members and adding two additional resident positions as part of the zoning update. And although this one single document, the Downtown DSG, is is a little bit longer than those three other individuals documents, it actually represents a 40% reduction overall in terms of the number of intent statements and standards and guidelines that have to be administered and used by use by our customers and the public hearing for that, for the downtown design standards and guidelines that will be adopted as safety rules and regulations, is on August 10th at 4 p.m.. So the review criteria that we use to review text amendments in the Denver zoning code. Quickly, I'll just touch base on the on the public outreach. You know, this project has been ongoing since March of 2019. So over over two years now, we had a number of advisory committee meetings that started back in May of 2019, a series of open houses and surveys and project milestone reports, and made several additional presentations to to ludy to planning boards and other neighborhood groups as well throughout this process. Specific to the text amendment itself. We released a zoning strategy report back in February. The actual draft of the of the zoning changes came out in April for a full 30 day review. And we also sent communication to all active and ongoing projects in this particular area at the end of April, all related to the grace period and the effective date of the new zoning. The Planning Board public hearing was on May 19th nine. It was an 8 to 1 vote to recommend approval to you. And then luti committee was on June 8th and here we are on July 19th for the hearing. As far as public comment, relatively little. We've received one formal comment from the Morgans historic district, R.A., that cited some concerns about his views from Cheesman Park. We've received six comments that voiced overall support. I cited a productive stakeholder process excitement about the enhanced design outcomes. And some of those did include some additional suggested revisions to the zoning draft, such as actually increasing the additional floor area and the building height or creating more incentive options. There were three comments received in opposition, again citing concerns about building height, people experiencing homelessness, increased property taxes and an overall lack of a grand vision to also address streets and public spaces through this zoning update. And then finally, some seven comments were received that really neither expressed direct support or opposition, but made a number of recommended revisions to the draft zoning, including increasing the base, FDR, increasing building height, providing more flexibility on some of standards, and then requests for more time and flexibility for the review of pipeline projects under the old zoning code. We look at consistency with adopted plans and then uniformity of district regulations and furthering public health, safety and welfare. In terms of our text amendment review criteria, we'll start with consistency with adopted plans. There's a lot more detail in the staff report. There's a number of things that apply here. I'm going to try to focus on just a few to keep things brief as best as I can. The proposed zoning updates specifically address several goals within Comprehensive Plan 2040 to ensure all Denver residents have access to goods and services and amenities and housing that is affordable to all income levels. Furthermore, the updates address the goals for neighborhoods in Denver to exhibit high quality design that are active in people oriented and encourage mixed use where residents can live, work and play. In the future neighborhood context. The blueprint vs the downtown Golden Triangle, as you would suspect, all falls within the downtown context, exemplified by large mixed use buildings that are close to the street, high multimodal connectivity and flexible outdoor spaces. The the area is generally broken down between community corridor and the residential high future place types. So the community corridor offering a mix of office, commercial and residential with significant street activation and then residential high. A little bit more leaning towards the residential component, but still a high mix of uses. And this is the area with the most intense and great in an area that is the most intense and has the greatest heights in terms of residential components. And then growth strategy follows that pretty closely in terms of community corridor and the residential high in the downtown context representing and the community corridor, about 25% of new housing , 20% of new employment anticipated in those residential high areas, 15% of new housing and 5% of new employment. When we looked at the overall equity analysis summary, the Golden Triangle area actually has relatively higher than average access to opportunity due to close proximity to transit, mixed use centers in corridor corridors and the nearby parks and civic center . So it's in our Park and Gardens Park. It's also relatively less vulnerable to displacement than some other areas due to higher than average educational attainment and median income. And then it's within the citywide average in terms of jobs diversity. But in terms of the number of jobs, it's quite a bit fewer than other areas of downtown. So the proposed zoning updates are expected to further have a positive effect on these three metrics by encouraging a walkable, mixed use neighborhood, creating additional commercial space for local businesses, and then balancing development opportunities between both residential and commercial uses . One area where the zoning update is expected to have a more significant impact is in housing diversity. So currently this area ranks quite low in comparison to other areas of the city due to the lack of missing middle housing options, a high percentage of renters versus owners, smaller unit sizes and higher housing costs. So the proposed increase in the proposed zoning and the recommendation to increase the overall total density here through those incentives enables the ability to provide more units overall. So that helps to serve me and address the issue from a supply side. But also having those affordable housing requirements in place further supports the creation of those more affordable units in particularly in a downtown location that has good access to transit and jobs and other amenities. In terms of blueprint recommendations. Again, there's a number of policy and strategy recommendations here that are addressed through the zoning update. A couple of things that are important to note. You know, encouraging higher density, mixed use development near transit and downtown zoning, updates that support the goal of enhancing Denver's vibrant retail and hospitality marketplace and creating active pedestrian environments and promoting exceptional design outcomes. The Golden Triangle neighborhood plan, as I mentioned, really served as our foundation for the last couple of years. And those 12 key objectives that I mentioned earlier, those were really drawn from this document. And the recommendations here, again, speak directly to fostering a brain, a broad range of housing opportunities in this particular area, promoting a high quality pedestrian experience and encouraging that the the overall height and mass of new development is compatible with adjacent smaller buildings. Also, we reflected upon housing and inclusive Denver, and particularly the recommendations to expand our land use regulations to lead to more affordable and mixed income housing. The incentive system here supports that provision of affordable housing, and again, particularly within an important downtown neighborhood that's close to transit and jobs. We also find that the requested zoning meets the next two criteria. So the text amendment will result in uniformity of district regulations both within the Golden Triangle District itself and then across other sections of the Denver zoning code and really brings this this area of downtown into the modern code. And then we'll also further the public health, safety and welfare, primarily through its implementation of several adopted plans. So with that, staff recommends approval of the text amendment to the Denver Zoning Code to update the downtown Golden Triangle Zone District, finding that the applicable review criteria have been met. That Council Bill 20 10635 and then staff also recommends approval of the amendment to the Denver Revised Municipal Code, Chapter 27, Article six to establish affordable housing incentives in the downtown Golden Triangle Zone District, which is Council Bill 21, Dash 0636. I'm happy to take your questions.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Christopher, for the staff report this evening. Council has not received any written testimony on Council Bill 21, Dash 0635, and we have one individual signed up to speak this evening. Speakers may address the bill and or the amendment this evening. And our one speaker is Mickie Zeppelin. Go ahead here.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 0: We're working on getting. Mr. Zeppelin promoted here. Into the queue. And we're going to ask you to go ahead and unmute.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 0: All right. Go ahead, please.
Speaker 1: Well, I was disappointed and I think it was disappointing in the presentation and in the zoning that hardly any reference was made to the fact that we have a very sacred place with all of our civic and cultural buildings, five museums, the city and county building the park. And that was hardly referred to the talked about preservation but not utilization. This is the opportunity to really inspire, to really recognize our history, to basically celebrate what is the special place, just as Washington, D.C. did at the Mall. They took the connectivity of all of their institutions and made them a special place. We should have a cultural and civic trail going through there. The zoning code must acknowledge the fact that this is not like any other neighborhood. It's not just a matter of housing and community services. It's a special place which inspires and should be the educational and basis for its citizens and its children and people from all over the country to make it more than a one stop shop at a museum or the park, but should in fact be a place where you stop and you really get a feeling for what this city is about and its history and its culture. And to basically leave this out of this news zoning code that not recognize it and at least say that this is the basis on which we will go forward in terms of developing our city. I think that we have really missed an opportunity and I hope that basically somehow this could be amended or changed to acknowledge that I heard all that tired discussion and no, there was no mention at all of the treasure we have in terms of five buildings. We now have been connecting the park and all these buildings. We now have the 50 to 80 trail coming in there. This is a special place. We are not treating that as a special place. We're treating it as. Am I finished?
Speaker 0: Nope. You can go ahead until it ticks down to zero.
Speaker 1: Well, I ask you to basically acknowledge the treasures we have and not bury them. In terms of affordable housing, which is critical and other other uses, and not at the same time recognize our treasures.
Speaker 0: Thank you. That concludes our speakers this evening. Questions from members of Council on Council Bill 635 and or the Amendment. All right? I I'm not seeing any questions. All right. Wanted to wait for a second. Councilmember Flynn. Go ahead, please.
Speaker 6: Thank you, my brother. This is a very sizable action. Some of them feel like there ought to be some questions, but I'd like to ask Christopher to comment on what Vicki Zeppelin was just saying. How does this rezoning, how does this relate to our cultural institutions? What does it do to promote, protect and reflect them so that we can understand that? Is there a need for an amendment to address that?
Speaker 5: Yeah. Good question. Council Member Flynn, thank you for that. So there's a couple of things to, you know, to speak to here is that primarily many of the civic and cultural buildings and structures lie outside the downtown Golden Triangle Zone District itself. So many of the civic buildings are within the of the downtown civic and zone districts. And then the art museum, for example, actually lives within the old former Chapter 59 and Vega's districts. And there's a lot of things happening there. And so this, you know, this zone zoning update to the downtown Golden Triangle area would not affect those structures at all. And so the the other thing I think that that I think is important to note on is that there are a number of and a number of zoning standards and alternatives that were built into this zoning upgrade that don't exist elsewhere. And you get to the uniqueness and that and the, you know, the specialness of this area that Mr. Zapp referred to, one of which is public art. And so right now, in nowhere else within the Denver zoning code does is public art offered as an alternative to meet certain standards in in the Golden Triangle and the proposed update. There are two significant street level standards that add to that pedestrian experience that are included. There are requirements for nonresidential active uses of the ground floor on certain streets, and then there are requirements for a set aside of publicly accessible open space on a larger project, larger lots. Both of those are open to an alternative where a portion of that requirement can be substituted if you are providing public art. So we believe that we think there's going to be opportunities, a number of opportunities where a development project may choose to incorporate public art that has to be outside, has to be accessible, accessible to the public. It can't be hidden within a lobby, for example. And so those opportunities, I think, are going to continue to add to the special quality of this place. The final thing that I will just mention is, is a lot of, you know, Mr. Zeppelin's comments and we've we've spoken about this prior to the hearing. Many of the things that make a place, the place are the spaces in between. It's the place. It's the public realm, right? It is the streets, it's the sidewalks, it's the trees. Those are all things that unfortunately we have very little oversight over in the zoning code. You know, the Denver zoning code and Community Planning and development oversee private development of structures. Our friends in the Department of Transportation and Infrastructure are the are the group that are charged with managing our public right of way. And so our our ability to affect change in those areas is is can only go so far. I will say the design standards and guidelines include a number of more qualitative aspects that speak to the character and the quality and the uniqueness of this place that will hopefully address some of his his concerns. And I know that Councilmember Hines, for example, has been having additional conversations with Dottie Partners and others about a 50 to 80 trail and how that can be incorporated into the Golden Triangle that will really create that space and create that linkage to those civic and cultural amenities.
Speaker 6: And can you talk just a little bit more about how the edges of the the this update where it abuts the cultural institutions like the museum, although the library, the city and county building and even the state capitol grounds on the other on the northeast corner. How do the edges what are the rules and regs are around the edges of it? How do they relate to our cultural institutions? How do they protect do they protect them in in that way? Are they different or are they the same?
Speaker 5: The the overall the zoning rules would be the same along those edges. Certainly, if you fall within one of those, do you play in areas then highly limited and restricted there, but within again within the design standards and guidelines and the design review process which we'll go to, then go to that downtown design advisory board and also through staff's projects are also working with you through staff, through those questions. There's a lot of information about how to reflect upon and respond to the context. And so, you know, oftentimes the set of architects is that they look at the site in isolation, and it's really critical and important to look at how a project fits within the broader context of those adjacent structures. And so certainly if there was any development proposed directly adjacent to some of those areas, I'd say across the street from the art museum.
Speaker 6: Yes.
Speaker 5: Staff and the design advisory board will be taking a very close eye and looking with a lot of scrutiny about what that relationship is and how those structures respond to those particular areas to enhance those those public spaces and those in those buildings.
Speaker 6: Is that does that process have teeth or enforcement or is it just sort of a softer advisory? Or can we really I don't want to say prevent, but that's the kind of concept I'm wondering, can we prevent prevent something bad from going up across the street from the Libeskind building or or the city and county building that would. Really disrespect. Are these institutions? Yes. I don't know what that might look like. Looking ahead, it's hard to say. But what is what is our authority with the with the design review?
Speaker 5: Yeah, good. Good question. So staff and the zoning administrator have, you know, have the final determination. So the design advisory board is is advisory, but it is comprised of a number of design professionals and then also local residents. And that's why we've added those to additional resident positions, because it is important to get the local context from these areas. And so there are design professionals that are part of that advisory board that will review projects and provide guidance and feedback. That is all part of our formal site development plan process. So, you know, a project can't get approved for a zoning permit unless it goes through that process. And then in addition, I will say the Golden Triangle has a long history of having an urban design committee that is made up of just community members and currently exists . It's falls underneath the Golden Triangle Creative District, which is their local R.A. We have built into the design process because this exists today. There is a requirement to make a presentation to that group, to that community group that is separate from the Downtown Design Advisory Board process. So we've we've maintained that and will continue to bring that forward. So there's a number of checkpoints through the community, through staff, through the advisory board, and then ultimately through our project coordination team and the development services team who reviews our site development plans and makes those approvals. So it certainly does have teeth. And so there will be a lot of scrutiny and rigor and put towards projects, especially those that are adjacent to those areas, but certainly to every project that's within that particular area.
Speaker 6: Okay. Thank you. Explain for me, if you can, a little bit more on the the point tower, the height. I understand completely that the Cheesman Park, the view plane ends at, I think, Broadway. Correct. Correct. Everything west of Broadway is not under The View plane. So, you know, whatever the height limit is, it is. I'm trying to understand the diagram that was put together. What is the difference between a primary mountain view and a mountain view?
Speaker 5: Oh, sure. Yeah. If it helps, I can share my screen again.
Speaker 6: And I'm looking I'm looking at that slide from the presentation right now. I found it a little bit confusing. It looks like we're not considering the green sort of the very first elevations of the front range to these may be secondary, but the primary view is actually the snow caps, is that.
Speaker 5: Well, exactly. Yeah. And so really the the the labeling of that is as the primary Mountain View was, because the View plan itself, Cheeseman Park, Botanic Gardens viewpoint itself is actually quite broad. This is really that initial view of some, which is Slide 18 really shows the full sort of expanse of that of that view plant area . But as you can see, most of those mountain views are obscured already through trees and buildings and other other elements that are in the foreground. So it was really just simply a naming convention to say the primary view are those open areas that you can see from the from the Cheesman Park Pavilion. And actually the view the viewpoint origination point is all the way over on the other side of the Botanic Gardens, but this is a convenient area that most people know and understand.
Speaker 6: Right. So the primary view is not a that's not a term as defined in the ordinary scope. It's just the primary view. You're defining as basically what we can see to the south of basically 12, 13, 12th Avenue. Mount Evans Yep.
Speaker 5: Yes, that's exactly right. And the conceptual point tower that we modeled, we actually created a model that shows many, many more, but all of all of them are obscured by the existing trees and buildings.
Speaker 0: That.
Speaker 5: Point tower that's shown there as a as an example. Yes. Is at the very, very southern end of the neighborhood. It's essentially a Rickenbach car dealership. It's, well, essentially ninth and Broadway.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 5: And so that's you know, that's the very southern extent of the neighborhood. So any project that's to the north of that that would reach that height is very likely to be obscured. And outside of the view of those mountains anyways.
Speaker 6: It's obscured by that building there that's on the north end of Cheeseman.
Speaker 5: Yes, it is obscured by that lovely building right there in the west. And how did.
Speaker 1: That how did.
Speaker 6: That get in there, by the way?
Speaker 5: That's all right. You know, I don't know the full history, but I actually think that the development of that building was in part the reason for the creation of this new plan.
Speaker 6: Okay. I had heard a story that that building went up after the View plane, but somehow it got in on it.
Speaker 5: I don't know. I don't know the full history.
Speaker 6: But not pertinent right now, but something I definitely want to look up. So basically what you're telling me is I'm looking at Slide 18 and what you're telling me is that that conceptual point tower is actually as far south as we would see a conceptual a 325 foot tower. And so that the rest of the view to the south of that that I'm looking at that is so gorgeous. Is still is still protected.
Speaker 5: That's correct. Yes, that's correct.
Speaker 6: Thank you. I only have one more question and I just ask for forbearance. I'm looking for in the staff report on the map, there is a parcel that is ab8g in the 1000 block of Cherokee. That is that is accepted from this Golden Triangle zone. I'm just curious, what is there and why why is it why is it an out parcel from this?
Speaker 5: Yeah. So that's you know, it's interesting that is similar to the art museum where it is. Right. It was not transferred over in 2010 to Oak District. So it's also.
Speaker 6: Not.
Speaker 5: Personal. It is it essentially was a miniature. It's a combination of residential townhomes and commercial use. There's art gallery in that particular location.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 6: All right. Thank you, Madam President. That's all I have.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Councilmember Flynn and I had seen Councilmember Cashman. You were you had your hand raised. You want to go ahead?
Speaker 7: Councilmember Flynn got at the heart of my concern.
Speaker 0: All right. Very good. All right. Seeing their hands raised for questions. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on the amendment. Councilmember Hines.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Council president, the amendment. So we're just addressing the amendment at this point. So the amendment is very is a very technical amendment. It is just an oversight that we caught late in the actually, we as in CPD, I can't take credit for it, but I'm going to pretend like I'm taking credit. CPD got this this very technical change late in the process, so I apologize for bringing a floor amendment to to the body as as the council member. Sawyer wisely said, this is is just extremely technical in nature, and it is just a very small oversight. So there's no material alteration to the intent of the legislation. Thank you. Council President.
Speaker 0: Very good. Thank you. Councilmember Hines. And I'm definitely happy to support this technical amendment as well as the roll role on the amendment.
Speaker 3: Hines.
Speaker 5: I.
Speaker 3: Cashman. I can. I. Sandoval. I. Sawyer, I. Torres. I. Black. I. Clark.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 3: Flynn.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 3: Herndon.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 3: Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced the results. 11 811 Eyes Council Bill 20 1-0635 has been amended. Councilmember Sawyer, would you please put Council Bill 635 on the floor for final passage as amended?
Speaker 2: I move that council bill 20 10635 be placed upon final consideration and do.
Speaker 3: Pass as amended.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It's been moved and seconded. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 20 10635 Council Member Hines.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Council President. I am excited to bring this text amendment and Associated Ordinance Text Amendment as amended and associated ordinance change to this body. I think this is a great day for the residents of Golden Triangle. I think that this will benefit the eclectic nature of buildings in Golden Triangle and encourage for its historic designation and preservation of the older buildings, while creating more and new accessible housing and more publicly available open space, which is already been part of the charm of this amazing neighborhood. But. But what this does is make it even more accessible and available. It also encourages more public art, similar to some of the art already in the neighborhood. If you've been by the art museum, you've seen several works of public art that that people get there. Tourists and residents get their photographs taken next to all the time. And and also Friday morning will be the final selection process for for the Denver Art Museum, Denver Public Library, $600,000 towards their 1% for art project. And that will be located in Golden Triangle as well, likely very close to both of both of those locations. So that'll be even more public art funded by by our developments. But but but this will encourage even more public art in in future developments. It encourages, again, publicly accessible, accessible, open space. But I think one of the biggest benefits of this text amendment is to increase the pedestrian experience for for residents and and visitors to Golden Triangle. I think that, you know, this is an area right next to the urban core. It is it is important for us to to think about how we can create housing density, but also create economic strength and and vibrancy with all of the all the creative and and other businesses in in the neighborhood. But but also encouraging the neighbors and visitors just to have a great pedestrian experience by the access to pedestrian infrastructure will create a neighborhood that will help its residents break their dependance on cars. Having more people use alternatives to cars to get around shop, work and play will help the planet. It will increase physical health as we act as pedestrians, not drivers, and use human powers to get around our city. It'll increase community as residents get out of their cars and interact with one another. As we hold hands and and circle of black with our partner or our walker dog or multiple dogs or one cat, there's a neighbor who watches cat around. But regarding Mr. Zeppelin and his comments, I agree with him wholeheartedly that this neighborhood is unique and distinct there. That said, as as Mr. Johnson said, zoning code doesn't provide a great base to celebrate the treasure that is Golden Triangle outside of some of the comments that Mr. Johnson already said. So I agreed with Mr. Zeppelin that this is a treasure of a neighborhood. And in previous public comment periods, I have I have mentioned that I will continue to work to achieve the vision that Mr. Zeppelin and frankly, the neighbors of Golden Triangle have asked for in ways that are leveraging the zoning code, but also leveraging my authority beyond just CBD authority, to make sure that we value and treasure the neighborhood that is Golden Triangle. Mr. Zeppelin mentioned a cultural trail and the 50 to 80 trail that I continue to push for that realization as well. And I continue to push for the realization of the creative district's vision, which includes the specifically, the Creative District wants to highlight a pedestrian experience on Acoma between 10th the 12th. So I will work with residents of Golden Triangle, the Golden Triangle, Creative District, R.A. and all of you on this Hollywood Squares box to advocate for for the 5280 for the for Mr. Zeppelin and everyone who lives in in Golden Triangle. I, I hope my colleagues will support this text amendment because one of thing, it also redefines affordability. We actually have an associated ordinance change because that would literally change the law of what affordable housing means it. City. So city wide affordability defined in ordinance is 80% AMI. But this ordinance change will define affordability as 60%. Am I in golden triangle for context professions in the 60 to 80%? Am I include teachers, nurses, firefighters and I believe they deserve to live in the neighborhoods in which they work, just like other people deserve to live in those neighborhoods too. This, combined with increased incentives for developments, developers to implement projects with affordable housing components, will create affordability in a neighborhood which hasn't built meaningful, affordable housing so far in this millennium. I'd go back to the 20th century to find some affordable housing projects in this in this neighborhood. So finally, I do want to touch base on our touch on one law that hasn't yet taken effect in Colorado, but has received a lot of a lot of conversation. And that is the the law that is commonly referred to as the repeal of the Telluride decision. This new law will provide cities in Colorado with the opportunity to require affordable housing and all new developments. That law doesn't take effect yet. It doesn't take effect until September. I believe it's 90 days after signing day. And meanwhile, we spent more than two years creating legislation that provides so much for the residents in Golden Triangle. I want to point out that 90% of this text amendment applies to so many other benefits for Golden Triangle other than affordable housing. That said, I completely get that affordable housing and housing just in general is a huge need for our city. This bill leads and some housing elements like redefining affordability as 60%. And still we should observe and respect the two plus years article to process. And in that, in that time, more than a dozen projects, housing projects, not just projects, housing projects have moved forward in Golden Triangle that will likely not have any sort of affordability component . So we're aware of more than half a dozen other projects that are also in conversations to move forward in Golden Triangle. And I believe we can't wait for a new stakeholder process that incorporates the Telluride repeal. We need affordable housing now. I believe that that coverage and by the way, I think that that affordable housing conversation should be citywide. And so if we held back this conversation, I believe that would force too much focus on Golden Triangle, and it really should be a citywide conversation. So that's a lot for colleagues to digest. I really I think that this is an amazing work from our stakeholder group, from CPD, from so many residents who have provided a lot of input. Mr. Zeppelin as well. I think that we are. Our thoughts are on the same page. And I really look forward to to realizing his vision, which I share, and so do the residents and Arnaud's and Golden Triangle colleagues. I urge and I thank you.
Speaker 0: Q Councilmember Hynes. Up next, we have Councilmember Sandoval.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. I would just like to acknowledge Christopher and CPD's all your work on creating the visuals to tackle the Ukraine issue that I had brought up. I know that wasn't easy, and I know after it came as a informational briefing before the movie, you really went back and really studied it and talked about it , and it was explained in a different way. And I you all know I love visuals because I think that that's where I can send constituents call. I can send them to those visuals. They help take away some of the the language that we use in planning that is not always inclusive of everybody because they don't quite understand what's going on. I'd also like to say thank you for the incentive for landmarking. I think that this area is really important to preserve, and I hope that that resource and that tool, that's it. That's a newer tool I hadn't seen before in the Denver zoning code. So I'm always happy when we're working on adding new tools to our zoning code for other areas of town. That played just as much significance. And I'd also like to think going down, Councilman Hines, you really taking on the issue of the 60%? When we met, it was 80 and it was often times I think about teachers. I think about our staff. I think about our council aides. I don't even think our council aides, some of them make 80%. Am I in the city and county of Denver? I think they actually are in the 60 percentile of the amite. And so thank you for providing an opportunity for people, city workers and the people who keep Denver functioning like our teachers and librarians and our and our staff here in the urban core where they have an opportunity to live. And I do agree that this is a very unique area of town, but I think all areas of town are super unique and deserve their own identity and new tools to add to the zoning codes. So although I do agree with making the plan and I think thank him for all his work, I think Northwest Denver has amazing places as well. And I think that this was highlighted in this package by adding the historic preservation piece, by adding development pieces, by talking about the public right of way similar to what we did in the active centers and corridors overlay that we did in Northwest Denver. So I really do think that as limited a tool as our zoning code is that you are above and beyond it. So with that, you'll have me full support. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Sandoval. Next up, we have Councilmember Kenny.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council President and congratulations on your reelection for another year. I first want to acknowledge that this package meets all of the criteria. In particular, if you you know, we usually don't pick favorite criteria or extra criteria. But I do think in this case, the plan conformance, there was so much energy put into the Golden Triangle area plan and the visioning and you know, in particular the ways that this package tackles so many pieces of that plan vision, I think, is just really astounding. So I want to give my kudos to the participants in the process and Councilman Hines and all of the community planning staff. I did just want to chime in specifically on the housing proposal. I want to thank Councilman Hines, other colleagues who supported the EMI adjustment, as well as the staff. I advocated for this change and I want to just share a little bit more about why. I have long been a supporter of the full continuum of affordability. Right. A lot of our focus is on those experiencing homelessness and the lowest incomes. And I have been a defender and really argued that we do also need to do housing at 60 and 80% of AMI because there are families who are costs burdened at those levels too. And I will say that over the past several years, though, I have had to hear from constituents who really were asking me to reexamine that 80% of am I number and say to me, who is it really serving? And what has happened is that area, median income includes the entire metro area. And over the last five years, it really did a spike. And it's $100,000 is now the median income for a family of four in our region. And everything's adjusted by family size. But, you know, we used to have, you know, the very same occupations that both the staff and Councilman Hines mentioned used to be in that 80% of am I category. But what has happened is because the median has gone up so high, because some of our suburban counterparts have really dragged that median up, because there's been some way wage stagnation in some occupations, it has really shifted. And so, you know, my way of saying it is that 60% of am I today is the 80% of am I have ten years ago. And that's when a lot of those ordinances were written. Right and when those policies were passed. And I just want to give you an example. You know, I pulled some different occupations, but some of the occupations that show up in the 80% of my category accountants, audiologists, real estate agents. I don't want to say that some people need affordable housing more than others, but I do think that those are not occupations we see struggling as much with housing problems and instability. So they're they're at that income level, but their rate of struggle is less than those at 60%. And I also just you know, I also had to think about it's really difficult because a lot of times we talk about affordable housing. It feels race neutral and our policies on the surface are race neutral. Right. There's no race associated with 60% or 80% of am I? But we do we made a commitment as a council to look at the data and to think about where our policies have implications. And so it was not easy. And I don't have great, perfect data because the federal government, frankly, stopped reporting on it for four years for reasons we don't need to discuss today. But so it's difficult to get information on a my level and race and on whether your rent burdens all at the same time, whether you're struggling with your housing. But I did ask route policy for some information and I just want to share a few pieces of why this change from 80% of am I to 60% of am I advances racial equity. Okay. So I'm just going to use a few examples. So African-Americans are disproportionately represented among renters at both both levels, both at 60% and am I and 80. But the disparity is a lot greater. There are 16% of renters are African-American at 60% of in my compared to only 10% at 60 to 80, 61 to 80%. And just to give you some perspective on that rate, African-Americans are around 9% of our population. So they're overrepresented by quite a bit at that 60% of AM I category. Now, that's just among renters. So what we know is there's more need for housing for African-American families at 60% of AMI. So that's just the first fact. The second thing I looked at was the data about housing problems. So that housing problem might be that you're in substandard housing. It's for a lot of folks, it's that your rent burdened. You are paying too much of your income on housing. There's a few other types of indicators. For instability. But again, big disparities. You know, I'll just use another example for Latino families. They are just under 30% of households in Denver, but they make up 35% of those below 50% of women struggling with housing. It's about seven percentage points less at 80% of AM. So it's not that there's no one struggling at 80, but it's a lot less. And it's it's more it's more proportionate to their portion of the population. So what we see is racial disparities are showing up more at that 60% of my level. So I want to share this with folks just because this is the first time we're doing this in one of our audiences, we certainly got into some lower aims in negotiated agreements, but it's the first time we're doing a policy change. And I just think it's important to explain why. I think it connects to the goals of the city, although it gives everybody a chance for that housing who's at that income level. And the last thing I just want to add really quickly is the fact that that that these changes. Right. I know that, you know, we describe them as interim. They're going to be followed up by our City Way conversation. But there is a tradeoff we're making today, and I think it's just an important one to remind ourselves. And I was willing to make it right, which is the question of are you willing to accept a fewer number of units, right, then to get to the lower and level. So the multiplier in this case is four and it might have been a higher multiplier, a higher number of units if we just stayed at 80% of AM I. I believed it was the right thing to do to get to the households that had greater rates of rent burden, that had greater rates of struggle, that had more racial equity potential implications. But these are the kinds of tradeoffs that we're going to look at more when we have the citywide conversation as well, that there's a number of units versus level of affordability. So I think it was the right call. I appreciate the staff again and Councilman Hines really working through all the numbers and helping us figure out the place we could be. But I am proud to support this tonight. And, you know, we'll have to keep having this conversation about the my level in the other policies in the city now that we've we've started it tonight. So thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman Koinange. Appreciate the comments by members of council and likewise, happy to support this this evening, especially as we're expanding the amount of affordable housing to that 60%. Am I? Because I think having that close access to the city and county built a building, the Botanic Gardens, the art museum, etc. All of those different amenities are important for all of our residents of Denver as well. And so happy to support this this evening. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill three, six, five as and 4365 as amended. 9635. As amended. I'm sorry. 635. As amended.
Speaker 3: Hi.
Speaker 5: I.
Speaker 1: Cashmere high.
Speaker 3: Can each I Sandoval. Hi. Sawyer, I. Torres. I. Black I. Clark.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 3: Flynn.
Speaker 6: I.
Speaker 3: Herndon.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 3: Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce results.
Speaker 3: 11 Eyes.
Speaker 0: 11 Eyes Council Bill 635 has passed as amended. Councilmember Sawyer, would you please put Council Bill 636 on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 2: I move that council bill 20 10636 to be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance relating to the Denver Zoning Code to amend the Downtown-Golden Triangle zone district.
Amends the Denver Zoning Code to update the Downtown Golden Triangle (D-GT) zone district and other associated revisions. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 4-13-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_07122021_21-0697
|
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Sawyer. And thank you all for being here as well. We're going to go ahead and move on. The next item up is Council Bill 697. Councilmember Herndon, would you please put Council Bill 697 on the floor for publication.
Speaker 3: And move that council Bill 21 that 0697 be ordered.
Speaker 1: Published? So I could.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It's been moved down. We have the second by Councilmember Flynn, council member state Abarca. Your motion to amend.
Speaker 4: Thank you. I move that.
Speaker 5: Council bill 21, dash 697 be amended in the following particulars on page one Strike Online 28 Strike Knows or has reason to believe and replace with nos on page two. Line four Strike others and replace with others or on page two, line four strike lines four through eight. On page two, line nine, strike four and replaced with three on page four, line 30, strike section. And the manager shall may pursuant to state law and replaced with Section An on page four strike line 31.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. It has been moved. Then we get a second.
Speaker 4: Second.
Speaker 0: Thank you, counsel. Pro Tem Torres Questions or comments by members of Council Councilmember CdeBaca. Thank you. Council President.
Speaker 4: This amendment was brought forward.
Speaker 5: By stakeholders in the industry. This amendment eliminates departmental discretion of ordering testing of sexually transmitted.
Speaker 4: Infections.
Speaker 5: For individuals arrested for prostitution by the Denver Department of Public Health and Environment.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember CdeBaca. Council Pro-Tem Torres.
Speaker 4: Thank you so much. I have two questions, just technical ones. Councilwoman CdeBaca. One is on the amendment document. It refers to the designated consumption areas set back requirements. Just wanted to make sure that's an error on the amendment document that's uploaded. I believe so. I think Zach drafted this one for us, and I don't.
Speaker 5: Have the bandwidth to pull the one that's uploaded, but I believe that's an error. Okay. Shouldn't be. Yeah.
Speaker 4: Do we need to do anything on that? If the if it's in the document, an error.
Speaker 5: If it's it, I'll have all double check that and make sure that that gets cleared out for second reading.
Speaker 4: Okay. The other is numbers number two in in the amendment changes line. Page two, line four is not the one I think that you're referencing. It's page two, line three. But I want to double check that with you.
Speaker 5: Line three is the one that says others. So let's see.
Speaker 4: We're getting. You are correct on that. Okay. And then just and I think everything else checks checked out. But I just wanted to double check on impact of these, particularly think of the fifth one where you strike the May pursuant to state law kind of a position. And if there was any kind of legal parameter where that had to be in kind of what either from your side from imposing or the organization that is opposing the changes or even if there was a reason that that had to be in there. I mean, the state law piece of it is.
Speaker 5: The I guess you would call it the floor. But the point of it is to remove the departmental discretion for the ordering of the STI testing. And so this sentence here combines what the manager may do plus or in alignment with state law.
Speaker 4: Okay. And I hear that I'd like to hear from you if there's somebody who can testify about whether or not that changes substantially what you were drafting. Just any feedback. Kevin.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Torres.
Speaker 0: So you want to introduce yourself, Kevin?
Speaker 1: I'm sorry.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 1: My name is Kevin Kelly. I am a program administrator with the Department of Public Health and Environment. Thank you all for having me today. In answer to your question, Councilwoman. What we were attempting to do when we drafted this language was to align with state law. The the former version of 20 4-1 31 was written in 1973, was very outdated and specifically targeted at sex workers, which had a a racist outcome where we saw a disproportionate number of black women being affected by it. We drafted the or chose to draft the state ordinance because it's a more nuanced approach to mandated testing. It doesn't single out sex workers, and it provides people with a path to challenge any order if an order does come through.
Speaker 4: Why would you need to mandate? A medical examination?
Speaker 1: It's a good question. It's the biggest concern at first was with so mandate and testing for perpetrators of violent sexual crimes. In the interest of protecting the security. The survivor of the crime, if that makes sense. And also just in case of any other sort of emergency scenario.
Speaker 4: Okay. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Those are my primary questions. I'll jump back in those of all. Thank you for the tip.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Pro Tem Torres. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 1: But thank you, Madam President. Councilwoman CdeBaca. I just saw this this afternoon, and I was trying to read through it, and I'm not quite where I understand the intent. And I'm concerned about one section in particular. And that was the First Amendment. The first line was being amended, line 28, where the manager knows or has reason to believe because of evidence based medical or epidemiological information that a person has an STI. And your amendment takes out the or has reason to believe. And that gives me pause. Because then the only the only condition under which the manager could mandate a test would be if the manager already knows that the person has an STI. But the purpose of the test is to find out or to verify based on medical or epidemiological information whether the person has an STI. It would almost make more sense to amend out where the manager knows. Take out the word knows because how can the manager know and keep in the has reason to believe? So I'm confused and I'm not quite ready to vote I on this. This is on publication, so I'd be happy to entertain it next week if it makes sense to me. But let me ask Kevin Kelly.
Speaker 2: What is the impact of.
Speaker 1: These changes on how we would operate this program? A D for the question. Councilman Flynn So I should leave this up with a caveat. After this bill passed the Safe House Committee. Councilman CdeBaca office and the stakeholder groups she was referring to reached out to to my office to discuss some changes that they would like to see in this. Excuse me. And we suggested an amendment, and I actually did help answer questions within the drafting of these amendments. However, I hope that that office and that stakeholder group, an apology didn't involve the right people with entity to to fully vet the outcomes of that of some of the changes which has led to some concerns with them. I spoke to Bob McDonald this this afternoon about this specific piece and his concern is that it would limit exactly to your concern as well would limit the authority that she has to to mandate testing. Okay. That's that's kind of the way I read that first change. I want to I want to more fully understand what the stakeholders were asking for and whether this amendment actually does that or maybe frustrates that. And so I would vote no on the amendment this week, but be willing to study it more deeply and consider it again next week on final. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 5: And if there's any interest in pulling up promoting Becky to her Blue and Disraeli Collins. They're members of our stakeholder.
Speaker 4: Group that can speak to why.
Speaker 5: Eliminating that departmental discretion is.
Speaker 4: Desirable.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilmember CdeBaca. We can ask the city staff to or our central staff to maybe promote them to answer a question on that. We're going to go ahead and go back to the queue. We've got Councilmember Herndon. You're up next.
Speaker 3: Hey, man, I was just going to second what Councilman Flynn talked about. This is on publication. So there are opportunities to get more information on time, recognizing that there are multiple public hearings tonight. And honestly, I believe it's necessary now to have these dialogs. But the fact that he doesn't appear to have such a concern gives me pause enough that I wouldn't support these, but also recognizing we have time next week to learn a little bit more. So I will be a know today. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Herndon. Councilmember Black.
Speaker 5: Thanks. I'll be really brief for the reasons that Councilman.
Speaker 4: Herndon just mentioned.
Speaker 5: But if I recall from when this was in committee, there was a very lengthy stakeholder process. I think it was up to two years long. So I wasn't aware of this amendment until today.
Speaker 4: So I definitely wouldn't vote for something I hadn't seen before tonight.
Speaker 5: Especially now that we've learned that Didi doesn't support it and the fact that it was not part of.
Speaker 4: The stakeholder process. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Black. And in the interest of time, because this is on first reading, regardless of if it passes or fails or will, if it passes, it would be a different conversation. But it sounds like there was a bit of confusion as to the document that got uploaded, and I believe the central staff is fixing that , but we would have time to re entertain this next week on final as well. And so we're going to go ahead and. Move forward. And in the interest of time. Madam Secretary, roll call on the amendment, please.
Speaker 4: CdeBaca. I. Clark.
Speaker 1: No. Lynn Bell.
Speaker 3: Herndon now.
Speaker 4: Cashman?
Speaker 2: No.
Speaker 4: Sandoval. No. Sawyer now. Torres. No. Black. No. Madam President.
Speaker 0: No. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 4: One I. Nine nays.
Speaker 0: Nine nays. The amendment to 20 1-0697 has failed. We will go ahead and we've got to comments by members of council on council bill 20 1-0697 as it is or I'm sorry. I believe that the. Madam Secretary, can you clarify because I have it repeated in the script, and I just want to make sure you don't need me to do anything additional on this since it failed.
Speaker 4: That's correct. We're going back to the first motion which would be ordering published.
Speaker 0: All right. Perfect. All right. We are going to then, Councilmember Herndon, did you have a question?
Speaker 3: Does it matter that I was just going to raise my hand and say we still need development?
Speaker 0: Very good. All right, wonderful. Then, Secretary, would you please. I'm Councilmember Herndon. Sorry. We need you to go ahead and move to put this on the floor for final passage or for final. I'm sorry. My script is resetting, as were we're here. All right, Madam Secretary, we are going to do roll call then on the publication of Council Bill 20 10697.
Speaker 4: Black. I. Slovakia. I. Clark.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 4: Flynn.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 4: Herndon.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 4: Cashman.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 4: Sandoval. Hi. Sawyer, I. Torres, I. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 4: Ten Eyes.
Speaker 0: Ten Eyes Council Bill 20 1-0697 has been ordered published. All right. It's not a good thing when you're when you're resetting and it moves your script where you're at. Councilmember Herndon, would you please put council bill 661 on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 3: I move that council bill 20 1066 wanted to be ordered. Be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 5: I can.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It's been moved and seconded and thank you for that catch. It's on. Final passage. Councilmember Herndon, your motion to amend.
Speaker 3: And move the Council Bill $21 0661 be amended in the following particulars on page one line.
Speaker 1: 21 Strike.
Speaker 3: June 18, 2021 and replace with July seven, 2021 on page one line 22 Excuse me, strike 20210056a and replace with 20210059.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance amending the health and sanitation chapter of the Denver Revised Municipal Code to align testing for sexually transmitted infections with state statute.
Amends Chapter 24 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code to align requirements for testing for sexually transmitted infections with state statute. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 6-23-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_07122021_21-0661
|
Speaker 3: June 18, 2021 and replace with July seven, 2021 on page one line 22 Excuse me, strike 20210056a and replace with 20210059.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved. May we get a second?
Speaker 1: So I can.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Flynn. Questions or comments by members of council? Councilmember Herndon.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. The purpose of this amendment is to extend the time frame in which major projects that have been that have received approval by the city to be designed under the 2016 building, and fire codes are to receive permits and begin construction. This amendment replaces the package of building and Fire Code amendments filed previously with the clerk, with the revised set of amendments that allows approved major projects designed under the 2016 Building and Fire Code to receive permits and begin construction by April 22nd 22. Specific changes are found in Denver Building Code Administration Section 103.10 .2.6 and Fire Code Section 102.13.2.6. The prior set of amendments required permits to be obtained and construction commenced by July 31st, 2021. And if you have any questions, we do have Eric Browning from Community Planning Development.
Speaker 1: That can answer any questions folks may have.
Speaker 0: All right. Great. Thank you. Councilmember Herndon. I see Councilmember Sandoval. Go ahead, please.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. Eric, thanks for joining us. Can you explain what this does?
Speaker 1: Yes. Good afternoon and thank you. Eric Browning, the interim building official for Community Planning and Development. Thank you for having me this evening. The amendment simply changes the date by which those major projects designed under the previous codes, the 2015 and 2016 codes needed to start construction. The Department recognized that due to the catastrophic effects of COVID, many of these projects lost their financing over the last year and have been struggling to get it back and that the prior date that was in the code July 31st, 2021, would not have been reasonable for these projects to get under construction and were this date to come to pass. All of these projects would expire, costing them literally millions of dollars in lost time and redesign to upgrade to our current set of codes, the 2019 Denver Building and Fire Code. So this is a recognition of the economic impacts of these projects and a longer version of the time from which they can start construction
Speaker 4: . But this this would be separate than his zoning permit rights for some of the zoning permits, like the old home tax amendment that's expiring right now. That wouldn't have any impact because there was a project in my council district that needed that was under this building fire code for July 31st. But then it also had a different zoning permit. They're not correlated, correct? They're separate.
Speaker 1: Correct. Yes. These are only building fire code amendments. This and this revision is under MSI Chapter ten and has no effect on zoning code.
Speaker 4: And then do you know how many projects are impacted? How many projects are we doing this amendment for?
Speaker 1: Yes. So there are, we estimate, between 50 and 55 projects that this could positively impact. All of these projects have started sort of valuations of $5 million or more. Many of them are in the tens of millions of dollars, and some of them are even over 100 million. So we're talking about very large developments to offer one additional piece of information. There are about 60% of these projects are for housing. And so we're talking about 6500 housing units being affected by this by this change, 1500 of which are affordable housing units as well. So we really feel the need for this to be approved.
Speaker 4: Can you after we after you're done, can you send me the list of 50 or 55 projects if you have them, so that I can know which ones and if any are in my council district that I would like. I would prefer to have the whole entire list, if you could.
Speaker 1: Yes, absolutely.
Speaker 4: All right. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Q Councilmember Sandoval all saying no, their hands raised four questions by members of council. Madam Secretary, roll call on the amendment, please.
Speaker 4: Herndon. I Cashman.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 4: Sandoval. I saw you.
Speaker 5: I.
Speaker 4: Torres. I black. Hi. CdeBaca, I. Clark.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 4: Flynn.
Speaker 1: All right.
Speaker 4: Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 4: Ten Eyes.
Speaker 0: Ten Eyes Council Bill 20 1-0661 has been amended. Councilmember Herndon, will you please put council Bill 661 on the floor for final passage as amended?
Speaker 3: Yes, Madam President, I move that council bill 20 10661 as amended be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 5: That I can.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved and we've got the second borough council members for your comments by members of Council on Council Bill 20 1-0661. CNN. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 661 as amended.
Speaker 4: What I. CdeBaca. I. Claire.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 4: Flynn.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 4: Herndon.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 4: Cashman.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 4: Sandoval. I. Sawyer.
Speaker 5: I.
Speaker 4: Tourists. I. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I then a secretary closed the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 4: Tonight.
Speaker 0: Ten eyes council bill 661 has passed as amended. 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 I. Otherwise, this is your last chance to call out an item for a separate vote. Councilmember Herndon, would you please put the resolutions for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor?
Speaker 3: It's not president. I move that resolutions be adopted and bills on final consideration be placed upon final consideration and do pass in the Bloc for the following items. Everybody get comfortable in all series of 2020 1068307070708070907 ten 07320677069607040713074606990 700 0701070207250726072707290743069507 11 0724073307360737073807390740074107440657066906700674.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Herndon, for the motion. May we have a second? Again, thank you, Councilmember Sawyer. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 4: Black. I see tobacco. I. Clark.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 4: Flynn.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 4: Herndon.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 4: Cashman.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 4: Sandoval. I. Sawyer.
Speaker 5: I.
Speaker 4: Torres, i. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 4: Ten Eyes.
Speaker 0: Ten 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 448 changing the zoning classification for 4785 North Key Home Street in Sunnyside are required public hearing on Council Bill 461 Changing the zoning classification for 3625 North Camarena Street and Northeast Park Hill. A required public hearing on Council Bill four six for changing the zoning classification for 1880 South Monroe Street in University Park and a required public hearing on Council Bill 592 amending Ordinance 20200961 series of 2020 to extend the duration of an interim interim zoning regulation to allow certain temporary unlisted
|
Bill
|
AS AMENDED a bill for an ordinance amending the Building and Fire Code of the City and County of Denver.
Amends Article II, Chapter 10 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code, the 2019 Denver Building and Fire Code and the 2019 Denver Green Code to correct errata found after the initial adoption in December of 2019. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 6-15-21. Amended 7-12-21 to extend the time-frame in which major projects that have received approval by the city to be designed under the 2016 building and fire codes are to receive permits and begin construction. The amendment replaces the package of building and fire code amendments filed previously with the clerk, with a revised set of amendments that allows approved major projects designed under the 2016 building and fire code to receive permits and begin construction by April 22, 2022.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_07122021_21-0461
|
Speaker 0: Ten I's Council build 20 1-0448 has passed. Moving on to our second hearing. Councilmember Herndon, would you please put council bill 461 on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 3: Yes, Madam President, I move that council bill 20 120461 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: It has been very good. Thank you. Councilmember Sawyer, the required public hearing for council Bill 461 is open. May we have the staff report? And I see we got Fran here.
Speaker 4: Afternoon. Members of City Council. Madam President. Can you see? Me on my screen.
Speaker 0: Go ahead, Fran.
Speaker 4: Perfect. My name is Fred Benefit and I'm an associate city planner with CPD. And I'll send you today an overview of the MAP Amendments. Four 3625 North Columbia Street. We should not go into the next leg. The subject property is located in district eight. We have Councilman Christopher Herndon. Herndon. In the northeast. You are killed neighborhood. Some trouble passing this lights. Give me 1/2. The applicant is requesting to rezone the property to allow for an accessory dwelling unit. Well, all other forms and standards would remain the same. The property is currently in the Urban Edge Single Unit District, which allows for a minimum of 6000 square feet. And as you can see on the map, most of the surrounding properties are also an SUV. We can see some I am x three half a block to the north and some you see a block and a half to the south of the subject property. The current land use of the site is single unit residential and it is surrounded by mostly other single unit uses with some two unit uses and some multi-unit uses nearby. And also you can see a school half a block to the southwest. We can also see some industrial uses half a block to the north of the property. This slide shows the existing form and scale of the area with the site of the proposed rezoning on the bottom right and some images to show the residential character of the neighborhood. Now looking at the process, the informational notice of the application was sent on February 22nd, 2021. Planning Board unanimously recommended approval on April 21st. To date, staff has not received any public comment from neighbors or the owners. The Denver zoning code has five review criteria. The first one is consistency with the departments. There's three plans applicable to this rezoning. We have comprehensive plan 2040 Blueprint, Denver and the Parkfield Neighborhood Plan. The rezoning is consistent with several of this prejudicing comprehensive plan 2040 Balgo just over a couple of them. 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 Denver the subject property is mapped as part of the urban edge neighborhood context. The future places map designates the subject property as low residential place, though displaced types have predominantly single and two unit uses and accessory dwelling units are appropriate. 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 expected to see 10% employment growth and 20% housing growth by 2040. Therefore, that stuff points out that the request is consistent with the applicable adopted plans. Lupine also includes specific policy recommendations. Housing Policy four focuses on diversifying housing choice through the expansion of accessory dwelling units throughout all residential areas. No. The Park Neighborhood Plan was adopted in 2000 and is applicable to this type property. This plan is silent on residential rezoning specifically. However, the proposed rezoning is consistent with the land use and zoning goal and the land use and zoning action. Recommendation number three stated in page 32 and 33 of the plan. The proposed city you would win would maintain the existing integrity of Northeast Square Hill and increase the mix of housing options in the neighborhood, which is comprised of single unit, two unit and multi-unit dwellings, as is thereby. And they're very consistent with this malaria plan. Stuff also finds that the requested rezoning meets the next two criteria. The rezoning will result in uniformity of district regulations and will further the public health, safety and welfare primarily through its implementation of adopted plans. Justified circumstance for this rezoning is a clear adopted plan. Since the approval of the existing ESU Dixon District, the city has adopted the Comprehensive Plan 2040 and blueprint. Denver stated throughout this presentation. The proposed rezoning to East One X meets the intentions of this plan's. Lastly, the proposed zoning is consistent with the urban edge neighborhood context residential district and the ESU. Do you want to the district? Stuff does recommend approval based on finding all review criteria has been met.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, friends. And this evening, counsel has not received any written testimony on Council Bill 21, Dash 0461. And we have three individuals signed up to speak this evening. And so we'll go ahead and start with our first speaker. And it's Sandra Knight.
Speaker 5: Hi. Yash Chandra. Thanks. Thanks. Madam President, thank you to the rest of the Council for letting us speak tonight. And thanks for all your hard work in the city. We are asking for our home 365 area street to be resold so that we can build and you for my mom or grandma so that the kids can be closer to her and she can age in place with us. She is 82 this year.
Speaker 0: And still healthy, but.
Speaker 5: So that's the perfect time to get her out here. And we sent out 22 letters to the neighborhood. I had them all translated into Spanish, so everybody in the neighborhood could read them. We got three letters of support back and nobody that.
Speaker 0: Pushed back on the plan at all.
Speaker 5: It's multi-generational neighborhood and.
Speaker 4: We got a lot of verbal support for the idea. So I am asking that you approve our rezoning plan.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Our next speaker is Bruce O'Donnell.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. As members of council, this is Bruce O'Donnell at 3:36 a.m. in Denver. And we've been helping Sandra with the rezoning. And I am consistent with staff's recommendation. I ask for number of council vote to approve the rezoning request and I'm available answering questions. The City added Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Bruce. And our last speaker for this hearing is Rochelle Safir.
Speaker 4: Okay. Everybody hear me? Okay? Mm hmm. Actually. Good evening, City Council. Thanks for. Thanks for being with us. My name is Rachel Scofflaw, and I live in the bridge neighborhood in Denver.
Speaker 5: I work with Russ O'Donnell on helping the client.
Speaker 4: With the application process for this proposed rezoning. I will try to keep this to the point and not repeat too much information you've already heard. So first, the proposed rezoning was recommended for approval by Planning Board as it meets the rezoning criteria for an amendment. Second, it has been support from citywide planning, such as Compliant 2040 Blueprint Denver 2019, and it's also supported by housing and inclusive Denver of 2015, which is Denver's Guide to excuse me setting housing policy strategy and Investment Priorities. It aligns with land use and zoning goals and recommendations of the Park Hill Neighborhood Plan. And of course, the integration of accessory.
Speaker 5: Dwelling units will kind of.
Speaker 4: Add to the much needed housing stock and diversifying the housing stock in addition to the neighbor outreach conducted by the homeowner. We reached out to local partners on January 25th to be contacted. Three are nodes in the area. The greater partner community think Northeast Denver friends and neighbors as well as Northeast Parkville Coalition. We provided them a copy of the application and inform them of the homeowners plans. We invited them to meet with us so they could so we could share more information if needed. None of the answers replied needing any other digital information, nor did they hold an opposition. For these reasons, I ask council members to please vote yes on this bill for the rezoning of 3625 Camaro. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 0: And. Q That concludes our speakers questions from members of Council on Council Bill 461. All right. No questions of counsel. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council bill 461 councilmember Herndon.
Speaker 3: AMA President. I think this is quite clear the criteria has been met and I just want to applaud the the applicant and her work for reaching out to the neighbors as possible neighbors as possible. So I would urge and encourage my colleagues to support. 461. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Herndon. And seeing that it does meet all of the rezoning criteria, happy to support it as well. And Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 461, please.
Speaker 4: Herndon.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 4: Cashman.
Speaker 2: Hi.
Speaker 4: Sandoval. I. Sawyer, I. For it. I. Black. I. Clark.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 4: Flint.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 4: Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce results. And I can I counsel bill 20 1-0461 has passed. Councilmember Herndon, will you please put council bill 464 on the floor for final passage.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 3625 North Krameria Street in Northeast Park Hill.
Approves a map amendment to rezone property E-SU-Dx to E-SU-D1x (allows for an accessory dwelling unit), located at 3625 North Krameria Street in Council District 8. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 4-27-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_07122021_21-0464
|
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce results. And I can I counsel bill 20 1-0461 has passed. Councilmember Herndon, will you please put council bill 464 on the floor for final passage.
Speaker 3: And move the Council Bill 20 10464 and be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. They required public hearing for council bill 464 is open. May we please have the staff report and we have Libby here with us. Go ahead, please.
Speaker 5: All right. Okay. My name is Libby Adams of Community Planning and Development, and I'll be presenting the MAP Amendment for 1880 South Monroe Street. This application is located in Council District six in the University Park neighborhood. The property is located between Bucktown Boulevard and I 25. The applicant is requesting to reason from urban edge single unit D two Urban Edge single unit RD one to allow for an accessory dwelling unit. The property was red zone from ESU D X to ESU D in 2019 as part of a legislative rezoning in University Park to eliminate the suburban house building form within the neighborhood. The site is currently occupied by a single unit home. You can see its mostly single unit in this area, but then multi-unit directly east and south of the site. This slide shows the residential nature of the area with the subject property on the upper right hand side and then some of the single unit residences and then multi-unit residence just to the south. A postcard notifying neighboring property.
Speaker 4: Owners was sent out.
Speaker 5: Within 200 feet of the site on February 25th. To date, staff has received a statement from the registered neighborhood organization and three comments from neighboring residents, all in support of the proposed rezoning. Although one comment did note that while they are in support of the rezoning and abuse, they encourage staff to look at the design and then short term rental regulations around abuse. The Denver zoning code has five review criteria which must be met in order for a rezoning to be approved. The first criterion is.
Speaker 4: Consistency with.
Speaker 5: Adopted plans, and there are three plans that are applicable to the site. This application is consistent with the strategies.
Speaker 4: In the.
Speaker 5: Comprehensive plan, as it will create a greater mix of housing options in the University Park neighborhood and promote infill development where there are already services and infrastructure in place. The future neighborhood context in Blueprint Denver is urban edge. These areas contain elements of both the urban and suburban contexts and are mostly single in two unit residential areas with some multi-unit and mixed use embedded throughout. Blueprint identifies the future place type as low residential. These place types are mostly single unit residential uses, and there are areas where accessory dwelling units are appropriate. And then the future street type for Monroe Street is is local. And these are mostly characterized by residential uses consistent with what the applicant is proposing. The growth area strategy is all other areas of the city. This is where we anticipate to see 10% of new employment and 20% of new housing by 2040. And then blueprint also includes specific policy recommendations. So the land use and built for housing policy.
Speaker 4: For strategy.
Speaker 5: E states that individual rezonings to allow aids are appropriate and should be small, an area which is consistent with this single site adu rezoning. And then the University Park Neighborhood Plan is also applicable to this site and designates this area as single family residential, stating that new development should be integrated into the existing character of the neighborhood . And this is consistent with the proposed rezoning, says ESU. D1 is a single unit district. Staff also finds the requested zoning meets the next two criteria. The rezoning will result in uniformity of district regulations, and it will further have a public health, safety and welfare. By providing a new housing unit that is integrated into the existing character of the area and implementing Blueprint Denver. Staff finds there's.
Speaker 4: A justifying circumstance for.
Speaker 5: This MAP amendment with the newly adopted plan guidance in Blueprint.
Speaker 4: Denver to allow aid to use throughout all.
Speaker 5: Residential neighborhoods. And then lastly, the proposed rezoning is consistent with the urban edge neighborhood context, the residential zoned districts purpose and the specific intent of the ESU de one zoned district. So based on the review criteria, staff recommends approval of the proposed rezoning. And that concludes the stock presentation.
Speaker 4: And I am available for questions.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Libby. Tonight, council has received one written comment on Council Bill 464. There is one suspended comment in favor of the application and no submitted comments in opposition of the application application. All members of Council that are present have certified that they have read each of the submitted written comments. Do any members need more time in order to read all of the written testimony that was submitted? CNN council secretary let the record reflect that all written testimony, both in favor and in opposition of Council Bill 464 has been read by each member of council and all written testimony will be submitted to the official record of the hearing. We have this evening, one individual signed up to speak and our first speaker and only speaker is Tyler Higgins. Sorry for mispronounce you anyway.
Speaker 1: So that's perfect. Thank you. Hi, I'm Tyler Keegan's. I live at the property address. Just wanted to follow up real quickly that similar to the last applicant we're looking to, has a mother in law to live with us in the back of the property. It's pretty much straightforward like that, but I just want to join, say hi and and see if there are any questions as well.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. That concludes our speakers questions from members of Council on Council Bill 464. See no questions. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 464 Council Member Cashman.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. I do believe this application meets the requirements with with some comments in that our plans talk about ideas being appropriate to maintain the residential quality character of the neighborhood. They say its priorities are appropriate to add to our housing stock. What I'm asking is that our community planning and development folks get to work on a and a a an option where this an idea can be approved but without allowance for short term rentals. I would really like our CPD staff to do a merge with the list of accessory dwelling units with our short term rental licensing list . So we get some information to find out how these units are being used. I'm getting increasingly cranky at not having that option. Am a strong believer in accessory dwelling units as important to solving our housing issues. But if I if I start seeing data that tells me it's being used as alley hotels, I will find that not compatible with our plans. And we'll start voting no on ADU applications until we have that available option. Tonight, I'm pleased to support this and will ask my colleagues to join me.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Cashman, and agree on all of those points and seeing that this one before us does meet all of the rezoning criteria, happy to support it as well. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 464.
Speaker 2: Cashman High.
Speaker 4: Sandoval. I. Sawyer, I. For it, I. Black. I. The tobacco. Claire.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 4: When?
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 4: Brendan.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 4: Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced results.
Speaker 4: Nine three.
Speaker 0: Nine I's Council Bill 20 10464 has passed. Moving on. Councilmember Herndon, will you please put Council Bill 592 on the floor for final passage?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 1880 South Monroe Street in University Park.
Approves a map amendment to rezone property from E-SU-D to E-SU-D1 (allows for an accessory dwelling unit), located at 1880 South Monroe Street in Council District 6. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 4-27-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_07122021_21-0592
|
Speaker 0: Nine I's Council Bill 20 10464 has passed. Moving on. Councilmember Herndon, will you please put Council Bill 592 on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 3: Yes, Madam President, I move that council bill 592 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved. We've got a second by Councilmember Flynn. The required public hearing for Council Bill 592 is open. And I see we have Tina Axelrod here for the staff report. Go ahead, please, Tina.
Speaker 5: Good evening, everyone. My name is Tina Axelrod. I work as the zoning administrator in the Community Planning and Development Department for the city of Denver. And there we go with that.
Speaker 0: It would be great out there. You could. You did it. Thank you, Tina.
Speaker 4: Okay.
Speaker 0: It was just lagging on my side. Go ahead, please.
Speaker 5: This bill is actually sponsored by Councilwoman Amanda Sandoval, and I imagine she might have a few words to say. I wasn't sure she wanted to kick this off or come in after me. So I'll take it. You're on mute, Amanda.
Speaker 4: I'll come in after you. Thank you, Tina. Okay.
Speaker 5: This is Council Bill 20 1-0592. This council bill amends a previously adopted interim zoning ordinance that city council passed back in October of last year. That ordinance number was 2020, dash 961, and that was in support then, as it is still today in support of the city's response to the COVID pandemic. At the time that the bill was originally passed late fall, it allowed COVID related temporary uses to be permitted across the entire city under an existing zoning administrator authority to do so in the Denver zoning code, which encompasses about 75% of the city. And the ordinance ordinance extended that that authority to land zoned under former chapter 59. So that's. Doing the math. Another 25% of the city at the time the ordinance was passing, we were in obviously still in the first six months or so of the pandemic. And the expiration of that interim ordinance was tied to the act of the state and city emergency public health orders. So this amendment does not change anything substantively about what was in the previous ordinance except for the expiration date, which has been extended to continue assisting the city's recovery from COVID negative impacts on both the local economy and on housing stability in the city. That extension would allow temporary uses that would be permitted in either former Chapter 59 until December 21, December 31st, 2023, for a year and a half out. So what kinds of emergency uses were allowed under the previously adopted ordinance? We primarily it was either temporary homeless shelters of a permanent nature or operated exclusively indoors and then to novel uses which were temporary managed campsites, which are outdoor shelters provided for homeless persons, and then a temporary expansion of outdoor space for patio and seating for restaurants and bars. And these are pictures from actually approved sites across the city and where they successful, I think by most estimations, having that authority and having that allowance to permit these types of uses. Former Chapter 59 Zone Lands was really important and played a role in the success of the program to date when it came to the temporary outdoor patio expansion. In total, as of mid-June, the city had assisted 192 Denver restaurants and bars to increase their capacity. Those are the yellow dots on the map, you see. And 23 of those 192 where about 12% were on former Chapter 59 zone property. The scale of those expansions are not shown here on the map, but they they varied and I know personally of a few that really took advantage of parking lots to substantially increase their capacity outdoors. And then when it came to the managed campsites, having the authority to allow the managed campsite on former Chapter 59 zone lad land did did open up the door to several private properties that were made available for this use during the pandemic and which is now continuing. The first two temporary managed campsites were established in Capital Hill and one of those two sites did include land zoned under former Chapter 59. Those have closed now, and we have two new managed campsites, a permitted one at Regis University, which opened up in June. And that is all on land zoned for Chapter 59 and one and Park Hill, which is actually under the Denver zoning code. But having that authority to permit these types of temporary uses on former Chapter 59 land did address, you know, critically needed 24/7 shelter and supportive services to persons during the height of the pandemic and now continuing where we're still feeling the impacts. And that's really why we're asking for the extension tonight. While the public health orders are ending, the impacts are still with us. The economic impacts from the extended business closures and revenue lost during the height of the pandemic has is is is proof and evidence of the need for continued assistance. So the city as a whole will be continuing the temporary outdoor patio expansion through October 31st, 2022. So the authority and the ordinance tonight would be more than enough to capture continuing and also creating new extensions on land of the former 59 through the end of that program. Other temporary uses that might crop up, including the managed campsites, would be able to go longer. And again, that's in response to a substantiated increase in the demand and need for shelter that's directly related to the effects of the pandemic. And I've put on the slide there a quote from the Department of Housing Stabilities report that was released in March of this year on their response to the housing needs generated by the pandemic. It's not ending any time soon, and it was on the advice from our housing specialists in the cities and housing providers city wide to extend it to December 31st, 2023. They felt that was the timeframe in which they could have the elbow room to not only continue dealing with a day to day need, but have the capacity to assist in transitioning to more permanent housing at all scale and the city. We take the text amendments through a read set of review criteria as well. Every time we come before you and here are the three criteria. The first criteria is, is this bill or ordinance and its intent and purpose consistent with adopted land use policies and plans. This ordinance, KPD finds, is consistent with the equitable, affordable and inclusive goals within the comprehensive plan as it addresses, seeks to address continuing housing needs and supporting the local economy. Similarly, the ordinances goals support strong and authentic neighborhoods by providing a new type of transitional housing on the spectrum, from overnight shelters to permanent housing. It provides one more option for people who are in need of housing or are currently unhoused. And then the the uses that support local businesses are certainly supportive of the goals of ensuring a vibrant local economy and authentic neighborhoods. Similarly, the ordinance seeks to provide the economic diversity and support the economic diversity, particularly of small businesses that have suffered and are being allowed to extend to expand their capacity has been quite the of the. Lifeboat for those businesses, as we understand it, and the feedback we've received. And Blueprint Denver again, we feel this ordinance is purpose and intent supports and furthers the goals. Whether it's housing policy or economic policy to the same ends as discussed before, are supported by the policies and blueprint. Denver And then being able to treat the city as the whole rules playing out in different parts of the city just based on the the unfortunate fate being dealt to you as a landowner, whether you're on the in the old code or the new code or the relatively new code, not having that be the differential between getting the support needed, whether it's expanded patios or or having housing choices brought, you know, brought closer to home and into communities where there might be demand out. Because I'm former chapter 59 so land. Other adopted plans certainly are housing plan for housing and inclusive. Denver. This ordinance fits squarely in being able to authorize more flexibility to provide housing. Overall, CPD believes that the ordinance will further the public safety and welfare, in addition to being consistent with our adopted plans, and will certainly provide in greater uniformity of zoning regulations and restrictions across the entire city. With that, CPD does recommend approval of Council Bill 592 and again, this will amend the previously adopted City Council Ordinance and extend the expiration date for this temporary authority of the Zoning Administrator to allow listed temporary uses of former Chapter 59 zone lands out to December 31st, 2023.
Speaker 0: All right. Well, thank you, Tina, for the staff report. And Councilmember Sandoval, did you want to add anything?
Speaker 4: I could add things now or I can we tell our comment portion if you want to, we can go ahead with questions and then I can add during the comment portion. Thank you. All right.
Speaker 0: Very good. Thank you. All right. Tonight, counsel has received three written comments on Council Bill 592, and there are no submitted comments in favor of the application and three submitted comments in opposition of the application. All members of Council that are present have certified that they've read each of the written comments. Do any members need more time in order to read all of the written testimony that was submitted? CNN council secretary let the record reflect that all written testimony both in favor and in opposition of Council Bill five nine 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 this evening ten individuals signed up to speak. And our first speaker is Matthew Leek.
Speaker 1: Excellent. Thank you. Axelrod I got to say, that is an awesome name. I'm not going to comment much on the outdoor dining portion. I don't think that's going to generate much controversy. I think everyone pretty much agrees. That's awesome. I live in capital. I was a neighbor to a safe outdoor space for six months. The one over at the church around 13th and 14th in Grant or Logan. I got to say, the R.A. made a lot of promises to the neighborhood, and they were all true. The place was clean, orderly, uh, quiet. If I hadn't been told I was there, I don't think I would've known. And from what I understand, it helped a dozen people find the transitional housing they needed. I kind of like that spectrum on the continuum of housing. Um, so I'm happy to say that if anybody is concerned about what the presence of one of those live, I mean, in their neighborhood, my experience you really ought not to worry about. And it was fantastic. However, I do live on Cap Hill, which means I can't let this go without remarking on the flip side, which is my condition. My support comes with a condition here. You might notice if you walked around Capitol recently that a little bit of temporary fencing has gone off. And I think that's because people suddenly got me in this, because we've gotten the idea, got the message from the city. If an unsanctioned encampment chooses your lawn to set up, then you're screwed. It's at least a month of any kind of crime you can imagine. It's burglary, break ins, arson. Sometimes it's assault. It's people chasing you with a golf club and a lot of meth and heroin use. The reason this matters? Well, I am totally in favor of expanding safe outdoor spaces. I think they're fantastic. This has got to come with the flip side. We can't let it become a viable career path for people to operate open air, bicycle chop shops on busy intersections in Capitol Hill. So while I support the measure, I would ask that my support come with that qualification that City Council uses the totality of its influence to cooperate with what 83% of the voters in Denver have expressed, which is we want a goddamn camping ban. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Stephen Benishek.
Speaker 1: All right. This is working.
Speaker 0: Mm hmm. Go ahead.
Speaker 1: Okay. Um, hi. My name is Susan Bunch. I live in University Park, and I'm asking you to vote for this because it seems like every meeting there's someone here to talk about housing and homelessness. And this issue is very quickly becoming probably the most pressing issue in the city. We just had some talk about the problems cause for him. And so everyone on those council is very well aware of how there are far too many people living on the streets in this city and they have taken steps to address it. In all fairness, while it's still much more difficult than should to build housing in the city. Safe outdoor spaces shine as an example of cooperation among the city and the best in civil society. We hear almost every week how bad the homeless problem in the city has got. And yet here we have some organizations volunteering to host people on their private property and have everything taken care of by a private nonprofit group. These sites are not meant to be a permanent solution, and the longer they're necessary is a continued indictment on our failed land use and zoning policies. However, right now they are extremely necessary, as we just heard, and every person living these sites is one less person living on the streets. The organizations that have participated in this program should be commended for their willingness to step up and solve the pressing issue in this community. And for that reason, I urge you to vote yes. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Jason Hornbeck.
Speaker 1: And. Q Madam President and Council I would, but it's been a while since I've spoken to you, and it's very nice to see and hear you all. So I'm Jason Wernick. I'm speaking on behalf of the Jason Park Neighborhood Association in Denver. I live at 50th Indicator, which is about two blocks away from the registered outdoor site, which we strongly support and we feel extremely safe and sound having in our backyard. Sorry, I'm speaking in favor of the extension of this temporary use ordinance for Chapter 59 just because of the all the good we can accomplish through removing unnecessary land use restrictions. And this is an improvement over the last several months. Our overly complicated zoning code or codes, as it were, and proven to be a hindrance on our ability to optimally use our land, as evidenced by the need for no special ordinances. This inefficient land use has resulted in a housing shortage which perpetuates displacement, wealth inequality, which has resulted in the need for emergency housing services like our wonderful safe outdoor spaces. Please vote to extend this ordinance. It was a very good idea. I was happy to support it the first time and I'm happy to support it now because it continues to be necessary. But even so, these temporary solutions are a lot like treating lung cancer with a cough drop. It's time we made some permanent changes to our zoning code because pollution, inefficiency and exclusion aren't working for us. Thanks for your time. Have a good night.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Maya Price.
Speaker 4: Hi. Can you hear me? Mm hmm.
Speaker 0: Go ahead.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 4: I'm speaking in.
Speaker 5: Support.
Speaker 4: Of the extension.
Speaker 5: For.
Speaker 4: Safe outdoor spaces. I have been trying to educate myself on the situation of homelessness.
Speaker 5: I live at 1625 Larimer Street.
Speaker 4: So I see the effects of that every day when I walk outside of my front door.
Speaker 0: I understand that homelessness.
Speaker 5: And the affordable housing issue is extremely complicated, and there are many pieces to the puzzle. One thing that I know, and I'm sure you all know, is that we need to scale it up. There are just.
Speaker 4: So many people in need of.
Speaker 5: The housing. So while safe outdoor spaces only help, you know, 50 or 60 people at a time.
Speaker 4: That's one piece of the puzzle.
Speaker 0: And at least they're quicker.
Speaker 4: Than building.
Speaker 5: A home or obtaining a motel. So please vote yes.
Speaker 4: To extend the that permission. And I hope I didn't freeze up during that process. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Now we were able to hear they hear you the whole time. So all good. Thank you. Our next speaker is Jonathan Patoka.
Speaker 1: Good evening, counsel. Can you hear me?
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Okay, great. Yes. My name is Jennifer Patoka. I am a resident of District three over in West Colfax. I would love to emphasize everything that my Jason and Steve said before me strongly in favor of this extension, although chagrined somewhat that we need this to be a temporary use. I would argue that these should be sort of constantly accessible uses both the temporary outdoor patio spaces and the state housing sites themselves. During the deliberations over group living amendments. It was clear that the Planning Board, Council Committees and this council body as a whole were strongly in favor of bringing or outmoded Chapter 59 districts up to par with the newest Denver zoning code. It was addressed primarily as an equity issue there, and there was a lot of consternation and really just concern that we have 25% of our city. That isn't up to the latest with the rest of our code, flawed as that code may be in some cases. I know that a number of you have advocated for ways to get there. I do see this extension as a temporary Band-Aid in reaching that goal. 59, of course, made sense at the time when when there were some sort of large land use and sort of national plans in progress when the new Denver Zone zoning code was created. But to not belabor the point too much as reviewed in the comprehensive plan that was presented to us here, that go to strategy is really important and every neighborhood should be contributing to our housing solutions, not just 75% of neighborhoods. This is a really important use. We're absolutely still in an emergency situation here with housing. Honestly, I expect we will still be in an emergency situation by December 31st, 2023. And I'm hoping we can use these two years to resolve the failure in our zoning code that prevents these uses from being constantly accessible to our population. Again, I would encourage you all to vote yes in favor of this amendment, and that's all. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker this evening is Adam Astrup. And I believe we'll have to have our staff go ahead and. Bring him into the panelists, please. All right. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Please go ahead. My name is Adam Astrup. I am a resident of District seven and I am speaking tonight in favor of the extension. You know, I think, again, just to echo everyone else, you know, we're here because Chapter 59 was not resolved a decade ago as it was supposed to be. And at this point, I think probably the easiest way to do that would just be to engage in citywide land use reform extreme. You know, extending this would be helpful. These safe outdoor sites are actively helping people now in our community, and it's impossible to build housing. So, you know, then they kind of need to do something like this. But, you know, there's you heard anger in the general public comment. You heard anger from at least one of the speakers tonight. And nobody's going to be less angry by 2023. And if we don't have a policy answer for the housing crisis in Denver, it's going to be a big issue. So please vote yes. And then again, city wide land use reform. But thank you so much for all your work and I hope you guys have a good rest of the evening.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Adam. Our next speaker is Mina Goldstein. We'll have the central staff bring her in. I believe it was Nina Goldstein that we had up next. And Mina, if you might raise your hand and the attendees will go ahead and get you moved over. In the interim, we can go ahead and go to Katie Blakey. Go ahead, Katie.
Speaker 4: Say hello, council members. And my name is Katie Blaikie and I live in District ten and I'm speaking in support of this. I think by just about every measure, safe outdoor spaces have been really successful, both in improving the conditions of the neighborhoods and most importantly, improving the conditions of those people who live there. We need more safe outdoor spaces and we need multiple in every single neighborhood and every single district, as well as safe parking areas and other human centric solutions. Until we have all the affordable housing we need to accommodate all the rights. I agree with previous speakers that this change should be permanent. Our housing crisis is only going to be way worse in a year and a half, especially since we're not able to build housing as quickly as we need to to accommodate everyone. So I would also ask you to please look for other ways to add flexibility to Arizona so that in COVID and beyond, we can adapt more to the needs of our growing and changing city. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Katie. And our next speaker, we have Mina Goldstein. Goldstein and Mina. We're having a little bit of trouble. There we go. We got you promoted into the panelists, if you can. Go ahead. Go ahead, Mina. All right, we'll get her promoted up here. Know we're not able to hear you or anything. We're not sure if we're having technical issues on our side or on yours, but we'll try to figure that out. And we'll go ahead to our next speaker. We have Tess Dougherty. Go ahead, please. Tess.
Speaker 4: Hi there.
Speaker 5: I am. Can everybody hear me?
Speaker 0: Mm hmm. Go ahead.
Speaker 5: Great. So, um, the city council is there to respond to someone's comment. I don't think that you all have done everything in your power. I was reading the the code again this week, and it sounds like definitely y'all have more power that you've not been yielding to find some additional safe outdoor spaces or to end the dramatic displacements and instead substitute what is happening three times a week with something more humane and and, you know, not far less negligent with our. You know, money that's being spent and just totally squandered. And so we want some damn humanity is what we want. And and so, you know, entitled comments like, you know, the bicycle shop shops for people living on the streets with few other opportunities to make money in the first place diminishes the very real needs of this community. And so I just wanted to name that. And so I'm just curious, what about Downtown Denver partnership? What about what about Denver, Inc? What about Arnault's? You know, why have Arnault's not been tasked with finding with their neighbors and businesses in each. You know, an associate in his district? Can't that be something that, like, we are working, you know, public? You know, government relationship, because it sounds like we're really passionate about those types of relationships, but I don't know that we're really using them in all of the ways that we could be. And I also wanted to point out that, of course, I am totally in support of associates. I don't think it's going to be temporary. This is something that like, you know, people need this transition even. This is something that has highlighted that. And people need a transition sometimes from the streets to to permanent housing. And this provides that. And so I think that we need to start thinking about it in that way and start really that's why it's so important that we find these sites throughout the city. And and I also just want to highlight that, you know, the government that you guys gave money to restaurants, which I think was totally fair and they needed it to build tents that were in the right of way and were encumbrances against the city code. And during the pandemic, some of them are still up. Some of them have blocked the line of sight, which is have caused car accidents. But apparently no additional stop signs are allowed to protect the public safety. But at the same time, we are sweeping people three times a week. So, you know, it's just and, you know, we're orange lining the city. It's the new, you know, mode of segregation in Denver. And so I'm just curious who gets to. Enforce the code and who has to follow it because it doesn't seem like, you know, I'm totally supporting the extension of this. But I would just argue and would like to call attention to the fact that it's not being equitably enforced. These extensions like who gets who gets extensions, who gets you know, who gets these these permissions during a global pandemic? Because people experiencing homelessness, who are being displaced not just by the housing market, but by the city of Denver, they don't get these types of extensions. They don't get these types of exemptions. So, you know, I would ask that you do that for them, too.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Yes, that's our time allotted for speakers. We're going to go ahead and move to our final speaker and it's David Hagan. And David, we're having a little bit of trouble with our system. And so I'm hopeful we'll be able to hear you and get you up into the queue here.
Speaker 1: Can you hear me?
Speaker 0: Mm hmm. Yep.
Speaker 1: Hi. Thank you for letting me speak. As you all know, I'm going to be all for this amendment. I wanted to address the fencing in the rocks along with this amendment. And we're going to continue to allow the restaurants to be encumbrances through this, but yet we're not going to enforce the code and and the zoning, which I've been reading a lot, is just a test was talking about you guys have the power to end these rocks on the side of the road and all the orange fencing and you need to do it because it is an absolute violation. Whereas right now we're trying to vote on something that is going to be law for the next couple of years or whatever. You need to enforce the law that we already have because what you're doing is hurting people. When bicyclists run into those rocks, they get hurt. When homeless people trip on those rocks, they get hurt. So in the fencing, it's just it's not it's not it's not logical that legal and it's not attractive. So please remove that at the earliest convenience. Let's see. I'm sorry. I'm driving. So I don't have all the stuff that I wrote down quickly accessible. Yeah. I mean, I guess basically, you know what I'm going to say? I don't want any of that stuff. My approved this temporary safe outdoor spaces and as was said before, that need to be more than temporary. They need to be able to be used as a transition for everybody. And and. Yep, that's all I would say today. Sorry. Thanks.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, David. All right. We're going to go ahead and try to get you heard during this public hearing. Mina, if you can, go ahead and unmute and go ahead with your comments, please. We're not seeing a mike associated with you. Mina and so. I think we are going to have to go ahead and move on showing that talking's permitted, but for some reason we're having difficulty. And so thank you all to all of our public hearing speakers this evening. And that concludes that portion. Questions from members of Council on Council Bill 592. Councilmember Zoya.
Speaker 5: He's not a president. So a couple of questions, I guess, to clarify the timing of the ordinance. So the original ordinance said it would be automatically repealed 21 days after the expiration or rescission of all comprehensive city and state public health orders as a result of the emergency. So the governor rescinded the public health orders last week and the cities aligned with the state. So has that automatic repeal timeline already begun? You know, I should have had the answer to that question before I walked in the door here. But I believe and I see Jill on, too, I don't know if she knows any more than I do. I know the state one. So 21 days from the first would be July 21st. I don't it it's not necessary. It's not exactly that. The city is aligned with everything the state has done. The city has its own set of emergency orders. I know a lot of them have been rescinded. I don't know if all of them have. If this ordinance gets adopted tonight, I think I'm still within the 21 days. So, for example, for Regis and the S.O.S., there will reissue a zoning permit under the new authority to extend its term out beyond, you know, to to the point that it asked for it originally, which I think was a six or seven month term . And then no other no other permits. Are it at risk of expiring? The outdoor permits, the outdoor patio expansions didn't have to get zoning permits to begin with. So I will update my use determination to extend the time frame for that, and that will just apply. No one has to come back in for those. 23 or 25 businesses won't have to come in for new permits. Got it. Okay. So and then I guess what happens if it doesn't get extended? What does that look like? If it if this ordinance it's not going to adopted. Right. Then the authority would expire at the 21 day mark post as the last public health emergency order issued by the state or city and probably the city. And we'd have to shut those places down. Got it. Okay. And I think the city's public health order continues for another like maybe month or so. So. So that's good to know. So how was the December 31st, 2023 date for the extension chosen? As I mentioned in my presentation, it was in consultation with the executive directors of Host and CPD and Dito, and every every city agency had a seat at the table as we discussed the extension. And it was primarily driven by the housing need. I felt that an additional year and a half to have these sprinkled about the city would just continue to support the efforts and and deal with the the significant blip that happened during COVID, at least at least at the margin deal deal hopefully with most of the COVID related bump up. I mean, it's not going to solve it all or get everything, you know, get everyone housed, at least for for the after effects of the pandemic. That was a reasonable time frame. Okay. So not a year and a half. Two and a half years. Sorry. Yes. I can't count. Very well.
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 5: It's good to announce this key saying December 31st, 2023. And instead of trying to count it down. Can you. Okay, there.
Speaker 4: Still.
Speaker 5: Does. Denver, do we have enough shelter in hotel beds to serve the needs of our unhoused population? Now is. I'm just trying to understand exactly what this looks like. As I understand it now that the demand and the need still far outstrips the supply that the city has either direct access to or direct control over, whether it's a bed in a new 24 seven city shelter or in any of our partner shelters or in some of the the smaller in place shelters that, you know, with churches not opening again. Right. We lost all that ability to do a lot of the ad hoc sheltering that was happening in the city in small on a smaller scale of 8 to 10 beds in a in a church across the city. So at this point, between the the the absolute increased in numbers of people experiencing homelessness and the instability that went up from March to March. In that report that I shared, the numbers are there is a 60% increase in the demand for housing from March 2020 to March 2021. No, we're we're nowhere close to having a bed for everyone who needs one and who wants one. Okay. And how many beds are there are 200 beds in safe outdoor spaces currently, is that right? The number which I. Have. It's, it's it's about 880 some beds. I'm going to find it. Um, I think it's is ability to house about 100 persons today in the to manage campsites that have recently been permitted in June and are open and operating now got it's 100 beds between the two campsites yet is 100 persons capacity. It's it's fewer tents but some of those tents are designed to hold more than one person. Okay. Understood. So how many safe outdoor camping sites are you as the zoning administrator considering adding between now and that proposed end date of December 21st, 2030, as we will consider under the criteria limitations that have been adopted in the messages to such termination, any and all applications that come our way. So the city is not has not come forward as the applicant for any of these managed campsites. It's been the institutional property owners that have come forward. So as many as we get, we will consider them. We'll hold them up to to the light of whether they meet the criteria that have been specified, which includes some limits on on the applicant has to be a nonprofit entity. Of course it's allowed in most zone districts currently, and then all the agencies review the prospect from their their disciplines, whether it's fire, electric safety, duty, PG for public health and sanitation, stormwater, sewage and wastewater gets involved with porta potties. And then our human service partners are all involved. So it goes through a full review with the site planning application, but we will take in as many as we get and timely review them and and get them up and running. The city is a partner in in so far in many of these campsites. They are given some priority expedition through the process because of the emergency and the need for housing. So we try once we do get an application, we do try to get it through very quickly because of the dire need. But yeah, we have it. The city is yet to bring forth one on city owned property, for example. As an applicant, though, we did spend close to six months looking for city owned land to do one of these. It ended up being the churches and the schools that were able to quickly mobilize and come forward with the first four. Got it. Okay. So I guess what I'm trying to sort of determine is if we're short on shelter beds and hotel rooms and safe outdoor campus spaces are the next option. But we only have 50 or 100 beds at two total safe outdoor camping spaces, and we're not sure when more are coming or how many people we expect to serve there. I guess I'm a little I'm trying to wrap my mind around how this is then the solution to housing our unhoused community. I don't think anyone said it was the solution. It's an option. It's one more way we can get people off the street and in safe shelters, be in a tent, a temporary structure. It's not it's not as hearty as being inside a building during winter, but it's feasible, it's doable. It's quick. And at least so far, the proponents have been able to wraparound services with the housing as well. It's it's just one more tool in our toolkit now that we didn't have before. But in no way, shape or form, I was suggesting, you know, this is the solution to ending homelessness and this, but it sure wasn't so. And when we looked at the original contract for this, it was 100 beds, $4 million or 100 tents, $4 million. And that included, of course, the showering facilities and the bathrooms and the tents themselves and the wraparound services and all of those things that, you know, averages out to $10,000 per tent. Now, we've got to save outdoor spaces, and there are 100 beds between the two of them. Is it still averaging $10,000 a tent for all of the services? I'm sorry.
Speaker 4: Can I. Can I say something? So in Council District one, we have a safe outdoor site. At the university site, it's 89 beds, 100 beds per site. So it's not 100 beds for two sites. I have the ability to house 100 people in Council District one according to their zoning permit. And then the other area in Council District 800 people. So it's it's 200 people. Just to clarify, it's not 100. I have that that we just had a 100 person permit.
Speaker 5: Okay. Yeah, that's what I thought. But when Tina said that it was 100 total bet on that.
Speaker 4: So do you.
Speaker 5: Know, Councilman Sandoval, if that $10,000 per tent cost is about that average is about is continuing?
Speaker 4: So when we first voted on the money to go to the safe outdoor site that had to those two and now so I think they're up to almost 400 people because they had those two tents, two sites that closed, and now we have two more that are helpful. So four total. But I didn't ask Chandler how much money per person this was costing. Got to.
Speaker 5: Bring in.
Speaker 0: Skye Stewart to clarify, just to make sure that we've got all the numbers correct and everything. And so we went ahead and promoted Skye there. Go ahead, Skye. And she had also helped out that our public health order does go through the end of this month for us. But go ahead, Skye. Please introduce yourself.
Speaker 4: Absolutely.
Speaker 5: Thanks. Councilwoman Skye Stewart from the mayor's office. Just wanted to clarify a couple of things. We're in a we're asking Tina some questions that are a little outside her scope. So want to step in and try and give her a little bit of a break here. And one of the questions that was asked was about our shelter bed capacity on on any given night. And I do want to be clear that we do have hundreds of beds available every night if every person off the street wanted to come in. Would we need to do some things like open rec centers? Absolutely. But we do have some flexibility in our system that will accommodate for that. One of the challenges we run into and you'll hear Brett, officials say this regularly, is that there are also barriers to people feeling comfortable in shelters. Some of those you don't have to deal with property, pets and partners, the three P's that she likes to bring up. And so safe outdoor space provides another option that is really important in that continuum of the system. But I do want to be clear. It is not that we do not have shelter beds available. We do we need different types of options to meet different types of needs. So I just wanted to get that one on the record. And we do absolutely. As you mentioned, Councilwoman Sonya, have contracts related to providing funding for a couple of different sites. There's some flexibility in that funding for additional sites. I can get our our host team to give you a breakdown of what that's looking like right now and what they think that that might. There's no like maximum. This is how much it could be per site for our per tent for each site. It's really more of a how do we make sure that we are helping to fund what is a an effort by a third party partner who's been really helpful with us in advancing this concept? So I can work to get a breakdown for you of what exactly that looks like kind of on a per tent basis right now and what they anticipate in the future. That'd be great. I really appreciate it. Thanks. And thanks for that clarification. So I just want to make sure we're on the record. The city's public health order ends August 1st is that it runs through July 31st. Right now, we're kind of taking those 30 days at a time as we're adjusting, you know, based on different sets of circumstances. But the existing public health order that started July 1st, a new, more condensed version runs through July 31st currently. And we'll reevaluate as we get closer to that July 31st. Got it. Okay. Thanks so much. Thanks, Madam President.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Sawyer and Councilmember Sandoval, for the or for the help out and then Skye Stewart as well. Next up in the queue, we have council member Black.
Speaker 5: Thanks, Madam President. I had just raised my hand because I wanted to call it Sky. But you already did it, so thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Great. Thank you. All right. Seeing no other hands raised for questions. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 592. Councilmember Sandoval Did you want to make some comments and share the sponsor?
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. I would just like to say that Council District one has a site that just opened on Lugo and Regis University, and we have had not one incident there. Actually, what we've had our successes, we've I've checked in and people are able to get into other type of housing and that is just one use . Also, we were able to the old image site if anyone remembers Denver when images of 38 and Tennyson stuck in a former Chester PD or former. They've been able to expand and have patio service out in the carousel area, which was not formerly allowed, and this amendment allowed them to expand into the right of way. And they also have other businesses, smaller businesses that were able to expand into the right of way. So I have heard from both businesses and I've also heard from people who are experiencing homelessness that this amendment to the former Chapter 59 works for people. And so therefore, that's why I'm sponsoring it. And I would ask my colleague to sponsor as well. And I just want to say I did read the public comment and I did read some of the letters that came in to us as council members thinking that this sanctioned and ten. It does not this does not address all of our homelessness issues in Denver. It does not that it is one solution and a new another tool into our zoning code to create equity throughout the entire city. So if 70% of the city is allowed to have it, why should the other portions not be allowed to have it ? I do not agree with that. I think that the city should be created and have access for all business owners to expand into the right of way if they would like to. And I also believe sites like villages that are under former Chapter 59, if they want to, on their private property, have this type of use just because they are limited to the former. Chapter 59 should be excluded from allowing this type of use of having their sanctioned site to help those who are experiencing homelessness get into new and other opportunities. So with that, I would ask all of my colleagues. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Sandoval. Up next, we have Councilmember Sawyer.
Speaker 5: Yes, Madam President, I really appreciate what Councilwoman Sandoval said a minute ago. I think it's really important to know that if it's allowed in 75% of the city, it would be fair for it to be allowed in the rest of the city. I guess my concern around it comes from the timing of the amendment now that the orders are starting to be rescinded. So, you know, it's a tough vote. According to the ordinance, it's both small businesses and safe outdoor spaces. And while I'm supportive of extending outdoor patio seating options for restaurants and small businesses, you know, I do have a lot of concerns about safe outdoor camping sites because we have a camping ban and it's a shame that the two can't be separated. So if private institutions and individuals want to support the Safe Outdoor Space Initiative on private property using private dollars and from donations, that's their decision. And I respect that. But the voters have spoken and they've said that they don't want outdoor camping in Denver. So I think using city tax dollars, city right of way city resources for safe outdoor camping sites flies in the face of a clear mandate from 83% of the voters in our city. The premise behind safe outdoor spaces was an understandable, temporary solution in extraordinary times. Extending them for another two and a half years is not. Especially when we've heard testimony tonight that we have hundreds of shelter and hotel beds available every night to serve our unhoused population. If people are not choosing to access those beds, it's a different matter. Those are probably there are probably dozens of laws, frankly, that the citizens of Denver would prefer not to follow. But we don't get to pick and choose which laws are enforced. I also have a lot of concerns about the rescission date of December 31st, 2023. Municipal elections will be held in May of 2023, and a new mayor and new council will be sworn in on July 15, 2023. And we're obligating those future city leaders to something that's extremely controversial without their consent. I think that's a dangerous precedent that we're setting. And so I am going to be a no on this. It's not a precedent.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Council member Sawyer. And not seen in the other hands raised. I'll go ahead and chime in here. You know, none of us saw a pandemic come in and where there are folks that the shelter system is not the place where they feel supported in spending the night. And especially for our community members who are maybe trans members who are, you know, in some of our shelters, same sex couples are not allowed to stay together. And so with that, you know, I understand the need for this and I'm happy to support it this evening. I will go ahead and pause there. I see council pro tempore is has chimed in and so I'll go ahead and abbreviate my comments and let you go ahead and chime in as well. Council pro tempore as.
Speaker 4: Thank you so much. Sorry it was slow to my but no commentary stuff. Just wanted to thank Councilwoman Sandoval for bringing this forward, for working with Regis, both on a vaccine site and now on a safe outdoor campsite. So really appreciate the partnership that you've garnered in your district and just really want to make it clear that it isn't just kind of an individual assessment.
Speaker 5: Initiative.
Speaker 4: 300 and authorizing safe outdoor camping or entirely different things. And even as a candidate, I was opposed to 300. But I support safe outdoor spaces. They are very different.
Speaker 5: And just want to.
Speaker 4: Make sure that we're clarifying costs. Whatever number Skye comes back with for what it costs per tent to operate.
Speaker 5: Guarantee you it's below.
Speaker 4: The amount that we spend in.
Speaker 5: Safety net.
Speaker 4: Services to individuals who cycle in and out of.
Speaker 0: City support.
Speaker 4: Services.
Speaker 0: Denver Health.
Speaker 5: The jail, whatever other kind of entities.
Speaker 4: When the free the social impact bonds were being developed, they calculated the cost for some of the most kind of frequent users of those services to be about $28,000 per person per year. You're not getting anywhere near that with what we're funding. Colorado Village Collaborative.
Speaker 5: They're essentially saving.
Speaker 4: The city money on the back end.
Speaker 5: Especially they're able to.
Speaker 4: Push.
Speaker 5: Individuals into.
Speaker 4: More permanent housing solutions. So very happy to support this and really grateful that Colorado Village Collaborative is a partner at the table for the city. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Counselor Pro Tem Torres. And my last part of my comments were definitely going to be thanking Councilwoman Sandoval for her work on this and leadership, and especially as we need these different options to house folks during this time. And we're not out of this pandemic yet. No matter the public health orders, we're going to be feeling the ramifications of this for many years after. And so I am happy to have these other options. And with that being said. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 592.
Speaker 4: Sandoval. I. Sawyer? Nope. For. I. Last.
Speaker 5: I.
Speaker 4: Then I. First.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 4: Flint. Herndon.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 4: Cashman.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 4: Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 4: One day, I.
Speaker 0: Nine I's Council Bill 20 1-05. Name two has passed our pre adjournment announcement this evening. On Monday, August 2nd, Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 5 to 2, changing the zoning classification for 2208 North Belair Street and South Park Hill.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance amending Ordinance 20200961, Series of 2020, to extend the duration of an interim zoning regulation to allow certain temporary unlisted uses in Former Chapter 59 zone districts due to the COVID-19 disaster emergency.
Amends Ordinance 2020-0961 to extend the zoning administrator’s authorization to approve temporary unlisted uses on Former Chapter 59-zoned land through December 31, 2023. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 5-25-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06282021_21-0655
|
Speaker 0: Councilmember Sawyer has called out Bill 572 for a vote. Under pending, no items have been called out. The first item up is Council Resolution 655. Councilmember Hines, will you please put Council Resolution 655 on the floor for adoption.
Speaker 2: And move the Council Resolution 20 1-0655 be adopted?
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Questions or comments by members of Council. Council. Member State of Abarca.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. I caught this one out for a separate vote because Aramark is known for many of the things we just heard in public comment, including serving spoiled food to inmates. And we've heard from people inside of the department, as well as outside of the department who really do not want us to support this contract . And so I'm going to stand with them this evening and vote no. And I encourage my colleagues to vote no as well. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember CdeBaca. We have Councilmember Hines. You're up.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. There's someone from safety here. I'd like to ask. Basically that. Oh, thank you. The question I have is, um, we certainly want our, our guests in our jails to eat, right? If we say no to this contract, does that mean that we will not have a way to provide food for our inmates?
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Hines, we have Vince Lane from the sheriff's department here. So we'll go ahead, Vince. Go ahead. And you can answer that question.
Speaker 3: Good evening, Counsel and Councilmember Hines, I appreciate your question. No, it doesn't mean that we currently provide food services internally. And certainly if this contract were to not move forward, we would continue to provide that service as an internal service provided by sheriff's department staff.
Speaker 2: Thank you. And thank you for all you do. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Haynes, and thank you, Vince, for being here as well. We've got Council Pro-Tem Torres.
Speaker 1: You're up next. Thank you, Madam President. Chief line, were the complaints that have been made about.
Speaker 0: Spoiled.
Speaker 1: Food, were those in Denver, how is that kind of complaint or.
Speaker 0: The quality of the of the food.
Speaker 1: Overseen.
Speaker 0: Within the jail?
Speaker 3: Thank you, counsel. Council woman Torres I'm not familiar with any complaints at all related to Aramark from Denver. They don't currently have a contract with us, so they're not providing that service with DSD currently. So I'm not familiar with any Denver based complaints. To answer the second part of your question, we have put some what I would refer to maybe as some guardrails in place to ensure that appropriate oversight. Excuse me. Is main is maintained throughout the term of the contract. I'm one of those things that we've done is assigned an executive level of our command team, which is the major who currently oversees as the facility administrator, the county jail, where the vast majority of our food service functions occur. And part of his ancillary roles moving forward will be to oversee the contract and ensure that all things related to the contract and all things, quite frankly, related to food service are maintained. You know, meeting extremely high standards. That's one of the things that we've put in place. We also will have regular inspections and audits done. Some of those inspections and audits will be done by the Denver Department of Public Health and Environment. And in fact, I believe Danica Leave from DDP. She is also on the call here and can speak specifically to the inspections that will be done by DDP as well. In addition to that, we maintain a couple of different accreditations here at DSD. One of them is the American Correctional Association and the other is the National Commission on Corrections Health Care. Both of those sets of standards require specific things be met related to food service. Those two processes come along with multiple audits and inspections to ensure that those standards are being met. So in addition to inspections being done by our own staff that work in the accreditations area, regular audits will be done by those two entities as well to make sure that we're continuing to meet those standards. In addition to, you know, executive command oversight inspections and accreditation, we also have a very formalized complaint procedures internally here at DSD, so that anyone in our custody that has any issue with anything related to food service, they can file those complaints by means of a grievance . And then we have a specific unit that reviews every one of those grievances and then makes assignments so that we can provide adequate responses to the inmates and that we can correct any issues that we find, any services that we provide. So that gives you an idea of the various types of oversight or guardrails that have been put in place to ensure that those high level of standards that we expect our continue to be maintained throughout the term of the contract.
Speaker 1: Thank you. And I do have one question about the price adjustments section of the contract. Is that something that you can answer cheaper or is there somebody else?
Speaker 3: We actually have two two other people on this evening that might be able to help with that. Troy Bratton is on from the city attorney's office that may be able to answer that. And then also we have Ian Dougherty on from finance that may be able to assist with that. So if either one of them are are suited, perhaps they can make it known that they can answer that question for you.
Speaker 0: All right, we've got them both in the queue. And so it's Trey or Ian, either one of you.
Speaker 1: And I'll just ask the question. The bill request goes through. Looks like it's June 20, 23 with.
Speaker 4: Uh.
Speaker 1: Extension years. Just wondering for the 9 million that's presented how the price adjustments are contemplated within that contract amount.
Speaker 3: Hi, this is Troy. Troy Brown from the city attorney's office. I'm going to go ahead and defer to an on on one and finance. Then I can ask answer any legal questions that might come up. But I'll I'll leave the pricing questions to the finance. Certainly. Thank you, Troy. Thank you, Councilmember Torres, for this question. In terms of the price adjustments. I believe with the way the contract is set up, with the terms ending midyear gives us some flexibility in if we need to request additional funds due to the due to the CPI increases that we we have that flexibility, we'll be able to use our our typical methods for, you know, youth analysis and projecting expenditures in order to be able to in order to meet those needs. But we we believe that that we'll be able to do that with minimal impact.
Speaker 1: So just and maybe it's a non-issue. But I was just I found it interesting. And when I ask the question, the price adjustment arrived at INS June 30th, 2022, but the contract goes through 2023, so it'll be adjusted within that first period of time. And just wanting to see that the 9 million covered a price adjustment. So you're contemplating a CPI and of a standard CPI.
Speaker 3: I? Yes, I believe if memory serves me, that is actually.
Speaker 2: Written into the contract.
Speaker 1: Okay. Okay. Nothing further. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you. In.
Speaker 0: Q All right. Thank you, Councilmember Pro-Tem Torres. Up next, we've got Councilmember Flynn.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. Chief Line. I don't know if you are the person to address this. Or maybe Troy. Section six of the contract deals with termination. I want to expand a little bit on the earlier questions, the accreditation we have from the American Correctional Association and the other accreditation that they contain. They include standards for food service and food quality. The termination section of the contract, section six, we can terminate this upon a breach or default of the agreement, and that would include the scope of services, any breach in those food service standards that would imperil our accreditation. Is that the case? I'm just a little concerned that we don't have the right to terminate other than for breach or default. This is from the city attorney's office. That's correct. Counsel then slammed the scope of work as incorporated into the contract. So any breach of any of the standards in the scope of work would also give us the ability to terminate the contract as well under that termination clause. And, you know, our standard clauses allow for legal remedies administratively and through litigation. So the scope of work is incorporated into the contract as well. Okay. So Chief, could you expand a little bit on what you call the guardrails? I read the memo that you sent out earlier last week about how we are going to ensure that Aramark which serve food in this in our two facilities. That does not result in the kinds of complaints that we've seen with some of aramark's, other correctional facilities contracts around the country. How are we going to avoid that? Councilmember Flynn, thank you for that question, sir. I'd like to defer to Danica Lee from CHP. I believe she's on the phone as well and can help answer that question specifically about the inspections and audits that'll be conducted by by the health department. All right. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Great. Thanks for joining us, Danica. Go ahead.
Speaker 1: The first thing. Thank you, Madam President. And good evening, counsel. Thank you for that question, Councilman Flynn. So we already conduct inspections in all these venues, the jail settings, and know part of what we do is respond to complaints, conduct inspections and take enforcement actions as needed. In terms of being able to avoid complaints. That's a very difficult thing to control for. But what we can do is make routine assessments, conduct inspections, assess for any issues, follow up on complaints will receive them, and then conduct three inspections is needed to verify compliance. And so that's a system that we use that you're likely familiar with in many different regulated food settings across the city, in Turkey, in Denver. And I'm happy to respond to any more specific questions, though.
Speaker 3: I thank you, darling. I didn't mean to imply that we would we avoid complaints. I think complaints are probably inevitable under any contract or under any condition. But how do we how do we handle them? How do we determine that they're legitimate? I know that Aramark serves over 400 correctional facilities around the country, and we've heard about some serious problems in some of them. So I don't want to be one of those one of those that has the complaints. I want to make sure that we have a mechanism in place so that we can actually terminate the contract if there is a breach. And I know that there's a period to cure a 30 day period to cure, but that's why I wanted to be clear. You also did EPA. She also does inspections right now under the the in-house program, do you not?
Speaker 1: That's correct. We do conduct inspections of whoever is in that role.
Speaker 3: Preparing and serving food. We had complaints about food quality under the in-house program.
Speaker 1: I'm not aware of any recently. Certainly going back in past years and visiting four or five years ago, I can recall a few, but nothing consistent or anything that's on my radar right now.
Speaker 3: Okay. Chief Lyon, can you elaborate on that? Are you aware of food service complaints under the sheriff's department program? Councilman Flynn, thanks for that question. And yeah, I can elaborate on that a little bit. It's not uncommon for us to get complaints from those in our care about either the quantities, if they believe that the quantities are too small, or perhaps they believe their meal was too cold or things like that. So we do occasionally get complaints like that, and when we get those complaints, they're typically done by means of a grievance. Those grievances that are forwarded to our grievance and incident response team, they then review those grievances to determine who's the best person to respond to those grievances, and then they get cataloged, farmed out, and reporting is maintained relative to those grievances so that we can respond to those. And if we have continued grievances, we can look into those things. There's also a procedure in place to elevate those to higher levels of command. So it's also not uncommon, although not frequent, for grievances to eventually arrive at my desk at each level. In the grievance process, we have the ability to investigate and we can go down, we can interview the inmates, we can take a look at the food quality and quantity ourselves and then make appropriate adjustments if we need to . So that's part of the internal complaint procedures, if you will, that we refer to as a grievance process for the inmates to follow if there are complaints. Okay. And of course, under the current program, we can't fire ourselves. Right. But we can terminate the Aramark contract. Are you. Are you aware of how our complaints have been handled before as a as a resulted in corrections to how we prepare our food under the current program? Yes, sir, I am. Typically, they are handled at the lowest level. If a if a deputy happens to get a complaint or receive a complaint from an inmate about an issue, there's some discretion at that level for them to take immediate action. If the inmate is complaining about some sort of food that they're served, then they can show it to the to the deputy and make that issue known. The deputy can can take some steps to remedy that right there on the on the scene and either or address the issue. Thank you. That's what I was driving at, because when you say they can file a grievance, that sounds like it's a very long process that would take longer than breakfast or lunch. So things can be resolved on the spot. Can they be resolved on the spot under this contract as well? Yes, sir, they can. The grievance process and complaint process won't change whatsoever. And if an inmate has a complaint, that can be acted upon immediately. Okay. Thank you. That's all. Madam President.
Speaker 0: All right. Very good. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. And thank you, Chief Lane and the team for being here to answer the questions this evening and not seeing any other hands raised. Madam Secretary, roll call, please.
Speaker 1: CdeBaca. Oh, no, Clark.
Speaker 3: All right.
Speaker 1: Flynn.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 1: Herndon.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 2: Hines, I.
Speaker 1: Cashman.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 1: Can I? Sawyer. No. Torres. I. Black I. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary. Close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 1: Two names. Nine I's.
Speaker 0: Nine I's Council Resolution 21, dash 20655 has passed. The next item up is Council Resolution 667. Councilmember Hines, will you please put Council Resolution 667 on the floor for adoption?
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Aramark Correctional Services, LLC to provide meal services at the Denver Detention Facility and Denver County Jail.
Approves a contract with Aramark Correctional Services, LLC for $9,000,000 and through 6-30-23 to provide services of preparing and serving meals at the Denver Detention Facility and Denver County Jail (SAFTY-202158720). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 7-19-21. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 6-16-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06282021_21-0667
|
Speaker 0: Nine I's Council Resolution 21, dash 20655 has passed. The next item up is Council Resolution 667. Councilmember Hines, will you please put Council Resolution 667 on the floor for adoption?
Speaker 2: A move the council resolution 20 10667 be adopted.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Questions or comments by members of Council. Council Member Sawyer.
Speaker 1: It's not. I'm president and called out this resolution so I can vote no. I voted no on the original contract, so I want to maintain consistency. The original conversation around the website started in response to the CDC guidance and the pandemic. They were sold to us as temporary and a temporary solution. But now the conversation has changed towards making them more permanent solution in our city. And the vast majority of residents in District five have made it clear that they don't want urban camping. Over 80% of voters in the city made it clear that they don't want urban camping. So I'm an alternate. Thanks, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Zoya. And not seeing any other hands raised. Madam Secretary, roll call, please.
Speaker 1: Sawyer? No. Torres. I. Black. I see tobacco. I. Clark.
Speaker 3: All right.
Speaker 1: Flynn.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 1: Herndon.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 2: Hines, I.
Speaker 1: Cashman. I can eat. I. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, close voting and announce the results.
Speaker 1: One day, ten Eyes.
Speaker 0: Ten Eyes Council Resolution 20 1-0667 has passed. The next item up is Council Bill 572. Councilmember Hines, would you please put Council Bill 572 on the floor for final passage?
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Amendatory Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Colorado Village Collaborative to increase funding for Safe Outdoor Space (SOS) sites.
Amends a contract with Colorado Village Collaborative by removing the restriction that 60% of funds within the contract scope be expended only on a singular second Safe Outdoor Space (SOS) site. No change to contract amount or duration (HOST 202158824-01). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 7-19-21. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 6-16-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06282021_21-0572
|
Speaker 0: Ten Eyes Council Resolution 20 1-0667 has passed. The next item up is Council Bill 572. Councilmember Hines, would you please put Council Bill 572 on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 2: A move the council bill 20 1057 to be placed upon final consideration and you pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Councilmember Sawyer. Your motion to postpone.
Speaker 1: I move that final consideration of Council Bill 20 1-057 to be postponed to Monday, July 19th, 2021.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Questions or comments by members of Council. Council Member Sawyer.
Speaker 1: Thanks, Madam President. This is our remote meetings ordinance. It's an as most of you know, we tested council's hybrid meeting technology today. It needs a little bit more work. So we're going to postpone the final reading of this ordinance to get tech services and Channel eight a little more time before we head back into chambers for our meetings. We're super close, but just not quite there yet. So it's not a positive.
Speaker 0: Very good. Thank you. Council Member Sawyer And we continue to work on it. So appreciate everybody's patience. Madam Secretary, roll call on the postponement.
Speaker 1: Sawyer, I. Torres. I lack. I. CdeBaca. I. Clark.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 1: Flynn.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 1: Herndon.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 2: All right, I.
Speaker 1: Cashman. I can. I. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 1: 11 Eyes.
Speaker 0: 11 Eyes Final Consideration of Council Bill 20 1-057 to has been postponed to Monday, July 19. 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 in 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?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance amending the local open meetings laws to authorize electronic participation and electronic meeting methods during emergencies and making other conforming amendments.
Modernizes open meeting laws to allow for use of emerging technology. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 5-18-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06282021_21-0466
|
Speaker 2: That's a president and move that council bill 20 10466. Be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved and we've got a second there. Thank you. The required public hearing for council Bill 466 is open. May we please have the staff report? And I see we have Abbey here with us.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Council President Gilmore. And good evening, members of council. My name is Abby Borchers and I'm a policy analyst with the Department of Excise and Licenses. I'll be presenting some information on Council Bill 20 1466. Council Bill 20 1466 proposes to repeal Chapter six Article six of the Denver Revised Municipal Code. This section of the code governs the Cannabis Consumption Pilot Program, which was created by an initiated ordinance approved by Denver voters in 2016, also known as I 300. The initiated ordinance created a cannabis consumption permit issued by excise and licenses, allowing the permit holder to allow cannabis consumption in a designated consumption area. On July 1st, 2017, excise and licenses adopted rules governing marijuana designated consumption areas. In 2019, the Colorado State Legislature passed House Bill 19 1230, creating a state framework for regulating social consumption of marijuana and adopting two types of marijuana hospitality licenses. After this bill was passed in 2019, the State Licensing Authority adopted comprehensive rules governing marijuana, hospitality businesses. And then in April of this year, Denver City Council passed Council Bill 20 1217, which adopted the state's marijuana hospitality licenses and related rules, offering a more robust framework for regulating social consumption of marijuana, as well as better opportunities for business owners and consumers. The marijuana hospitality program renders the cannabis consumption pilot program obsolete. One key similarity between the programs is that like the cannabis consumption pilot program, the marijuana hospitality program allows consumers to bring their own marijuana to licensed marijuana hospitality businesses to consume on the premises. But there are also several differences between the programs. First, under the cannabis consumption pilot program. Sales of marijuana were not allowed at licensed consumption establishments under the new marijuana hospitality program. Small sales of marijuana will be allowed at licensed marijuana, hospitality and sales businesses. Second, unlike the cannabis consumption pilot program, the marijuana hospitality program allows for indoor smoking and vaping at licensed marijuana hospitality businesses in compliance with odor and ventilation requirements. Third, while temporary event permits were available under the cannabis consumption pilot program, the state's framework for marijuana hospitality does not allow for temporary event permits. And finally, the cannabis consumption pilot program did not allow for consumption on a mobile licensed premises such as a tour, bus or shuttle. While the Marijuana Hospitality Program does. By Charter within the first ten years after approval, any voter approved initiated ordinance can only be amended or repealed by a two thirds vote of city council and only after a public hearing is held. Of the ordinance will require nine affirmative votes. And I just wanted to add, there's only one active cannabis consumption license in the city, and that license will be converted into a marijuana hospitality establishment automatically. Um, thank you. And I'm available to answer any questions.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you very much, Abbie, for the staff report. Tonight, council has not received any written testimony on Council Bill four, six, six. And it doesn't look like we have any individuals signed up to speak this evening either. And so we will go ahead and entertain questions from members of Council on Council Bill 466. All right. It doesn't look like we have any questions from members of council. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 466. Seen none. A quick reminder, we are going to need to have seven affirmative votes tonight to pass this to repeal it. And so we will go ahead and not seen any comments. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 466, please.
Speaker 1: Black. CdeBaca.
Speaker 3: I live.
Speaker 1: Clark.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 1: Flynn.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 1: Herndon.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 2: Hines, i.
Speaker 1: Cashman. I can. I. Sawyer. I. Torres, I. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced results.
Speaker 1: 11 days.
Speaker 0: 11 I's Council Bill 20 1-0466 has passed. Thank you, Abby. And the excise and licensing folks for joining us this evening. We're going to go ahead and move on to our second hearing now. Councilmember Hines, would you please put Council Bill 516 on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 2: I yes. Council President. I move that council vote 21 zero 516 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance repealing the cannabis consumption pilot program ordinance.
Repeals Chapter 6 Article VI of the Denver Revised Municipal Code to end the cannabis consumption pilot program. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 6-8-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06282021_21-0516
|
Speaker 2: I yes. Council President. I move that council vote 21 zero 516 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 3: Again, I think.
Speaker 0: And I want to clarify the motion. Councilman Hines. We need to have it be placed upon final consideration and do pass as amended.
Speaker 2: It hasn't been amended yet. So I'm I think that's next. I don't I don't think we have to put it on for consideration before we can amend it. Amend it. But I don't think that I don't know. Just a parliamentarian question.
Speaker 0: I suppose we can go ahead and bring our council secretary Makhija up into the queue. Do you want to go ahead and address that?
Speaker 1: Members of Council Makhija here. I have placed this to be placed upon final consideration and do pass as amended as it was amended at our previous meeting and it has not been voted on. That amendment did pass at our last meeting, so we are going to want to place this on the floor as amended at this meeting , whether the next amendment passes or not.
Speaker 2: Wonderful. Thank you. Council secretary and for the recollection of the last meeting. So I apologize. I move the counsel bill 21.0516 be placed upon final consideration and do pass as amended.
Speaker 3: Second.
Speaker 0: Thank you. You've got the motion and we have the second. Councilmember Herndon, your motion to amend.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. I move that council bill 20 120516 be amended in the following particulars on page to line 29 strike subsection two of this ordinance and replaced with subsections two and three of this section two on page four. Line three add a new subsection three that reads as follows And please bear with me. Number three notwithstanding subsection one of this, Section two, if requested by an applicant, a formal site development plan application submitted under 12 .4.3 of the Denver Zoning Code may be processed to completion under the provisions of the 2018 Denver Zoning Code, including the amendments found in clerk filed numbers 2018 0204 2018 0414 2018 Dash 0532 2019 0046 2019 0058 2019 0075 in 2020 0090 and the Corrections Parentheses Together The November 12, 2020 Denver Zoning Code Parentheses If a site development concept plan application was filed with CPD between September one, 2019 and February ten, 2021, and the application proposed a specific use type no longer listed in the use and parking tables of the March 31, 2021 Denver's Zoning Code, a formal site development plan application process under the provisions of November 12, 2020. Denver's zoning code pursuant to this Section 2.3, shall be subject to the following requirements. One If the formal site development planning application has not received approval by the Development Review Committee on or before 4:30 p.m. Mountain Standard Time, May 1st, 2023. The application shall be void once a formal site development planning application becomes void. All new site development plan applications will be processed under the Denver Zoning Code. Then, in effect, no extensions of time will be granted to the site. Development plan must meet all the standards and requirements of the November 12, 2020. Denver's Zoning Code and an applicant may not substitute standards and requirements of the November 12, 2020 Denver Zoning Code, with those set forth in any subsequent amendments to the Denver Zoning Code three a formal site development plan approved under the provisions of November 12, 2020. Denver's zoning code, if requested by an applicant, may be modified or amended applying the November 12, 2020. Denver's Zoning Code. If the application for a modification or amendment is approved by 4:30 p.m. Mountain Standard Time, May 1st, 2023. Any application for modification or amendment to such formal site development plan approved under the provisions of the November 12, 2020 Denver Zoning Code that does not receive approval by May one, 2023, must comply with the Denver Zoning Code. Then, in effect, according to section 12 .3.7 of the Denver Zoning Code, no extensions of time will be granted. My apologies to the translator.
Speaker 0: No worries. I think we got it. Thank you for slowing down a little bit on it. And again, we have I think you it has been moved and seconded. Councilmember Herndon, would you like to explain the amendment before we open up the hearing?
Speaker 3: Yes, ma'am. The purpose of this amendment is to allow certain projects to be processed under the version of the Denver zoning code prior to the enactment of the group Living Amendment to the Code. Specifically, this amendment applies to projects meeting two criteria. The project submitted a site development concept plan between September 1st, 2019 and February ten, 2021, and the project proposed a use that was no longer listed in the Denver zoning codes used in parking tables after enactment of the group Living Amendments to the Code.
Speaker 0: All right. Well, thank you, Councilmember Herndon. The required public hearing for Council Bill 516 is open. Speakers may offer comments on either or both Council Bill 516 and the amendment. After the conclusion of the public hearing. Council will vote separately on each and may we get a staff report.
Speaker 4: Hi. This is Tina Axelrod. I need to share my screen. And there it is. Started. Hey. Good evening, everyone. My name is Tina Axelrod and the sending administrator and I sit in the city's community planning and Development Department to dove into the substance of the Council bill in front of you, which is the 2021 bundle of Denver zoning code text amendments. I'll be speaking briefly about what this project is and give a very brief summary of certain high. High visibility amendments. Talk about our community outreach and the public comments we have received. Go through the review criteria analysis that we apply to our text, amendments to the zoning code, and then share CPD's recommendation for your action tonight. This is part of a regular cycle of code maintenance that we do to the Denver zoning code. This code is a complex animal, as you just heard in that description, and it must be regularly updated and maintained. To that end, CPD brings forward on its own initiative a bundle of text amendments on a regular 2 to 3 year cycle. And the focus of that bundle is typically to correct, clarify and update the zoning rules. Most of the bundle text changes that are before you this evening come from firsthand experiences with administering the code by CPD, planning, permitting and inspection staffs. We also gather input on any potential conflicts with other city agencies or issues with enforcement and administration. And certainly we hear from our customers on a regular basis too, on what's working or not working, what's clear or not clear in our code. And that's what we seek to address in this bundle of tax changes. The 2021 bundle includes nearly 170 proposed changes that generally fall into four categories. First is the correction of miscellaneous publication errors. These are very low hanging fruit and typically are non substantive. Those are the typos, the errors in the outline, summary numbering and formatting. A second bucket of changes were changes relating to our assigned code. Again, primarily corrections and clarifications to existing provisions. Though I'll walk through some minor policy changes as well. As many of you know, our sign code is a harks back to A to many decades ago and it's challenging to keep up with current business practices, but that's what we try to do in this bundle. And then probably the largest category of changes that you'll see in the 2021 bundle really were changes identified by our residential review staff as really critical or necessary for improved day to day administration. A lot of clarifications, corrections and minor changes. And when I say residential review, this is the world of one and two family dwellings. Anything with three or more dwelling units inside the structure is actually considered commercial and goes to our commercial review teams or productive teams. So you'll see a lot of these one or two family changes. And then there's always the catch all bucket of changes that have been identified as high priority, primarily again aimed at clarification and ease of administration of this of this code. So I wanted to take a few moments just to spotlight some key bundle items that have garnered attention through public comments or questions that we've received. As you can see here, it's a relatively short list that I'll take a little time to walk through it. Everyone is interested in anything that has to do with accessory dwelling units and the city of Denver, and the bundle does include some changes. We have to distinguish between changes to what we have as a separate building form or set of building and development standards for a detached structure on a lot that could contain an accessory dwelling unit and use and then a different set of requirements that hone in on just the operation of an accessory dwelling unit use. So first, I'm going to talk about the building porch changes. What you'll see in the bundle are a set of changes, again, mostly directed from customers and clients on what was working or not working, what was very complex to understand what seemed to be working at cross-purposes within the code. And the first one was a requirement that made the side interior setbacks for certain detached eighties structures in small neighborhoods larger than what was actually required for the main house. And this change just brings those setback requirements in line so you can build your detached structure at the same distance from your sidelines as the main house. The second is that there was a criteria that said if you're building a taller, detached structure in your rear yard and it was likely to contain the detached accessory dwelling unit use that you had to push that structure to the southernmost side step back line that was originally intended to address a speculative possible impact on so their access. But as we've learned through the years of administering that standard, it didn't really succeed in its original intent. There would still be shadows if it were so that a portion of the structure touched the southernmost line. Then if it were centered in the lots and that the leading the standard just allows greater flexibility and siting and we still have controls over the overall bulk as it sits close to those sidelines. And I'll show a little bit more on this one in just a moment. And then in terms of controlling the scale of a detached accessory dwelling unit building, there's really no changes in the current allowance. But we did have some conflicting standards that needed some cleanup and clarification. So at the end of that effort, we deleted one standard that seemed to address how large the actual unit can be inside the detached structure and kept three others that controlled for the same outcome. It was one too many and it led to endless. Conflicts of standards within the code and confusion among our architect and other developer clients. This is an illustration of that first change I highlighted regarding just changing the minimum size setbacks so it would match what you can, where you can put your main house on these particularly smaller, narrower lots. So in the middle you can see what's being proposed with the change. You can you can go to three feet just like the primary dwelling unit, as opposed to having to push it in an additional two feet. And then on the right is where you can put a garage that is generally a same or larger footprint that can actually go a lot lines, a lot line. So again, we just wanted to match those two allowances that seem to make the most sense. And then in terms of the change regarding whether you have to push the structure to the southernmost line, we took a look at this. We took a look at a lot of cases to look at the resulting form. And what we saw is with the current requirements, often where we're getting these odd, ugly shaped reforms in an effort to meet meet the standard, which said push it to the southernmost limit and in order to get the maximum space within the structure for an upper story. We might get something that looks like a wedding cake step in. And what we're suggesting now is just a little more flexibility to move the structure side to side. It ends up actually being further away from the neighboring property with this change, then without it and we get a more regularly shaped and habitable space under the resulting building envelope. As I mentioned, there's another distinct set of ADU restrictions in the zoning code that just addressed the use, whether it's inside a detached structure or inside the main house. And here's where we had to make some changes. We had a very impractical maximum limit on the size of an ADU unit when it was located inside the house. And this was a legacy of how we regulated accessory uses of any variety. So your home office or your. Whatever your other. I can't think of any other assets or uses now inside the home, but typically it'd be like a home business. We had this general rule that capped it at 20% of whatever the primary dwelling unit size was or 300 square feet. When you're talking about an actual habitable living space of an independent dwelling unit, 300 square feet is very small. So what we've changed is to try it again. It has to be secondary to the size of the main unit. So no more than 75% of the gross floor area of the primary dwelling unit or 864 square feet, whichever is greater. And that really brings an inside the house, Adu, to the same maximum limits on the scale of the use that we allow currently for an ADU use and a detached structure. So your basement adu use can now be essentially the same size as if you built it in a detached structure. There's a couple other cleanups that get really technical but are listed below. I'm going to keep going here. The other main topic where a more substantive policy change was made was in the parking provision and requirements for affordable housing projects in the city of Denver. These parking ratios and buy ratio, I mean, the formula for figuring out the number of spaces, given the number of units of affordable housing, haven't been revisited in over 12 years . In the meantime, we have a lot more experience with actually seeing affordable housing projects built not just in the city of Denver, but all up and down the front range. So in wanting to keep up to date, we also had the fortune of having two different studies released in the last months of 2020 that looked at the very question of how much parking was appropriate for affordable housing. And those studies both provided data on the on two critical points the overall car ownership of households living in these very affordable housing units, and also the parking demand generated by the project in total for parking on site. Looking at those studies, looking at our own experience inside the city of Denver, we wanted to take the opportunity during this bundle to bring our parking ratios into alignment with the 21st century and the recent development history. So the changes are an update to the alternative parking ratio for very affordable units. And that ratio, again, yields the number of parking spaces per dwelling unit. And then a second change that would update the 20% reduction of required of of required parking when the developer chooses to build the affordable units on site per our linkage fee current linkage fee ordinance. So the table summarizes the change. The first one again, currently we have in the main street zone districts only and there the change proposed was to broaden this allowance to all zone districts applies when you're providing housing instead of 40% ami again based on experience in those studies, we've increased the range of this particular reduction to reach housing that provides units to households at 60% AMI and below. And here's the section of change in the alternative ratio went from point to five parking spaces per unit 2.10 per unit. So this is a reduction in the minimum required parking that a developer may choose to use. It still requires some parking. It doesn't take it entirely away. And most of that parking is intended to serve employees, service providers and then capture the very low car usage rates by residents. And then the second change was primarily an expansion of the applicability of a 20% parking reduction from just being from being applied in all zoned districts except the Main Street to now including the Main Street zones and the proposed change. And again, this is just for the onsite build alternative choice. We gave a 20% reduction that has not changed at all in the bundle.
Speaker 1: Oops.
Speaker 4: And then that another bucket of of multiple changes in this text amendment package was those fine updates that referred to and generally just reflecting current sign trends and practices and needing to clean up and catch up with where our business customers in the city were headed with their sign designs. So all the pictures on the side here are now signs that we see everywhere that weren't clearly allowed under the Denver zoning code. And now with the changes generally, these are all types of water signs temporary when signs cannot be signs, menu board signs that were not clearly addressed or allowed or were just outright prohibited that have now been changed and clearly allowed. That's what all these words say, essentially. And then just obviously there were a lot more minor policy changes and clarifications and corrections that you'll see in the red lines. Just looking at a few across the remaining articles, I've listed them here. None of these are probably earth shattering in most people's view, but again, addressed a gap or a need for clarification. Like How do I assign a building form? This whole code is supposed to be form based. What if I have an existing structure? What building form do I choose? And now we actually put into the code what we've been practicing up the code for 11 years now. Gee, you know, shading devices are a hot item on buildings. Now we get vertical and horizontal things that people are calling shading devices and are they allowed to encroach into the sides or front or rear setbacks? We've clarified that because we're seeing a lot of things that were never, never addressed. Yeah, we were missing some standards and industrials out of things that we didn't have any standards for accessory buildings. Well, that was a real surprise to many of our industrial customers. So we've added those back in our Use Limitations article. We did make some changes to short term rentals. Again, just putting more clearly into the code, what we've been telling our customers over the past five, six years with short term rentals and a critical one was that the licensing ordinance stated that a short term rental must occur in a dwelling unit as defined by the Denver zoning code. But the Denver zoning code didn't say that, so now it does. And then finally we looked at opportunities for process streamlining to help our customers and where we saw some justification. And one place where we did remove what we call a zoning permit with informational notice process was for offenses that are more than four or six feet height, depending on where they're located on the lot. And that was based on a study that showed that the vast majority of those requests were were granted. And with no comments raised or comments that were generally not even on point to to what was being asked for, for input. And then everyone loves carriage lots in Denver. They're those weird interior block lots. We had a lot of rules and interpretations and clarifications that were off the books. We put them on the books now for help with transparency for those lucky folks who own a piece of or an entire carriage lot in Denver. This slide just summarizes the schedule and public outreach. We did go to IMC ZAP Committee. We had office hours. We did a slew of information items. We had several opportunities to comment on drafts that were released publicly. The planning board did have its hearing on April 21st and recommended approval of the entire bundle package. We went through Luti. We're here today and if all goes well, the bundle revised code will become effective on July 1st. We did receive comments. Generally, they fell into, again, a few critical areas of interest to the community. Those changes I described to the ADOS garnered a lot of comments and all unanimously, unanimously in support of the bundle changes. Where things diverged was most of our commentators wanted more revisions. That is this. That is the scope of an upcoming planning services project. And we're just not in the scope of a bundle to go much further than we did in the interest of clarification and corrections, as opposed to major policy changes on the affordable housing parking changes that I described. Again, we received overwhelming support. There was one brief letter in your packet signed by 72 different Denver area affordable housing advocates, nonprofits and businesses. We got separate letters of support from the state dollars agency. Of course, internally host is very supportive of the change, as is Dora. And then there were some changes in the code that I did not get into deeply. That just clarified some general rules that we have been applying consistently over the last few years on what you can build on a settlement that was too small for a duplex, but big enough for a single unit structure or too small to host a structure with the ADU unit. What could you do? There was a lot of pushback and give and take between customers, and we just needed to get this very clear on paper. This captures a current policy, doesn't say it will never change. Would we have an upcoming ADU project? This could change, but we just cemented the current policy which says if your lot is too small for a duplex or you're lots too small for a detached adu structure per the current code, you cannot build those structures on such small lot. And then we got a slew of comments and mostly questions about changes to our set back exceptions. Again, most of our changes were not substantive, but we did reorganize, rename, clarify, and those were those types of comments were answered by staff. Each and every one. Okay. Well, before you now you have to consider whether there's this whole bundle of text amendments meets our review criteria that city council has to hold it up against in terms of making amendments to the Denver zoning code. These are all found in the Denver zoning code section 12 .4. 11. We have, of course, the all important consistency with adopted plan. So does this bundle represent a path forward that's consistent with our adopted comprehensive plan to 2040? As explained in more detail to staff, report STEP did find that the bundle represents principles and advance the goals of that comprehensive plan, including working across multiple agencies on some of those changes, such as the parking for affordable housing, some of those substantive changes certainly further adopted goals regarding around affordable housing, and then just overall providing greater clarity and predictability of zoning standards help sustain and grow Denver's neighborhood businesses. It helps to know the rules. Blueprint. Emperor has an explicit policy and strategy that states to that insurers. The Denver Zoning Code continues to respond to the needs of the city while remaining modern and flexible, and the checklists of further policies, we believe, are advanced by both the substantive and non substantive changes of the bundle. We do have to hold up all text amendments to for consistency or at least no impediment to the equity goals of blue print. Denver and a bundle like this that provides greater clarity and fixes errors in the city's existing zoning rules. This has a mostly neutral impact on furthering these equity goals that neither impedes but also probably does not on a scale, substantially advance those equity goals. But where we did get into substance as opposed to the majority of corrections and clarifications, certainly the changes addressing affordable housing and ADU use met some of those equity concepts by expanding opportunities for more flexible, affordable housing, citywide enabling providers to increase the range of affordable housing offered and allow more opportunities for use as an alternative housing type. So in some CPD staff finds that the proposed bundle of texts amendment is consistent with adopted plans. Secondly, it will further the public health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Denver, primarily by providing that transparency, clarity and predictability in these substantial rules that govern land development in the city. And by removing or at least chipping away at some of those regulatory barriers to planned and desired private enterprise and redevelopment. And then thirdly, these bundle amendments will result in uniformity of district regulations and restrictions. They will be applied equally and uniformly to similar buildings and land uses within each of the zone districts. Accordingly, CPD staff recommends and respectfully request the City Council to adopt and approve this text amendment. With that. I'm happy to take questions.
Speaker 0: All right. Well, thank you very much, Tina, for the great presentation. And tonight, counsel hasn't received any written testimony on Council Bill 516. And we have eight individuals signed up to speak this evening. And our first speaker is Mary Coddington. Go ahead, please, Mary.
Speaker 1: That evening council, I'm Mary Coddington. I'm speaking tonight on behalf of the Neighborhood Development Collaborative in favor of the adoption of the text amendments. And I'll keep my comments brief this evening. As you well know, our housing supply is not meeting the current housing demand in either the overall quantity or at the price points that are needed . And as a community, we have to use every tool available to us to manage our resources and ensure they're reaching as many people as possible. And by having enshrined parking minimums that overshoot the actual need for parking money thrown away that could be used to house more people or improve the critical wraparound services that are needed for low income and very low income residents. The proposed parking changes allow affordable housing developers the opportunity to build what's needed. Several in D.C. members not only operate in transit rich Denver neighborhoods, but also in places further away from great transit access. And they recognize that properties that aren't near public transit options will need more parking, even if it's above the minimum required by the code. And the mission based housing providers are in the business of serving their residents and pursuing the best possible outcomes for those residents. And they're motivated to develop their properties in ways that are supportive, whether that means a few more parking spots or slightly fewer. So that flexibility is really, really important. And just lastly, I would like to thank RTD as well as SHOP works in Seattle for their research into this issue and CPD for being really responsive to the changing needs in the city and to you council members for your work to make sure that the policies continue to evolve and meet our changing needs. Thank you so much.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mary. Our next speaker this evening is Christian Pritchard. Go ahead, please.
Speaker 3: Good evening, council members. My name is Christian Pritchett with Blue Line Development for Affordable Housing developer based out of Missoula, Montana. I'm here to speak in support of the text amendment, specifically the changes to the parking ratios required for affordable housing as it's currently written. Denver zoning code requires a high degree of variability in parking ratios for affordable housing, ranging from zero spaces per unit in some downtown zone districts up to 1.25 in other areas in the city. Some of those zone districts allow for reductions to parking and others don't. That high degree of variability creates a lot of inconsistency on the viability of affordable housing developments across these swing districts when housing would be an otherwise allowable use. Denver's alternative ratios have not been updated in the past 12 years, and in that time, the cost of development has skyrocketed. In their most recent estimates, Denver's Department of Housing Stability estimates the funding gap of each unit of affordable housing is roughly $37,000, which translates to about the cost of a single parking space in an operating garage. This is this is money that we're spending on parking when we could otherwise be creating housing with those dollars. And a good example of this is the charity's house development, which is a 36 unit affordable housing project that would be owned by a community outreach service center in Denver. This project is ready to go with investors, ready to sign on the dotted line and put $5.7 million of private equity into this element by housing formerly homeless individuals. Under the current zoning code, we are required to provide 23 spaces of parking, even though our research shows that we need less than four spaces at this development. So we would urge you to pass this text amendment tonight so that projects like this can get done and and this project would start construction and be under development next month if this were to pass today. So thank you very much for your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Brian Ross Burt.
Speaker 3: Good evening, counsel. Thank you so much for your time this evening. My name is Brian Ross for I'm the executive director of Housing Colorado and I'm a Denver resident. I live in Park Hill. Housing. Colorado believes that safe, stable and healthy communities are built upon the foundation of housing. We're a nonprofit membership organization working with the housing community to educate and advocate for the building and preservation of housing for low to moderate income Coloradans housing. Colorado is a unified voice of nearly 300 organizations and 6000 individuals across the state who represent diverse housing interests. I'd like to highlight tonight the letter of support that is included in your packet, which demonstrates the overwhelming support across the affordable housing industry that has come out in favor of a change to the parking requirements for supportive housing in Denver. The list includes the Denver Housing Authority, Volunteers of America, the Delores Project, Enterprise Community Partners, Colorado Maker, Housing Partners, and many more, including Housing Colorado. Many of these organizations have experience seeking to develop affordable housing in Denver. That doesn't make it past the vision stage because of the high parking requirements needed. Parking that RTD and Fox Total Shop Works report their reports demonstrate is unneeded and unutilized once it's built. This part of the Denver code, specifically the section with alternative ratios, has not been updated in over 12 years. Housing needs, transportation options and parking demand all shifted since then. To me, this proposal is much more than simply building more affordable housing units. But it will ensure that projects can be built, can build beautiful spaces in which individuals and families can heal and grow healthier. This change to the Denver code might allow for a courtyard to be built, for more staff positions to be filled, all in the hope of giving people the tools and resources they need to move toward stability. Parking continues to remain a significant barrier to the creation of more affordable housing in Denver, and ensuring that our unhoused neighbors have housing options that are affordable and attainable is important. I hope you will vote in favor of the text amendment bundle and the parking shifts for housing targeted at those making the least amount of money in our city. Thank you for considering this change to parking requirements to ensure the zoning code has consistency across the city and better needs meets what is truly needed so we can ensure the building to build as much housing as possible here in Denver. I appreciate your consideration of this change.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Brian. Our next speaker this evening is Lindsey Sentance. And you're going to have to unmute, Lindy.
Speaker 6: I'm. Wendy sent in, and my city of residence is Arvada. I served as vice president of program operations for Volunteers of America or VOA. And I'm glad to speak in favor of this amendment or portion of this text amendment. Well, view is statewide. Most of our housing and services are within the city of Denver, where we provide human services of many kinds, including food insecurity and emergency shelter and much more affordable housing, though, is a major aspect of our work, both nationally and in. Colorado Valley is one of the largest nonprofit providers of affordable housing. Quality, affordable housing. We currently operate 25 affordable housing communities across the state. Ten properties, just over 800 units are in the city of Denver. I'm passionate about housing and especially for the lowest income people and those without homes. Our people deserve a safe and dignified and accessible housing. It's highly unusual for very low income people and those who are homeless to pay for a car, much less the ongoing cost of vehicle ownership. VOA has a Denver project currently in the planning stages, and we're very excited about it. A reduction in the parking requirements would allow us at that location to build more units. We could also include a small green space, and then the children would be out on the playground and. Instead of looking at an empty parking lot. VOA, for one, has the bandwidth and the vision to have at least one affordable housing project in the pipeline on an ongoing basis. We just broke ground on one for seniors in Fort Collins and we just leased up one in Durango, a new one, if we're to have any hope of meeting the need in Denver for a decent place for everyone to live. We need projects coming in, coming online at a regular pace. And parking is important only when someone has or plans to have a car. But housing is essential for everyone. Please vote in favor of the amendment and or the bubble. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Jennifer Cloud.
Speaker 1: Thank you, city council for the opportunity to speak with you tonight. I'm the vice president of housing development at the Colorado Coalition for the Homeless. And you've been hearing the technical numbers, parking demand and parking utilization rates from the last few speakers. And I echo all of those sentiments. I just wanted to take a moment tonight to share a real life example of why this vote truly matters. I want to share the story of Katie, who lived a remarkable life. She was presidential appointee to the Small Business Administration and organized events around the world, meeting dignitaries and celebrities publicly. Katie functioned at the highest levels of government, but privately she struggled with a substance use disorder. And after suffering a traumatic brain injury while on a work assignment, Katie was no longer able to keep her job, and her life began to fall apart when she lost the support of her family and her marriage fell apart. Katie had no place to go. She said, I lived in 24 places in 24 months. But then she had a turning point thanks to housing that met her needs. Katie moved into one of six properties that provided safe, stable housing so she could focus for energy on her recovery. Today, Katie is thriving in permanent supportive housing at one of the coalition's apartment homes and is giving back to her community. Katie runs a peer to peer support network for people experiencing homelessness and mentors her neighbors and sponsors. Other struggling others who are struggling to recover from substance use and behavioral health issues. Housing is the basis for every member of our community to thrive, and Katie is just one of many examples of individuals who have turned their lives around by gaining stability through housing first. Many of our homeless residents like Katie don't have a car when they move into an apartment. Most folks need a house first before other pieces of their lives can fall into place. Folks are moving into our buildings, are exiting homelessness. And I know you have the data, but I'm here to tell you anecdotally, they simply don't have cars at the rate that market rate. Residents have cars. In my role as the VP of Housing Development at CCH, I worked incredibly hard to make finance to make the financing work at the lowest AMI affordable housing developments. And it's not without challenge. This change would truly open up opportunities for more housing by alleviating the need to build high levels of parking that just sit empty on our properties. So I urge you to support this text amendment bundle and the standardization of parking for affordable housing that's within it . Thank you so much for your time. Have a good night.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Jennifer. Our next speaker is Kinsey Hastert. Go ahead.
Speaker 1: Good evening. Thank you. Council President Gilmore. My name is Kinsey Hastert, and I am the state and local policy director for Enterprise Community Partners. I am a Denver resident, but I'm here tonight to voice Enterprise's support for the 2021 Text Amendment bundle, and particularly provisions to make parking minimums for development of affordable housing consistent across the city . Enterprise works nationally and here in Denver to increase the supply of high quality, affordable housing, advance racial equity, and build resilience and upward mobility. We do so through advocacy, place based programmatic engagement and capital investments. Given Enterprise's national scope. I wanted to briefly share how this update is in line with some other models around the country. A 2018 report from my National Enterprise colleagues examined proven local strategies for expanding the supply of affordable homes and addressing cost challenges. These included reducing or even eliminating parking requirements. This has proven particularly effective in cities similar to Denver, with transit rich areas where large amounts of parking are just not necessary and where land values are prohibitively high. For instance, New York City offers both density and parking incentives through its modernize, zoning rules and the adoption of an inclusionary housing program which lowers costs and reduce barriers to the construction of affordable and senior housing, in part by reducing parking requirements throughout the city. Seattle City Council approved legislation to provide developers with more flexibility in deciding how much parking to include in areas with frequent transit, in turn enabling the city to reduce parking requirements for rental and income restricted housing, among other benefits. And in 2016, Washington, D.C. undertook efforts to reduce parking minimums, lessening requirements for multi-family housing development, and cutting parking minimums, perhaps for mixed use developments near metro streetcars or bus lines. And while access to and reliance on public transit is a consideration for many cities, others seek to simplify or eliminate requirements entirely. Portland has gone through iterations to eventually eliminate residential parking requirements, including one step that specifically Waze waived excuse me parking minimums for projects providing affordable housing. And just last month, the Minneapolis City Council voted unanimously to remove parking minimums for new commercial and residential buildings to help reduce the cost of housing development. These are just some of the models from across the country, and we urge Denver to be another by eliminating inconsistencies in parking requirements for buildings up to 60% nationwide. As you've heard, this will better meet the needs of residents and really will go a long way toward helping new affordable units that are so desperately needed by residents to come online. Thank you for your time and hope you'll support the text amendment bundle this evening.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Casey Slade.
Speaker 1: Hi, I'm Cassie Slayton. I'm one of the principal owners for with Foxtel Transmission Group. And we work all around the state, including Amnesty County of Denver. Our firm partnered with Shop Works Architecture to research parking demands on a variety of affordable housing types across the front range, front range to determine whether the current code requirements are warranted or if these parking requirements are too high. Based on our anecdotal evidence, we identified several properties that included supportive housing across the city, setting recommendations from hosts to ensure we included all of the most appropriate properties. To explore parking ratios. We surveyed 19 properties with an average am I between 30 and 50%? Our findings surprised even the members of our team. And below and I will list some of the key takeaways of this reporting. One bedroom housing in Denver, which is 30% or less. Am I roughly 88.8% of residents own a car? This equates to one vehicle for 12 units. For all of the affordable housing properties that we studied. Up to 60%. Am I 50%? Am I? The average vehicle ownership was 29% of residents, which equates to one vehicle per six units. The current code requires an average of one parking space for two units, which is 3 to 6 times more than the actual parking demand that we found in our study. We also found that the data showed that the properties, proximity to quality, walking and biking facilities as well as transit services deeply impacted the vehicle ownership. Luckily, RTD was actually selling the same thing at the same time that we were able to look at their city as well. And our findings mirrored what they were finding for low income housing. The 19 properties have been built in the last six years and they had a total of 883 parking spaces. The study found that only 461 of those spaces were utilized. This means that there was a surplus of two 422 spaces. Right now, a parking space costs on average about $22,000 per space. If you equate this out with the 422 unused spaces, that's about $9.28 million that was spent on unused parking. If that money was applied towards supportive housing, we could have had an entirely separate 40 unit apartment building. I believe that the point one parking ratio included in this tax amendment bundle would more than meet the need of the residents and the staff that work at affordable housing buildings. And I'm in favor of the tax code. I'm happy to elaborate. If you have any questions on the data. If you need a copy of the report, I can make it available for you. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our last speaker this evening is Laura Rosberg.
Speaker 1: Hello. Thank you. Council President Gilmore. I'm Reverend Laura Rutherford. I'm a resident of Denver. I currently work at CHOP Works Architecture, but before that, I worked at the Delores Project, a homeless shelter and supportive housing development here in Denver. I just wanted to say, as somebody who's done a lot of work on this, I'm around if y'all have any questions. Last week I visited Sanderson Apartments, a supportive housing development, and I counted five cars out of the 30 spots that they had to build. And so I encourage you to vote yes. I thank you all for considering this. And I'm here if you have any questions. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Very good. Thank you to all of our speakers for joining us this evening. And that concludes our speakers questions from members of Council on Council Bill 516 or the amendment. And I see we've got Councilmember Hines, you're up first.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council President. I have a question about the affordable housing buildings. Do they ever move back to market rate once they've been constructed or are they forever affordable housing?
Speaker 0: Very good question. We've got our. Folks here tonight. And I believe we had Joel Jennings Golic or Kyle Dalton here to answer any questions.
Speaker 4: Councilwoman, we also have some folks.
Speaker 1: From coast here. Um.
Speaker 4: I believe I see Angie Nelson and Megan Yost here, so I.
Speaker 1: Think folks would be best to answer the question. On some members. This is Meghan Young. I can weigh in on this particular question. So when we contribute, get financing to a supportive housing project in particular, but affordable housing in general, the minimum length of affordability on a covenant that's reported is 60 years. Very often it is the case of some of these buildings to restrict them for 99 years. So for an extremely long period of time, we will be holding these affordability restrictions. And that on non intergovernmental agreement D3 projects where they are restricted in perpetuity.
Speaker 2: Got it. Okay. That's that's great news. I mean, I was trying to figure out why there might be parking requirements at all. And I was thinking perhaps they would go from affordable back to market rate and that would make the the. That the property more difficult to to to use if it has point one space. The only other question that I have is I did the city consider eliminating parking minimums entirely?
Speaker 4: I'm going to I'm going to say let me go on camera there. Generally, we were prepared to go take that leap yet. We have a separate project on expanding affordability in the city that's ongoing. This was in direct response to the data we had at that time, though, as you've heard in testimony, we have a number of tier cities that have taken this point further and either eliminated parking or of course, we have certain urban contexts in the city that do not have minimum parking requirements. So we've dabbled in that already in Denver for different reasons. But at this point, with the bundle trying to contain the bundle to sort of us a smaller spectrum of clarifications, updating where we had strong policy support and clear public policy support for changes. We felt this was grounded in those studies and was something we could bring forward. I don't know that we would have necessarily had the same backing for a bundle to bring forward a total elimination.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I think downtown core D.C. does not have any parking minimums. And as of July 19th, this body gets to decide if Golden Triangle abolishes its parking minimums.
Speaker 4: So we also have the 38th and Billy Blake Station area now at zero through an overlay. So there's a number of places.
Speaker 2: Yeah. At the point one seems to be really low and almost we're just almost there. So that's that's all I have. Thank you. Thank you for bringing this forward. And thank you, council president for all our thanks for all you do. Thank you. Council president.
Speaker 0: All right. Right on. Thank you, Councilmember Hines. Up next, we have Councilwoman Sawyer.
Speaker 1: Instead I'm president to find out what wanted to ask about some of the since your zoning administrator wanted to ask him about some of the expanded decision making power that's included in this text amendment. For those I mean, administrators, can you just kind of talk me through what is what's expanding here?
Speaker 4: There really is no expansion of the zoning administrator authority that's contained in this particular ordinance. There is another ordinance coming up on July 12th that does provide expanded authority for the zoning administrator on temporary uses. So I just want to make sure we're not confusing the two bills that are out there. Okay. So in the bundle.
Speaker 1: And again, I.
Speaker 4: Don't I if there was something specific you saw, I appreciate a heads up, but generally what you see in.
Speaker 1: Terms of.
Speaker 4: Zoning administrator authority in red lines in the funding amendment is authority that already exists, but it's now being clarified and codified on the face of the code. So the zoning administrator always had the final word on determinations and decisions of how the code applied to a specific property. You can see in the code that we've made it clear that when it comes to defining a zone lot, which is the development site for a particular project, the zoning administrator has the final word on determining that. And that's always been the practice. And if anyone has an issue with that, there is there's a variety of appeals that could be taken or a reconsideration. So that's now clearly on the face of the code, trying to think of the other ones in the bundle. There was a determination that was clarified. When somebody is doing repairs and maintenance on their structure, whether they've crossed a line into voluntary demolition, which would make that structure and any changes have to fully comply with the code, that's sort of where that line is. When you have a structure that doesn't fully meet the code, it sits in a setback, for example, when you're doing substantial work. At a certain point, we call that voluntary demolition, even though you're not bringing the whole house down and you have to fully comply. So it was in the bundle is some clarification on my ability to look at a case by case scenario of where someone says, I'm not voluntarily demolishing it, I'm just doing some basic repair of replace and it's not. So we just put it out there very clearly. The zoning administrator will have the final say and can take into consideration your arguments, but will determine with what side of the line it falls on. I'm trying to think of the other 170 changes where there might be some clarity over zoning administrator authority. I think I got a question sort of out of record here about whether there were some changes that shook City Council Authority and gave it to the zoning administrator in this bundle. And I can say now that is not the case in this ordinance.
Speaker 1: Tina, thank you. I don't mean to interrupt you, but I don't want you to have to go on and on about not go 372 pages. So that's great. I guess my question to that is, what is a what are the sort of appeal opportunities that a resident has if, you know, you as zoning administrator in your role makes a determination and it's something that they just agree with. There is always an.
Speaker 4: Avenue for appeal from a final zoning decision made by an administrative official. So that would be me and any of the staff doing plan, review and making decisions every day in applying this code. And that is called an administrative appeal. And the code clearly speaks to it in Article 12 and those appeals where you're essentially saying, no, you're wrong. And and I'd like somebody to decide whether you were right or wrong. Go to the Board of Adjustment. And that is distinct and very different from the variance case that also goes to the board. The criteria simply whether the board finds the administrative official aired in their application of the code to a particular in a particular decision.
Speaker 1: Okay. So the so is there no so there's no other criteria that they look at. The only decision is of the Board of Adjustments and an appeal is based on whether they believe you or not. You as zoning administrator, that your decision is on an administrator was incorrect.
Speaker 4: Correct. Using they step into my shoes essentially and and apply the code is and there's a presumption that the administrative official was correct in applying the code. And to overcome that presumption. And appellant needs to show by a preponderance of evidence that that. That that decision was deemed an error and that the code was misapplied.
Speaker 1: Okay. So how much would that cost someone who's a resident who disagrees with the zoning administrator's decision?
Speaker 4: I can't tell you exactly off the top of my head, because it's it's all governed by the Board of adjustment and they have their own fee schedule. I've got to get it somewhere in the hundred to 200 to 300 mark. Somewhere around there. I really don't know.
Speaker 1: I do. Most people do, you know. Most people do. They show up with an attorney that they also hirers. There are other areas. What does that look like?
Speaker 4: It varies. We've had all flavors of appellants show up with or without counsel. You know, we don't get that many in a year. It's less than a handful in any given year.
Speaker 1: Okay. And why do you know by any chance? And if you don't, this is it's totally fine. But I'm just curious how many decisions get overturned in that appeals process.
Speaker 4: In my own personal experience as zoning administrator over the last five years now. Yeah, five years. There's probably been a handful of appeals and I don't recall that any were where any of the staff or administrative decisions were overturned. And that's to the best of my recollection.
Speaker 1: Okay, great. Thank you so much. Really appreciate that information. Thanks, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Sawyer, we have Councilman Flynn up.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. Tina or anyone else can answer this also. But with regard to affordable housing, our redefining that it looks like we're defining that in the draft here. As dwelling units are constructed under an affordable housing agreement to provide income restricted units under an agreement with the city, so that there's actually a a covenant of sorts that that guarantees are available, that these would be rented to people. I think if I read in the presentation correctly 60% and below or what was the other ones, 40% below, something like that. Is that the case?
Speaker 4: Well, actually, we don't have a definition of affordable housing in the zoning code and in those provisions, but we would expect evidence from the applicant of some variety and and most notably would be some kind of deed restricted or proposal for deed restricted units like the kind that Megan talked about. But I could imagine maybe there's other avenues by which you could build affordable housing that doesn't have city participation, for example, that would still qualify for the parking reduction. I got the cue from Annalise turning on her video to let her speak a little bit more to that point from a definitely a more educated perspective than I can provide. So anyways, talk from our planning services that.
Speaker 3: Might be helpful. I'm looking at the presentation here on my other screen and we're we're all zoned districts. The proposal is 60% of our mind blow would be just one parking space for every ten units is the way I'm reading that. So that's why I need to know what is the definition of affordable housing to which this would apply. The reason I'm asking, frankly, is that right across Sanderson Gulch from the Sanderson Apartments, there is a and a market rate apartment complex that nevertheless rents units for very affordable pricing. And I'm wondering if that were built today, if this would apply, because the fact is that there's 114 units in Orchard Glen and they are routinely so parked up that it spills out onto Mexico Avenue and has caused a significant parking problems on the street. And so they don't seem to have the same ratio of some of our actual income restricted projects like Sanderson, which is housing for the chronically homeless population which which doesn't have they don't have vehicles. Generally.
Speaker 1: I can't speak to the particulars of that case, but generally speaking, the definition or the applicability is within the table of the Parkin section. And so it is we would need proof that those units are being rented to folks earning less than 60% of the area median income. If we were not able to provide that proof, then they would not be eligible for that parking reduction there.
Speaker 3: So they would still if somebody were just going to build an apartment complex and they can't just come in and say this is going to be affordable housing, I want to just build one parking spot for every ten units that wouldn't fly. They would actually need to provide what it sounds like. They would actually have to enter into an affordable housing agreement with the city to restrict those units to 60% and below.
Speaker 1: I one piece to just clarifies that it might not necessarily be an affordable housing agreement with the city. There might be some other form of deed, restriction or covenants. There's plenty of affordable income, restricted units throughout the city where the city is not a partner in regulating that. But there's some other entities, but it's the one you have to say, I'm providing affordable housing and therefore I get this lower parking ratio does need to meet the affordability threshold.
Speaker 4: And this is different than what you know, what rents you choose to lease your older property for. Because I do with the household income of the renters, we need to know that it's the renters who qualify, not your rent. Right?
Speaker 3: Right. Okay.
Speaker 4: Megan, Megan's kind of popping her head up to I don't know if you had anything more to add, Megan, on what affordable housing evidence would look like.
Speaker 1: Yes. I just wanted to make a note that there are Section three properties that are that are not city funded. The Section eight properties that are not city funded but do carry deed restrictions associated with them. So I just wanted to say that the world of restrictions is not just city funded or city participating, but to the extent that the city is participating in those projects, there will be a covenant or deed restriction on those properties.
Speaker 3: Okay. So to qualify for this reduction, there would have to be some sort of enforceable mechanism, either an affordable housing agreement or some kind of deed restriction, something running with the land. And I just want to make sure that we're not opening up the door to somebody, just coming in, say, I'm building up. These are going to be affordable. I promise. You know, and then I have a situation like I have on Mexico Avenue.
Speaker 4: No, that's not what this is about. Okay.
Speaker 3: Thank you. That gives me a little more comfort. Appreciate.
Speaker 0: All right. Very good. Thank you, Councilmember Flynn. And not seeing any other hands raised for questions. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on the amendment. Council member Kimmich.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Council President I just wanted to thank all of our speakers who came to engage in those who gave comments through the process and also to the staff. I was considering whether I.
Speaker 4: Should file a.
Speaker 1: Bill like this for some pieces on the parking and affordable housing. I didn't know about all the issues with the 82 design, but I'm very pleased to see some of those because I know that the barriers for that product and for that approach are really mounting in some areas that really, like the West area with the West Renaissance Collaborative pilot, are really struggling to just kind of overcome the code issues. So thank you for a really common sense package of changes. I heard from one project so far that unfortunately did not receive tax credits in the last round, but folks are looking at that site for other things and may be able to do up to 20 additional units than they would have without these changes on parking. That is, you know, we don't have a lot of game changers in housing. It's just expensive and hard, it feels like. But anything that can change the game to the tune of 20 homes means a lot. And that may not be possible for every site. But I hope for those that it can that this will be, you know, changing the game and housing more people. So I'm really excited to support the package and hope my colleagues do the same. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Kimmich. And likewise, I want to thank the staff and our public speakers tonight and not seen any other hands raised for comments. Madam Secretary, roll call on the amendment, please.
Speaker 1: Herndon.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Cashman.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 1: Can I? Sawyer, I. Or else I. What? I. See the. I.
Speaker 3: For I. When I.
Speaker 1: Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results, please.
Speaker 1: 11 nine.
Speaker 0: 11 ays Council Bill 20 1-0516 has been amended. Madam Secretary, Roll Call on Council Bill 21, Dash 0516 as amended.
Speaker 1: Black. I. Peter Barca. I can't. What?
Speaker 3: All right.
Speaker 1: When?
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 1: Herndon.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Cashman.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 1: Can I? Sawyer, I. All. I. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. 11 911 I's Council Bill 20 1-0516 has passed as amended. Thank you, everybody, for joining us for that second public hearing. And now we're on to our third.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance to amend Chapter 59 (Zoning) of the Denver Revised Municipal Code relating to the Denver Zoning Code and to amend and restate the Denver Zoning Code.
Amends the Denver Zoning Code by making numerous changes to correct, clarify, and make minor substantive changes to all articles of the code as part of regular code maintenance and upkeep. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 5-4-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06282021_21-0649
|
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. 11 911 I's Council Bill 20 1-0516 has passed as amended. Thank you, everybody, for joining us for that second public hearing. And now we're on to our third. Councilmember Hines, would you please put Council Bill 649 on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 2: EU Council President. I move that Council vote 20 10649 be placed upon final consideration and you pass back it.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. The required public hearing for Council Bill 649 is open. May we please have the staff report? And I see we have Mike Pritchard here. Go ahead, please.
Speaker 3: Yes. Thank you very much. Thrilled to be here today. Sorry. This always happens to me. I'll just. Starting to scream screen. That's the problem.
Speaker 0: No worries.
Speaker 3: Yes, but my name is Michael Bouchard and I am with Denver Parks and Recreation, Planning, Design and Construction. And we are pleased to bring before you tonight the park building plan approval request for a new office building at the existing maintenance site in Rosedale Park. So just as a quick refresher, we are required for structures over 3000 square feet to bring a formal park building plan request before council, when we are proposing to do a new structure or a renovated structure for that matter. And so this one occurs at an existing maintenance facility that we have located in Rosedale Park, which is in District six of Denver. Actually a lot of luck. And for us as Denver Parks and Recreation, it's really an equity issue, making sure that our staff have adequate resources, adequate facilities, adequate restrooms, ADA accessibility, really wanting to provide to our maintenance staff the same level of resources and facilities that the staff at the Webb have and some of our other office sites around the city. So really an equity issue for us wanting to do right by our field staff so they can continue the great work that they do taking care of our parks. This is the existing maintenance site at Rosedale, located across the street from Rosedale Park proper. And as you can see, it did, but it's a community garden located just to the south of it. And then Rosedale Park proper to the south. And so it sits already in a pocket. It's set back from the street, away from any residential uses. And so our intent here is to enhance this site, provide the office space required, as well as some additional side improvements that you'll see here shortly. So Project Background is a new office building to support Parks Maintenance staff funded in part by 2017, Elevate Denver Bond as well as part of legacy finance. And there's much, much more information that we'd be happy to share. A link to our website. If you want more detail, you can see an elevation here. This is the view from the street. I would add one of the things that this project does is actually, we think helps to clean up visually the views into the maintenance sites. Maintenance sites are not necessarily the prettiest things to look at. There's frequently lots of vehicles, lots of materials, lots of stuff going on. One of the things that this project does is actually situates this new office building along the street frontage establishes that that elevation along the street, and it essentially screens a lot of that back of house use from people who are walking or just driving down Logan Street. The added benefit of this is that it also increases security. We have a lot of issues with security in our maintenance sites, lots of people breaking in because they can see right through the fence and say, hey, I want to go take that truck or that piece of machinery. So by establishing the street presence, we essentially screen a lot of that back of house and reduce the security issues we have and really just create a better scenario both for our elevated and staff and the operations there, but as well as park users and residents driving by. This is a view from inside. So part of the proposal is that we actually create a courtyard inside the facility and create some outdoor spaces for our staff to go out and have lunch. You can see some picnic tables here, some areas where they can just go out and frankly enjoy the parks that they spent so much time maintaining.
Speaker 0: Michael, I'm going to ask you to pause for a second. I think you're slides are off from what you're telling us. And so we're seeing an exterior view of the maintenance office, not the interior. Is that correct?
Speaker 3: You let me break. I'll come back to that. Thank you. This is an exterior view, but from the interior of the site. And the point here is just that, you know, yes, we're creating an office facility for our maintenance staff and a functional facility for operations. But we're also creating places for people. You know, these are these are these are human beings and making the place where they can go and eat lunch. So this picnic table here is is that kind of space. I'll talk a little bit more about the site layout in a minute. We have done some community outreach. We presented to the R.A. back in March. We've had extensive discussions with the adjacent community garden and are actually going to do some good neighbor improvements for them. Help keep.
Speaker 0: Mike. I think we lost your audio. Unless it's my connection. You might need to turn your camera off, Mike, so you get better bandwidth for your audio.
Speaker 2: I think he's gone.
Speaker 0: Yeah. All right. We'll go ahead and see if we have another. Parts rep that we can bring up into the presentation here. Hey, Steve, do you want to go ahead and take it over?
Speaker 6: I'm not as knowledgeable about the project. Mike is on.
Speaker 0: That Mike back. So, Mike, we're going to ask you to go ahead and not have your camera on so that we can give the full bandwidth to your audio.
Speaker 1: But you do have to unmute.
Speaker 3: One of those days. I'm just glad to be back. You can see the site plan here, as I mentioned, and the building sits along the street screens, views from the adjacent park and the roadway. It says water quality because of the new paving. We're actually renovating the existing historic structure back to its original use as vehicle storage and really just making a, you know, frankly, a 21st century maintenance facility for our staff out there. This is the approval timeline. We were at Luti on June 8th. First reading last. I'm sorry, Mary council the 15th first reading last week final reading a public hearing tonight and that closes the formal presentation from us. Happy to take questions. Answer anything that you guys might like to know about our proposal.
Speaker 0: All right. Great. Thank you so much for the staff report. And we'll go ahead and ask you to take down the screen sharing here. And council has not received any written testimony on Council Bill 649, and we do not have any individuals signed up to speak this evening. And so I would welcome any questions that we might have from members of Council on this one. All right. Not seen any questions by members of council. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 649. Council Member Hines Thank you.
Speaker 2: Council President We just in the last week had the opportunity to go by the maintenance building. I think I have to use air quotes around it at sinking gardens. And if this maintenance building is anything like that one, we need to we we need to we need to fund more maintenance on our maintenance buildings. That's all I was going to say. Thank you, council president.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Hines, and should have called on you first, Councilmember Cashman, since it's in your council district but didn't see your hand raised. So. Go ahead, sir.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's just fine. Thank you. Council president. Yeah. I just want to thank the Parks Department for coming up with a unique design that preserves the views from Harvard Gulch Park to the East. It does a nice job of closing in the yard, as Mike said, but I especially appreciate the roof angles go a long way to preserving the sunlight in the community garden to the south, which is a beloved part of that community, as we all know, or our residents love the community gardens. And this design, I think, respects that historic presence. So I think it's a be a nice addition to Rosedale Park and I certainly look forward to approving this.
Speaker 0: Very good. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. And I'm not seeing any other hands raised. I'm happy to support this one this evening as well. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 649, please.
Speaker 3: Cashman by.
Speaker 1: Can each.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 1: Sawyer. I. All right. I. Black. I. Peter Barca, I. But.
Speaker 3: I. When I.
Speaker 1: Granted.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 2: Time I.
Speaker 1: Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced the results. 11 911 I's Council Bill 20 1-0649 has passed our pre adjournment announcement on Monday, July 26. Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 21, Dash 0526 changing the zoning classification for 4012404040 46 and 4058 North Fork Street in Globeville.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance approving and accepting the park building plan for the Rosedale Maintenance Facility in Rosedale Park pursuant to the provisions of Sections 39-210 and 39-211 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code.
Approves the park building plan for the Rosedale Maintenance Facility in Rosedale Park in Council District 6. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 6-8-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06212021_21-0407
|
Speaker 0: Councilmember Canete, would you please put Council Bill 407 on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 3: I move that council bill 20 1-407 be placed upon final consideration and do pass by the.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It's been moved and seconded. The required public hearing for Council Bill 407 is open. May we please have the staff report? And I see we have Jason Morrison here with us. Go ahead, Jason.
Speaker 4: Great. Thank you. Council President Gilmore and good evening, members of council. And my name is Jason Morrison. I'm a senior city planner with community planning and Development. And I'll be presenting the rezoning at 990 King Street. And the request is from ESU, which is a single unit district to e t u c which is a two unit district. The proposed rezoning is located in Council District three, which is Jamie Torres's district. It's in the Villa Park neighborhood. And the vacant property is located on King Street between West 10th Avenue and West Ninth Avenue. The property owner is proposing to rezone the property from Eastside to Ntuc, which would allow for a variety of building forms , including urban house, detached accessory, dwelling unit, duplex and tandem house. The proposed E2 C, which has urban edge two units with a minimum lot area of 565,500 square feet as the district is intended for use in the urban edge neighborhood context, which is characterized by primarily single unit and C unit uses located along local and residential arterial streets. The existing zoning is Eastside, which is a single unit district allowing the Urban House primary building for. Surrounding zoning in the area includes single unit mixed use and multi-unit zoning. As I noted, the site currently sits vacant. It is surrounded by mostly single unit uses as well as two unit multi-unit and some commercial and retail. This slide shows the existing context surrounding the subject site. With the proposed rezoning on the top left and nearby, you see examples of some of the single units multi-unit as well as some of the commercial. The Map Amendment application was unanimously recommended for approval by Planning Board and moved forward by committee since the staff report was published. We have received one letter in opposition from a resident in the area. This letter expresses a desire to see a commercial use proposed at this location. We've also received one letter in opposition from the Villa Park R.A., which expressed the concern over the lack of engagement and communication on behalf of the applicant. As a result, the applicant postponed his May 24th City Council public hearing to conduct further outreach with the community. In a sense, spoken with the R.A. and with various neighborhood residents and staff has received no additional public comment. As you know, there are five review criteria when analyzing the appropriateness of the request. The first criteria is consistency with adopted plans. There are three plans applicable to this rezoning and that's comprehensive plan 2040 Blueprint Denver and the Villa Park Neighborhood Plan. Starting with Comprehensive Plan 2040. The rezoning is consistent with several strategies and Comprehensive Plan 2040 listed here and also detailed in your staff report. Looking at Blueprint Denver The future neighborhood context is urban edge. These areas are characterized by single unit and two unit residential areas where commercial and mixed use development tends to be found along main corridors. As the rezoning would allow a two unit district in building forms that would address the street similar to the Urban Housebuilding Forum. The proposed district is appropriate and consistent with the blueprint Denver Context Description. Next, we're looking at a future place. The subject site is designated as a local corridor feature place type on the Blueprint Denver Future Places Map. This place type primarily provides options for dining, entertainment and shopping, but also includes residential uses and office uses. When a residential zone district is proposed, as is the case for this rezoning, it primarily be located to encourage active street frontages, where heights are generally up to three stories. The proposed E2 Zone District has a maximum allowable building height of two and a half storeys and allows residential building forms, including urban house detached accessory dwelling unit duplexes and townhouses, which is compatible with the local corridor or feature place designation. We print Denver classified North King Street as a local or on designated street and local streets can vary in their land uses and are found in all neighborhood contexts. They're most often characterized by residential uses. West 10th Avenue is characterized as a residential correct collector, which serves primarily residential uses. The proposed U.S. district is consistent with these descriptions because it allows for additional residential uses at the subject site served by both local and residential collector. Finally we're looking at the growth strategy, the growth area blueprint. Denver is all the areas of the city. These areas are anticipated to see 10% employment growth and 20% housing growth by the year 2040. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the growth strategy that is map for this area. And finally, when looking at the Villa Park neighborhood plan, the subject site is within the boundaries of this plan, which was adopted by September City Council back in 1991. The overall vision established within this neighborhood plan calls for the protection of neighborhood character, where the Villa Park neighborhood well will continue to be a neighborhood of mostly single unit houses, with a few small apartment buildings and apartment complexes interspersed within those houses. The proposed rezoning to ETSI provides additional residential building forms to the Villa Park neighborhood, which helps maintain the residential character outlined in the vision of this neighborhood plan. The maximum height and scale of this two unit district is sensitive to the existing neighborhood character of single unit homes and offers residents a diversity of housing options close to transit because the Knox station, as well as civic uses such as Lakewood Gulch and Parker Sanchez Park, while also providing compatible building forms among the existing single unit structures in the area. Staff also finds that the requested zoning meets selection criteria, the rezoning will result in uniformity of district regulations. Will further the public health, safety and welfare primarily through its implementation of adopted plans, providing a new housing type in a largely single unit area within close proximity to multiple transit options. The application identifies several change for changing conditions as a justifying circumstance. Additionally, the trends of the city and vision and the adopted plans focus on adding additional housing density around transit stations. With the addition of the Knox station, there has already been recent multifamily redevelopment and reinvestment in the area to support high frequency transit. Lastly, staff finds that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the zone district purpose and intent of the U.S. zoning district. Based on the review criteria, CPD recommends approval of application at 20 800161. Thank you. Council President Gilmore and was able to answer any questions.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Jason, for the presentation. And we've received no written testimony in regard to Council Bill 21, Dash 0407. And this evening, we have two individuals signed up to speak this evening. And we are going to go ahead and start with our first speaker, Jamie Aguilar.
Speaker 4: Good afternoon, City Council President and good morning, Mrs. Aguilar and the president of the Park Neighborhood Association. It's been an active organization for over 30 years. We met last in person in February 2020. We met with the applicant briefly in the fall of 2019, and we have been meeting via Zoom as much as possible with the free until the fall of 2020, when we activated a website and our own Zoom account and started our monthly meetings in January 2021. The resumption of rezonings and licensing started to bombard us, and in March 2020 we had a meeting with those second to oppose this rezoning that we received in January. After watching the committee, there was concern about the comments about and and the comments of a game being played and the lack of presentation to our neighborhood that we got used to and the general comment that we were anti-development. And so that prompted a vote in April 2021 where it was opposed due to the lack of community engagement that other neighbors and other applicants have gone through. And they felt a little bit blindsided that we would support or not support something. So there was a vote called in May 2021. The applicant did attend our meeting and then what we set up as their neighborhood to try to reengage our community that we lost touch with as have office hours. And so the fourth Saturday usually following with some exceptions actually for the fourth Saturday happens before the fourth Wednesday. We had office hours on that holiday weekend. It was not very well attended, I'm sure. I was not able to attend. We did hear from the applicant at our meeting briefly. He was not on the agenda. We had already had an agenda set, but he said basically was one of the biggest takeaways was that he was not going to build an ugly and ugly maximized envelope box. And so I did get to speak to the applicant. I raised my concerns at lots of possibility and opportunities set in blueprint. And and we also submitted a letter just kind of outlining the reason why we oppose. And that's all I have to say. I wanted to yield my time to the parish for the officer that was following in November.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Hi, May. And sorry for the mispronunciation of your name in the beginning. Thank you for joining us this evening. And our second speaker is Jesse Paris.
Speaker 4: Yes. Good evening, members of council. And I'll be here.
Speaker 0: Mm hmm. Go ahead.
Speaker 4: Yes, my name is just Evolution Paris, and I'm representing for Black Star, a symbol for self defense, positive sentiment for social change, as well as the Unity Party of Colorado and for a long black nose. And I'll be the next mayor of Denver in 2023. We are in favor of this rezoning tonight and meets all five of the criteria. I'm excited to see that there's not going to be development here and there's going to actually be house and place here. We're in a housing crisis, so any opportunities are just helpful for us to create more opportunities to create housing. I'm all in support of. So I'm in support of this rezoning for me. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Jesse. And that concludes our speakers for this bill. Questions from members of Council on Council Bill 407 Council Pro Tem Torres.
Speaker 6: Thank you, President Gilmore. Jason on the. We spend a lot of time in committee discussing the local corridor as it relates to blueprint future spaces. If this had not been a local corridor and had remained low residential like the rest of the surrounding context, would a t you see still also been allowed under that circumstance?
Speaker 4: I'm not necessarily so we would look at obviously the existing pattern and see if we would certainly rely on the area plans to to kind of speak to that a little bit if there was a desire to move the neighborhood in that direction or if the lot sizes you were kind of yielding that that development down the road and kind of you're seeing some of those changes. We certainly would analyze that, but that would not be the case had it not be have not been mapped for this corridor. Right.
Speaker 6: So under a local corridor, what are some of the other contexts that would have been allowed in a neighborhood like this?
Speaker 4: Yeah. So good question. So within a local corridor and because it is mapped as such, that does yield to a little bit higher intensity uses. So that's where you do see uses such as duplexes, tandem houses, row houses and the like, even kind of a small multifamily when it comes to residential. You also can see office uses as well as some of the mixed use.
Speaker 6: Okay. Thank you so much. I have some questions for the applicant if we can bring them in. Last name is Claudius.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Yeah. Michael moved.
Speaker 1: Over.
Speaker 0: Have either Zac or Stacy helping, but we need to move. Michael, caucus over, please. Thank you. All right, go ahead. Cancel them.
Speaker 6: Hi, Michael.
Speaker 4: Good evening, counsel.
Speaker 6: Can you remind us a bit of what your outreach looked like before you submitted your application?
Speaker 4: I have attended one hour. I had attended one R.A. meeting several years ago. And then. Yes.
Speaker 6: And what did it look like after Ludi came in?
Speaker 4: I had emailed about. I had emailed all my I'm sorry, not emailed. I had written letters to all of my proximal neighbors. I had spoke to. This is Pacheco and her granddaughter would be interested in. Anyways, I spoke to several of my neighbors as well as writing them letters.
Speaker 6: Okay. And then had you considered how did a duplex end up in kind of your your set of plans? Is it as an applicant, you know, you never lived in the house prior to its being torn down, right?
Speaker 4: No, ma'am.
Speaker 5: The home was.
Speaker 4: Unsuitable for housing. It was it had structural issues. It had it was laden with asbestos. So the only option for that particular structure was to be demolished and removed.
Speaker 6: And how did a duplex end up on your radar to be constructed?
Speaker 4: Well, the city desperately needs housing. And I thought that I would I could provide additional housing for Denver.
Speaker 6: One of the things that you mentioned the last time that we heard from you at committee were. Some comments about either the neighbors or neighborhood folks or our members. I can't remember exactly who you were referring to, but that they don't like new developments into that context. Was that conveyed during the R.A. meeting that you attended in 2019?
Speaker 4: No, I don't really recall how those comments were made or displayed. I think there were some. Misunderstandings during.
Speaker 6: The looting.
Speaker 4: Committee. I. I'm learning as I'm going here. So.
Speaker 6: So those were not things that were mentioned by neighbors during the R.A. meeting.
Speaker 4: Correct.
Speaker 6: Okay. And have you ever developed property anywhere else?
Speaker 4: The home that I'm living in is was purchased at auction and I remodeled it. I have not done a ground up development. I also manage three rentals in the around the city of Denver, all of which I have invested significant capital to make habitable.
Speaker 6: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Clegg. Thank you, Madam Chair. I don't have any right now.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Torres. Up next, we have Councilmember Ortega.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. I want to first start with Jason. Jason, can you tell me when the West Side area plan is scheduled to be done? A no come from the Tories. You could probably answer that as well. But I know it's been handled through the planning department, so.
Speaker 4: Correct. So that is a very good question. I just so happens I'm not on that that area plan. I know that they are moving along. And it's my understanding that they and Councilman Councilwoman Torres, she may know this a little bit better, as my understanding. I think they're aiming towards the end of the year here. As I correct Councilwoman Torres, I should note that I apologize because.
Speaker 6: The the kind of end date is still kind of coming. We're waiting for draft recommendations is where we're at right now. So should be coming soon. But end of year, I think is a is a goal that we're at draft recommendations right now.
Speaker 2: Does it have any different recommendations for the 10th Avenue corridor in this area?
Speaker 6: There is mention of activation to be to be quite honest. You know, we're this this is one block or two one and a half blocks from the Knox Court light rail station. There is small retail at 10th and Knox Court. Uh, it is not too dissimilar from what Blueprint recognizes as a potential local corridor. Probably not any more than that as far as I can remember.
Speaker 2: Okay, so it looks on the map like it's really just a four block stretch along with 10th Avenue. Correct. So this is considered a local corridor? Yes. See, I wanted to ask Jason another question about what role did Ness play in this conversation?
Speaker 4: Great question. I appreciate the question. So as with every rezoning, the rezoning application is referred to various agencies. So are folks that hosted and did did see this particular application. However, given the smaller size of the redevelopments there, it was not necessarily on the radar for any type of affordable housing agreement or component.
Speaker 2: Okay. And then just one last question. Can you just clarify if the ADA zoning actually requires an existing structure on the site, or can a vacant lot be declared as a lot for an EDU, which means you could potentially build two units on the one.
Speaker 4: But it's the latter, so it can be constructed on a vacant lot.
Speaker 2: Okay. And then I just wanted to ask the applicant if there. And I'm not absolutely crystal clear that the EDU is one of the allowable uses under the ITU zoning. Is that one of them?
Speaker 4: It is. I can tell you my intent is not to build a navy.
Speaker 2: Okay. So you want to build a duplex on the site?
Speaker 4: Yes, ma'am.
Speaker 2: Which means you potentially could could build on the entire lot. Right. I mean, a lot of our duplexes across the city that are being built take up the entire lot. I mean, most of it's the structure part of it's the garage. Right. A lot of them are attached garages.
Speaker 4: This would be a detached garage. And I think as per the donee, the zoning code, you are only allowed to build up to 63% of the footprint. So actually a substantial portion of the lot would be for a garden or for backyard things of that nature.
Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you. I have no further questions.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Ortega. Next step, we have Councilmember Flynn.
Speaker 5: Hey, Madam President. Just some concern. I want to follow up on Councilwoman Torres.
Speaker 4: And this is in her district. So I'm not I spent a lot of time on 10th Avenue.
Speaker 5: When the West Rail.
Speaker 4: Line was under construction. So I am somewhat familiar with, but I haven't it up there lately. Now Blueprint Denver says that the future place type here is local corridor, as the councilwoman said. And I'm concerned that the applicant is seeking a zone district that specifically does not allow the definition of local corridor, provides options for dining, entertainment , shopping, but includes some residential and employment uses.
Speaker 5: The E2 zone would not allow.
Speaker 4: Dining, entertainment or shopping. Is that is that correct? That is correct. So I'm wondering how you determined that this was consistent with Blueprint Denver. When Blueprint Denver maps this as local corridor, which would allow some residential, but would also open up the possibility that the owner could develop it for some commercial use as the neighborhood association or one of the letters of opposition had said, this zone district excludes that. So I'm curious how you determined it was consistent. Sure. So as with any rezoning request, we would take a number of factors into consideration. So in this particular case, we certainly looked at the plan guidance. So you referenced Blueprint Denver. Well, the future place designation does allow for commercial and retail. It does also allow for office uses and residential. When looking at the street types, this particular property is on the corner of a local streets with residential uses as well as West 10th Avenue, which is a residential collector. So we look at that and kind of see how the uses might might comply with with the street designations in the area. We also looked at the the growth the growth types. So it isn't as it is measured as all other areas of the city, which does tend to yield more residential, it does allow for more residential growth as opposed to some of the commercial, commercial and retail. And then finally, we're looking at the Villa Park Neighborhood Plan, kind of the same thing there. I know that it is an old plan and we do have the West Area plan, which is currently in recommended developing recommendations. But within that Go Park neighborhood plan, it does fit quite a bit to maintaining that residential character in the neighborhood. And so, you know, on that particular note, with any rezoning, we do look at the surrounding context. And so when looking on not streets and then even along West 10th Avenue, there is primarily single residential, single unit residential. And so looking at kind of the appropriateness of the request as it relates to kind of that that existing and surrounding context. Jason, do you know, was there discussion about a a zoned district that would have allowed construction of the duplex but still would have also included a local corridor uses so that in the future, if the duplex units are not developed or if they get old and you know, in the future get replaced or scraped, that there could then be the a local corridor sort of use that blueprint Denver called for here. What were the other zoned districts.
Speaker 5: That would have allowed.
Speaker 4: Allowed the owner to proceed with the duplex but still be consistent with allowing in commercial use in the future? Unfortunately there is not within the urban edge context. So within the urban edge context, if the applicant were to go after a commercial kind of mixed use zone district duplex would not be an allowable use. Hmm. Interesting. Okay. Sounds like a problem with our with our districts. More so than anything else.
Speaker 5: I think, Madam President, that's all that I have at the moment. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. And I see council pro-tem Torrence your backup in the queue.
Speaker 6: Yep. Thank you so much. Councilman Flynn reminded me of a question under mixed use in the urban edge context. Jason either for mix two or three or M Main Street, two or three. Is the townhouse building form an allowable building form?
Speaker 4: It is, yes. So that the townhouse would be the lowest, I guess, lowest kind of quote unquote, in terms of residential use.
Speaker 6: So you can still get residential, even if you have a shopfront building form, you can still get residential out of out of some of those building forms.
Speaker 4: Correct. And you can get a townhouse. You just cannot get a duplex.
Speaker 6: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, counsel. Pro Tem Torres. And not seen in the other hands raised. I had a question for the applicant. Mr. Claudius, I remember in Ludi when you joined us, it didn't sound like you had a. E just do all of those brown bean adjacent property owners and let them know your intent. And I know you sense talked with the R.A. in the area, but wanted to understand what additional communication you maybe have had with the surrounding property owners.
Speaker 4: Yeah. So. Thank you, Councilwoman. My neighbor to my south, Mrs. Pacheco. She would love to have her granddaughter move into one of the units so she could be close to her family and the people directly to the north across of King. I'm gonna see if I can get this right. Yeah, I believe that's right.
Speaker 5: Either to the north or to the west.
Speaker 4: Across the king there are kind couple they rent from a landlord there. I've met the families in the four plex across the across from ten and they are also kind people. I've also met the people behind the alley. I have not received any. I have not communicated with anybody who is concerned with either the building form or the disruption to the neighborhood. Everybody has been supportive and kind people.
Speaker 0: And so I appreciate that. And so you have communicated with all of the surrounding property owners that you're saying. Yes, you have.
Speaker 4: I have. Yes.
Speaker 0: Okay. All right. Thank you. Just have that final question. And seen no other hands raised. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of council on council bill 407 council pro tempore us.
Speaker 6: Sorry. I was not physically raising my hand. My light goes off when I'm not moving at my desk. Okay.
Speaker 0: It's all okay. I was calling anyway, so.
Speaker 6: I thank you so much and I appreciate your final questions there. Council President Because it is the timing of all of this is also what hinges for me and Will I appreciate Mr. Clovis, the applicant, reaching out to neighbors and trying to engage a more deliberate conversation with the R.A. Those efforts took place after after Louis after committee, after the application had already been filed, including outreach to my office at Jason's encouragement. And so had any of these conversations taken place before, I don't know if it would have changed the outcome. I couldn't. I can't predict that. But what those conversations allow for is an opportunity to discuss both what's happening in that neighborhood now and because Mr. Clovis doesn't live at the property, hasn't lived at that property before, he does. He may not know those things, including the West Area plan and what neighbors and the entire West area have been talking about in terms of that particular node for activation and for housing. So it's not an either or conversation, but it is an exploration. And even diving further into what are some of the allowable contexts, what are some of the allowable zoned districts that can provide a multitude of things beyond a current vision that could allow for something down the road ? If Mr. Claudius either decides not to build his duplex or somebody else decides to build something instead of the duplex down the road, they would only be tied to a duplex. Right now, in an area where this community is envisioned, more pedestrian activation, things that neighbors can walk to, which has been wholly missing in this in this part of town. We do need housing and but we also need a conversation about what kind of housing is necessary. And just to give an example, though, I appreciate Ms.. Pacheco wanting to live next to her daughter. Some of the duplexes that have been built in Villa Park in the last several years are selling for over seven and $800,000 each side. So this is not about just building housing or how to make it affordable. Duplexes are not meeting that need right now, and this community has made a number of efforts to try to engage that conversation a little bit differently. I don't believe it has met the criteria, the last criteria in particular. So I'll be a no this evening. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Counsel Pro Tem Torres. Next up, we've got council member Flynn.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. I appreciate hearing the comments from Councilwoman Torres, my neighbor, to the north of my district, and getting that additional background. But I am not a member of the Luti committee, so I didn't attend that meeting. And I know that's basically perfunctory because they're entitled to a hearing. But I did start looking at this over the last week and reading the staff report, and I and I am I am.
Speaker 5: Convinced that it does not meet the.
Speaker 4: Consistent with the adopted plans criteria. Matter of fact, I believe it's inconsistent with blueprint. Maybe if this were a request, a block or two to the east or the West, it would be different. But to act, to have a zone, a rezoning to a district that does not allow the local quarter uses on a on a on a block where local quarter uses were outlined in blueprint. I think that is a deviation from the plan and not consistent.
Speaker 5: Consistent.
Speaker 4: So I will I will be joining my neighbor Council on Tourism voting now. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Flynn. Councilmember Sandoval.
Speaker 1: Hmm. Thank you. Madam President, I, too, will be voting no. I'm even though my council district is only a little portion of West Denver. I have participated in the West Area Plan and I have heard from the neighbors who have talked about wanting to extend the mixed use. And given that blueprint, Denver is called this out as a local corridor. I think this is a missed opportunity to explore which type of zone district that we can. And just kitty corner across from there is the next two ex zone district which would allow for residential and also could allow for future retail uses if needed. So I think that as Councilman Quinn so eloquently put, if we have local corridor mapped in Blueprint Denver for future places, I think we need to look to our adopted plans to give us guidance. Well, the West Area plan is being vetted and the recommendations come through. So I also will be a no thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Sandoval. Up next, we have Councilmember Hines.
Speaker 4: I thank you, council president. I agree with the concerns of my colleagues. I do want to just add one other thing. I want to thank CPD for their hard work and I know that you are working with. You know, the, the, the boundaries that you are given. We all have boundaries. And I want to I want to thank you for that. I want to encourage people as well that if they have thoughts about how they want to rezone their their property, I would encourage them to reach out to the council office before the application is filed so that there is there is the opportunity for dialog and and perhaps realizing something that might be even more in line with what the property owner wants and and also in line with what the community wants. Thank you. Council president.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Hines. Councilmember Cashman.
Speaker 5: Yeah, thank you, madam. Madam President, you know, I've just been concerned. It seems there's been a little bit of a rash in these zoning applications recently where applicants don't seem to be doing their utmost as far as outreach into the community. And I think part of the problem may be that I think it's kind of appears to me kind of gray as to what CPD is actually requiring of applicants. I know that it's recommended that they speak to their neighbors. It's recommended that they speak to the council member. But there doesn't seem to be a straightforward form for replies to those requests. And I think it's awfully important for us in judging these to know what the to have some sort of evidence as to what the nearby neighbors are saying. So that's what I wanted to add to the conversation tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Cashman, and not seen any other hands raised. I will go ahead and weigh in. I did attend the leading meeting and it is very disappointing to me that the applicant before the rezoning application was filed, didn't reach out to the council office and from the conversation was dismissive of the surrounding property owners opinion. Thoughts about this folks can be very nice, but they also have an opportunity to have their voices heard and to fully understand the impacts of a rezoning and it being quasi judicial and the importance of broad community outreach, especially when development will affect surrounding property owners as well. And so I don't believe that what is being proposed meets the consistency of the adopted plans, and I will be voting no against this tonight. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 407, please.
Speaker 6: Torres No.
Speaker 1: Black. Now. CdeBaca. Clark.
Speaker 5: No.
Speaker 1: Flynn.
Speaker 4: No. Herndon now. HINES Yeah.
Speaker 5: Cashman No.
Speaker 1: Carnage? No. Ortega. Oh. Sandoval. No. Sawyer? No. Madam President.
Speaker 0: No. Madam Secretary, please close the burning and announce the results.
Speaker 1: 12 nays.
Speaker 0: 12 nays zero ays Council Bill 20 1-0407 has failed. We're going to go ahead and shift gears here and move on to our second and final public hearing this evening. Council member Kenneth. Will you please put Council Bill 498 on the floor for final passage?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 990 North King Street in Villa Park.
Approves a map amendment to rezone property from E-SU-D to E-TU-C (single- to two-unit), located at 990 King Street in Council District 3. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 4-13-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06142021_21-0688
|
Speaker 2: Right. Sorry about that.
Speaker 0: You know, I could say.
Speaker 2: The delays all over today. All right. Proclamation 20 1068 honoring the dedication of Rosa Parks Name Change. Whereas Sanchez is a traditional Ghana, India, India cultural dance group comprised of adult children and families dedicated to preserving the indigenous dance of their ancestors, the Manchester Witches Hat. And. Whereas, Rupa Look Like US is hosting the 2021 to partner summer solstice in the newly named La Raza Park, where family members come to share oral oral traditions, pray and dance in honor of the rain that grows crops to nourish our bodies. Because without water, nothing survives. And whereas before, to look fantastic has been dedicated to the community and its families for the past 41 years, providing direction and guidance with dances and ceremonies in Denver, Colorado, Aztlan, and throughout the world. And. Whereas, the time to water the seeds that need growth and development to heal last has. Status de la vida moving from inhumanity to humanity. And. Whereas, for 41 years, Grupo Palo has used Fanta to educate the universe and to summon our ancestors to walk with us on this historic journey. And. Whereas, other forms of art, such as such a hero, ism, poetry and lava that emanate in the one hand they are part of our cultural renaissance produced in communion with Muestra. It is better to have joined us this year to celebrate the solstice. And. Whereas, the formal renaming take place of the former, the formal renaming will take place at the former Columbus Park to La Raza Park to honor the community that has lived with struggle and have also thrived in northwest Denver for decades. And. Whereas, the time to honor extras and deposit to battles, self, homeland, community and spirituality from Mesoamerica to Las Americas and throughout the world has arrived. And. Whereas, the summer solstice symbolizes the nurturing of our youth who need consensus and vision to create a better tomorrow, and that reclaims our identity and spirituality through action and performance in the Westeros community that is to pass down to the next seven generations. And. Whereas, political and intellectual, intellectual intellectual development is the basis of human progress, recognizing our past informs the course of history. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Council of City and County of Denver Action that the Council hereby recognizes and commends people across the Chicano, Chicano, Mexicano Indigenous community who have called La Raza Park home for decades and have advocated for the name change taking place at the city and county of Denver, officially recognized this year on June four, 2021. Section two of the city and county of Denver shall test and affix the seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation and that the copy be transmitted to Santa.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Sandoval, your motion to adopt.
Speaker 2: A motion that proclamation 20 1068 the adopted second sector.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It's been moved. And I think that second goes to Councilmember Hines again, their comments by members of Council Councilmember Sandoval.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. So I just wanted to acknowledge Carlos, who will be accepting the proclamation and all of the dancers of Peru. That dance had been dancing at La Raza Parks for decades and keeping ceremony there and honoring all of those who have really struggled to change the name and but done it through ceremony and done it in a very. In a way that I've always had held in high regard. They've also done the smartest there. They've been a steadfast leader in our community. And so it's my honor to work with them this weekend at the official dedication of La Raza Park East coming 20th, which is the summer solstice. They'll be dancing there all day. So with that, I'll just ask Carlos if he'd like to join us to accept the proclamation.
Speaker 0: Oh, wonderful. Thank you, Councilmember Sandoval. And I don't see any other hands raised for comments here. And so I'll go ahead and chime in before we vote on this one. But the ancestors have to be celebrating and dancing for sure. This has been a very, very long time coming and happy to be able to support this this evening as well. And so congratulations to the entire community on this celebration, especially as it coincides with the summer solstice. The another. No other hands raised. Madam Secretary, roll call, please.
Speaker 3: Sandoval.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 3: Sawyer, I. Torres. I. Black. I see tobacco. I. Clark.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 3: Flynn.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 3: Herndon.
Speaker 6: I.
Speaker 3: Hi. I'm Cashman.
Speaker 7: Hi.
Speaker 3: Kenny Ortega.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 3: Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 3: 13 Eyes.
Speaker 0: 13 Eyes. Proclamation 20 1-068 has been adopted. We have 5 minutes for the proclamation. Acceptance Council member Sandoval will start the five minute timer. If you'd like to introduce your guests this evening.
Speaker 2: Yes. I'd like to introduce Carlos Castaneda and his wife, Donna. Panos.
Speaker 1: Yes. Good evening. Good afternoon to all. Thank you, Madam President. Councilwoman, send the ball and the rest of the council for having me here. Unfortunately, my wife is not here with me today. She's doing some other things here. But I'm very honored to be a part of this here and in this time, very difficult time that we all been going through here. So I just hope and pray that everybody and your families are safe, well, and safe and continue to be that way. So my name is Carlos Castaneda. I'm the director. And the first part of dialog been in the existence since June of 1980, preserving the ways of the mystical Aztec down chichi mecca dance aspect, traditional cultural dance, music and song. And we have been in the community of Denver since then. Hosting a ceremony during the summer solstice, which we call Superfoiler, and the coast to coast this weekend to the summer solstice. Right before that summer solstice time, we we try to acknowledge what our our earth has given us, what the rain has given us as we continue to grow our crops. The beautiful rain that we have received so far has has really nourished all of our crops. The main purpose this is for the ceremony is to to prepare for this rain through this spiritual dance that not only here, but for for all the crops throughout, not only in Colorado, but this whole this whole Western Hemisphere, really. Myself, I have a a range of of migrant workers that have come and worked the field. So I know how important this this rain is to the the crops that feed our people. On top of that, we try to nourish these ancient traditions for these upcoming generations so that one day they will continue what our ancestors have have fought and given their lives for. Also, this this tradition has been going on for hundreds and hundreds of years since before the coming of the Spanish into Mexico and that they need. Yeah. I'm sorry. I have to go. Background noise there. Then they need of this. Of this dance has allowed us to continue on and to share with our young ones. So I thank you for acknowledging us for this proclamation here. This year is particularly is going to be a very historical moment event for not only the park but for the people of Denver. You know, the struggle has been going on for for several decades now, too, as as you opened up in the beginning about acknowledging the native people of this land, it pays respect to all of those who have gone before us. And the name change of this of this part from Columbus to La Raza Park, meaning that the People's Park, the people of this land, really and even in between the roads where this this park lies in between Navajo and and I don't exactly know the exact street, but that whole down 38th, they have all of these native names. So thank you for that. This, as I mentioned, this struggle to be a part of this is a dream come true and a prayer come true for many. It's not just what we have left, but there have been many voices put into this. So I think each and every one of the people who have supported this struggle, this is a very small step for our people, but it is a victory that we are very proud of. So I thank you all for acknowledging that and putting that on the proclamation as well. This park is a beautiful park in the heart of the North Side, Denver, and there are many children that have yet to to to walk into this park and learn the history of how this park has come to where it's at today. So this ceremony has been open and will always be open for for everyone who steps into that park so they can learn the appreciation of the Mexican people, the Aztec people, tradition that has come from from from Mexico. We will be hosting several representative of other groups throughout California, Arizona, New Mexico, Mexico, Utah, different places. In the past years we have celebrated with them and fed feast with with the public at the end of our three day celebration. This is just the last day of it. And we feed everybody who's in the park. We do this. We have done this with the help of many other organizations. So I want to thank all of them. You all know who you are. I don't want to take up too much time, but I greatly, greatly appreciate everybody's effort. And I thank you once again. I am honored to accept this proclamation on behalf of ore. Thank you very much for do.
Speaker 0: Oh. Well, thank you so much for joining us this evening, sir, as well, and Councilmember Sandoval for sponsoring this proclamation. And we hope that you have. Celebration and good attendance as well. And so thank you for all of your wonderful.
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation honoring the dedication of La Raza Park name change and the Annual Summer Solstice.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06142021_21-0572
|
Speaker 0: No items have been called out under bills for introduction. No items have been called out under bills for final consideration. Council member Sawyer has called out Council Bill 20 1-0572 for a vote. And Council Member Sandoval has called out Council Bill 20 1-0592 for a vote and under pending no items have been called out. And a quick reminder for folks as we're speaking, it's easier for Alejandro to translate for us, especially as we're reading numbers if we slow down a little bit. And so just putting that reminder out there for both myself and my colleagues. And our first item up is Council Bill 572. Councilmember Ortega, would you please put Council Bill 21, Dash 057 to on the floor for final passage? And I'm proud that I moved that council bill 20 1-057 to be placed upon final consideration and do pass. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Council Member Sawyer. Your motion to postpone, please.
Speaker 2: I move that final consideration of Council Bill 20 1-057 to be postponed to Monday, June 28th, 2021.
Speaker 0: Q It has been moved and we got the second. There are questions or comments by members of Council. Council Member Sawyer.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. This is the ordinance that is going to allow us to have remote meetings and hybrid meetings. And so because of the way it's written, we need to just delay it a couple of weeks so that we can ensure that the build out of the chambers is done. Like you mentioned earlier, we're almost there. It's just a couple of less tweaks that need to get done to make sure the user experience is the best that it possibly can be. So we're just going to need a couple of weeks to post this.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Madam Secretary, roll call on the postponement.
Speaker 3: Sawyer, I. Torres. I.
Speaker 2: Black I.
Speaker 3: CdeBaca, I. Clark.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 3: Flynn.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 3: Herndon.
Speaker 6: I.
Speaker 3: Hi.
Speaker 6: I.
Speaker 7: Cashmere high.
Speaker 3: Can I? Ortega. I. Sandoval.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 3: Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced the results.
Speaker 3: 13 eyes.
Speaker 0: 13 Eyes. Final Consideration of Council Bill. 20 1-057 to has been postponed to Monday, June 28. The next item up is Council Bill five nine to Council Member Ortega. Will you please put Council Bill 20 1-0592 on the floor for final passage?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance amending the local open meetings laws to authorize electronic participation and electronic meeting methods during emergencies and making other conforming amendments.
Modernizes open meeting laws to allow for use of emerging technology. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 5-18-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06142021_21-0592
|
Speaker 0: 13 Eyes. Final Consideration of Council Bill. 20 1-057 to has been postponed to Monday, June 28. The next item up is Council Bill five nine to Council Member Ortega. Will you please put Council Bill 20 1-0592 on the floor for final passage? As I move that. Council Bill 20 1059 to be placed upon final consideration and to pass. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Councilmember Sandoval, your motion to postpone.
Speaker 2: I move that final consideration and. And feel 21 if it's 20 1-0592 with its public hearing be postponed to Monday, July 12, 2020.
Speaker 0: Thank you. We've got it's been moved and seconded questions or comments by members of council. Council member Sandoval.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Council President. We need to postpone final consideration of this bill. It was not notified properly. So we have to go through the notification process again, which would put us to have the public hearing on Monday, July 12th.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. And not seen any other hands raised. Madam Secretary, roll call on the postponement.
Speaker 3: Sandoval.
Speaker 2: Hi.
Speaker 3: Sawyer. Hi. Torres. I black. I see tobacco. I. Clark.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 3: Flynn.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 3: Herndon.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 3: Hines.
Speaker 6: I.
Speaker 3: Cashman. I can. I. Ortega I Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 3: 13 eyes.
Speaker 0: 13 Eyes. Final consideration of Council Bill 20 1-059 to. With its public hearing will be has been postponed to Monday July 12. That concludes the items to be called out this evening or on to our block vote. Any bills for introduction are ordered published. Council members remember that 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 Ortega, would you please put the resolutions for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor? I move that resolutions be adopted and bills on final consideration be placed on final consideration consideration and do passed in the block for the following items. 20 1-06 ten. Zero 611 zero 612 06806190578060706140552053305910530606. Thank you. It has been moved and we've got the second in there. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 2: Black Eye.
Speaker 3: CdeBaca. Hi, Clark.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 4: When I.
Speaker 3: Herndon.
Speaker 6: Hi. Hi. Hi.
Speaker 3: Cashman. I can change. Hi. Ortega. I. Sandoval.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 3: Sawyer.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 3: Torres. I. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 3: 13 eyes.
Speaker 0: 13 eyes. The resolutions have been adopted and the bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass. Our previous pre recess announcement tonight there will be a required public hearing on Council Bill 20 1-0421 changing the zoning classification for 2394 South Lincoln Street in Rosedale and a required public hearing on Council Bill 21, Dash 0443 Changing
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance amending Ordinance 20200961, Series of 2020, to extend the duration of an interim zoning regulation to allow certain temporary unlisted uses in Former Chapter 59 zone districts due to the COVID-19 disaster emergency.
Amends Ordinance 2020-0961 to extend the zoning administrator’s authorization to approve temporary unlisted uses on Former Chapter 59-zoned land through December 31, 2023. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 5-25-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06072021_21-0572
|
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Sawyer, and your leadership in this regard as well. And I'm glad we got through this first process. And so. All right, thank you. The next item we have up is Council Bill 572. Councilmember Flynn, would you please put Council Bill 20 1-0572 on the floor for publication?
Speaker 1: Yes, Madam President, I move that council bill 20 1-057 to be ordered published.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved. And we've got the second by Councilmember Herndon Councilmember Sayed Abarca. Your motion to amend.
Speaker 4: Thank you. I move that council bill 21, dash 570 to be amended in the following particulars on page five, straight lines five through eight and remember sections two through five accordingly. And on this one.
Speaker 0: Yep. We're going to go ahead and if we could get a second on this amendment.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 0: Okay. I think I got Councilmember Torres on the second questions or comments by members of Council Councilmember CdeBaca.
Speaker 4: Thank you. This amendment is specifically designed to remove the exception for collective bargaining conferences. I think it's important we heard throughout our collective bargaining sessions throughout this last year that people wanted some more transparency, and this amendment is designed to achieve that.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Council members say. Next up, we have council member Sawyer.
Speaker 4: Thanks, Madam President. It's my understanding that Councilwoman CdeBaca is offering two amendments to the ordinance this evening, and I won't be supporting either of them. The mayor's office, the city attorney's office, a number of agencies and I collaborated extensively in order to draft the changes to this ordinance. There was also a significant external stakeholder process so that residents of the community can share their feedback as well. That process included two meetings with every council member to gather feedback on the changes that were made. Neither of these two amendments were discussed until the final draft of the ordinance was brought to committee. The proposed amendments haven't been subjected to the same level of scrutiny by Denver residents or the members of boards and commissions that they would affect. This is an ordinance. It can be changed by a vote of council at any time. So if these changes are something Councilwoman CdeBaca would like to pursue, I'd be happy to help her with the stakeholder in process at that time. But as of today, I don't feel that that work has been done. So I ask my colleagues to vote no on both amendments and vote yes to publish the ordinance as written. Thanks, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Sawyer. Next up, we have Councilmember Flynn.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. I don't believe that it is good public policy to allow our conferences on collective bargaining strategy to be open to the people with whom or negotiating. I don't want to sit in the PAs weidner room with the mayor and the council and have the police union sitting there hearing us discuss how we're going to approach their negotiations. I think that's bad public policy and I urge a no vote. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Flynn. Looks like I double checked the hands raised. Council member Pro-Tem Torrence.
Speaker 3: Thank you so much. I'm hoping to get a legal response on a question that I have.
Speaker 0: Okay. We can go ahead and make sure that we have John Griffin or Kirsten Crawford here in the queue. Okay. We've got John Griffin. Go ahead, Councilmember, with your question.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Jonathan or Kirsten. Does removing this clause from the exempted areas mandate that it be open or just give the option for it to be open? And what would then be that process for opening it? Who would it be up to?
Speaker 1: Alex Pearson. Take this. And she.
Speaker 0: Okay. We'll have Kirsten Crawford. Go ahead and respond.
Speaker 4: That evening. Council members. I am actually going to pull. The draft so it it carves out the five through eight carves out from open means requirements collective bargaining. My guess although I'm playing up the change is we we would maybe need to make some other. Changes if we wanted to mandate that it occur in open session. But I am looking at that. I wonder if you might want to table that question for a minute and let me come back to it just to make sure.
Speaker 3: And just to be clear, Kirsten, I'm not advocating that they be open, just wanting to make sure I'm understanding that what removing that exemption, what it does and it sounds like in that you can come back in a little bit with an answer, but I don't see any other questions in the queue. If I if it's removed without any other language, it doesn't automatically mandate that they're open without additional work put into the ordinance.
Speaker 4: Okay. So I'm looking at the language now. Any collective bargaining conference is not considered a meeting subject to these requirements, but I guess in order to get very granular about who's in the room and when it constitutes a meeting, I suppose we probably do need more clarity. Your your question is a very good one. And, and one I'm not totally comfortable just answering on the fly right now. I just need a little bit more time to think about that. But I think that you're right. My hunch after playing up the language is that it wouldn't mandate because we don't know exactly who would be the body, the public bodies, so to speak, that would need to be convened with respect to. And I'm backing my way into that, into the answer, because when we look at this code provision, we list the public bodies . So for one, we don't list. What the definition of the body is for collective bargaining. So I suspect we might need a little bit more of definition if we wanted to mandate that.
Speaker 3: So just eliminating the that section. About collective bargaining doesn't mandate that it's open, but put it leaving it in mandates that it be exempted.
Speaker 4: It makes it very clear that it's not subject to our opinions without action.
Speaker 3: Yes. Okay. Got it. Thank you for that.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. Councilmember Pro-Tem Torres, council member Abarca.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Just wanted to clarify that that Councilwoman Torres is the goal of the amendment. It's to not necessarily create the mandate at this point, but to remove that exception will allow us to decide later if we choose to mandate it or choose to outline a process of how that should work. But this is to make sure that we don't close the door on that option for later.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you for that clarification. Council members say to Barca and now we have others back into the queue here. And so Council Member Torres, did you have a follow up or is that okay since you've been up to to move on? Okay. All right. Great. Thank you. New in the queue, then we have Councilmember Herndon.
Speaker 1: Madam President, I just want to echo what Councilwoman Sawyer said. I mean, she did a deliberate, thoughtful engagement process with stakeholders, and this amendment is anything but. So I will be voting no, and it is an ordinance so we can bring it back later if.
Speaker 2: We actually have a transparent process to.
Speaker 1: See how these changes would actually impact it. But to do this at the 11th and a half hour, I think is bad policy. So I'll be running. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Herndon. Next up, we have Councilmembers Sawyer and Flynn in the Q and I haven't heard from Councilmember Hines yet. And so I'd like to allow him to go. Go ahead, Councilmember.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council President. I, I, I kept putting my hand up and down and it was probably because people kept asking the same question that I was intending to ask. So, you know, pro tempore, is this question about whether this is a mandate, I think is an important distinction. I know that I am not a member of the United Food and Commercial Workers, but I attended a bargaining session where you have S.W. did bargain with some with their employer. I also did attend bargaining for the Denver Classroom Teachers Association. And and so there are there are labor unions that do have a public process. And and and it seemed like that was more transparent. I do absolutely hear what Councilmember Sawyer said about how this we could have added this to the stakeholder process and and councilmember heard into but we did not and and so I just wanted to just throw out my my thought process. Thank you. Council President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Hines. Next up, we have council member Sawyer.
Speaker 4: Things about a president. I just wanted to quickly pop into weigh in again on this, that frankly, whether this is a good idea or or not a.
Speaker 3: Good idea.
Speaker 4: Isn't. What's up for discussion here? You know, what is up for discussion here is that we don't know what the consequences are. We haven't been out to the community to have a discussion about this. We haven't been in conversations with the the organizations that we bargained with to get their feedback on it. And so that's why we think it's irresponsible for us to make this change right now. Like I said, it's an ordinance that can easily be changed moving forward, and I'm happy to help engage the stakeholders to do that. If that's something Councilwoman CdeBaca wants to do. But I don't think it's appropriate to do that at this stage.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Sawyer. Next up, we've got Councilmember Flynn.
Speaker 1: Thank you, madam. I just want to clarify and partially in response to Councilman Hines, that this amendment has literally nothing to do with opening up the actual bargaining sessions, with the with the unit, with the police, with the firefighters or with the sheriffs. It apply it simply removes the exemption for our meetings with the administration to discuss what our bargaining position will be when we go to the table. And for that reason alone, I think it's very bad public policy and it's not a necessary step to making a change to opening up bargaining sessions. At some later point, it's simply a bad move right now to signal and have Nick Rodgers sit in the room while we're negotiating, while we're discussing with the mayor how we want to bargain with the police. I don't think that's I think that's quite obviously on its face a bad policy. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Council member Flynn. Up next, council members say to Barker we have you back up.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Just wanted Kirsten to clarify, because I discussed this with her.
Speaker 5: That the collective.
Speaker 4: Bargaining conferences encompasses all of the collective bargaining according to what carers and confirmed for me when we had this discussion. So it's not just when we're deciding our positions, it doesn't it's not just about that. It's about collective bargaining in general as public meetings. Kirsten, can you confirm or clarify?
Speaker 1: Kirsten had to step away. So I'm able to speak on that. I need to be back with her to further discuss this. But that is not the way that I read this.
Speaker 2: It's exactly what counts. But one step. This is about internal conferences.
Speaker 1: But we would need to circle back.
Speaker 2: She obviously has a wealth of knowledge on the subject, but that is not the way that I read it.
Speaker 0: So. Okay, I'll go ahead.
Speaker 4: Never mind. Go for it.
Speaker 0: I was just going to I was going to ask Councilmember CdeBaca if she was had anything more to add. Okay. All right. Thank you. Next up, Councilmember Flynn.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. And, too, I'm going to take on what John Griffin just said. The collective bargaining sessions themselves, the ones that John and Rob Ness for go into the room with unions are not subject to in the open meetings. There goes my clock again. Not subject to the open meetings. Requirements are in our code in the first place. So this removing this exemption does has absolutely nothing to do with that. It's simply this paragraph that it would be deleted by this amendment simply refers to our conferences with the administration on our strategy going into those bargaining sessions. So that's that's why I think it's bad public policy. I don't want them in the room when we're trying to hash out what we're going to offer them and what our alternatives might be.
Speaker 0: All right. Well, thank you. Councilmember Flynn and I haven't weighed in yet on this. And then we'll go ahead and do the roll call, vote on it. Councilmember CdeBaca, you still had your hand up. Did you have. Okay. All right. Great. I'll go ahead and weigh in. Geez. Have been working on this since last July when I was elected as city council president, really trying to shore up this process. And we created initial guidelines that we sent over to all of you that you've reviewed. And then, in addition to that, have worked since January to develop a memorandum of understanding with the administration as well, outlining what the steps would be if we got to an impasse at any point during this process. And honestly, having worked very closely with Jonathan Griffin as our council representative. I'm not sure how we would strategically be successful in our bargaining if we had it open at this point in time, because I don't believe that we have heard from all of the many different stakeholders that we would need to talk to about how this would actually get set forth. And so I am of the mindset, if it is something that is the will of a majority of this body, we can definitely do that stakeholder process and open this ordinance up and address it at the appropriate time. And so I will not be supporting either one of the amendments this evening as well. Madam Secretary, roll call on the First Amendment we have. And to clarify, this amendment eliminates the exception for collective bargaining conferences. Roll call, please.
Speaker 3: CdeBaca, I. Claire?
Speaker 1: No. Flynn No. HERNDON No.
Speaker 2: HINES No.
Speaker 4: Cashmere?
Speaker 1: No.
Speaker 3: Can each.
Speaker 4: No.
Speaker 3: Ortega? No. Sandoval No. So here now. Torres? Nope. Black. No. Madam President.
Speaker 0: No, Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results, please.
Speaker 3: When I 12 name.
Speaker 0: 12 nays. The amendment to 20 1-0572 has failed. Council members say to back your second motion to amend, please.
Speaker 4: Thank you. I move that council bill 20 1-5 72 be amended in the following particulars on page five line one strike means and replace with means and recordings of meetings shall be posted on the city's website.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 0: Thank you. We have it moved and we have a second by Councilmember Hines. Questions or comments by members of council. Council members say to Barker.
Speaker 4: Thank you. This amendment requires all virtual meetings subject to this ordinance to be archived on the city's website. I think that's important because not all open meetings are archived, and with the many meetings that are occurring, sometimes the residents have to choose which ones they attend and they should be able to go back and watch the ones that they couldn't attend in person and archiving would enable that ability.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, we have council member Sawyer.
Speaker 4: Mr. President, just wanted to weigh in here to just say again, with the stakeholder in process, we haven't had a conversation with tech services about what archiving that kind of information might look like, what storage space we would need to pay for, how much it would cost, whether we would need to have FTE is added to mail in something like this, etc.. So again, while I think it might not be a bad idea at some point in the future, it's not something we discussed in this process and it is something that we need to reach out to our stakeholders and find out more information about before we can responsibly vote on something like this. Thanks.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Council member Sawyer. Up next, we have Council Member Hines.
Speaker 2: Thank. Thank you. Council President. I think that I certainly agree with the spirit of this amendment that we should have recordings for for everything that's that is a part of our city process. With I also am somewhat concerned about the stakeholder process. I know when I served on the Denver Commission for People with Disabilities, the it was difficult to find a venue. The Webb building changed some of the requirements for having holding meetings in the Webb building. We ended up finding a space in the Denver Museum of Natural Science next to a yoga session, a regular, you know, monthly yoga or at least monthly, that every time we were meeting there was yoga immediately outside. And, you know, I don't know how we would have necessarily met the requirement for open meetings in that venue. Maybe it's possible. I don't know. And I don't want the Commission for People with Disabilities to be unable to meet because they have to meet this regulatory hurdle. Maybe they could. Maybe they couldn't. But again, I think that's what the stakeholder process would do. Thank you. Council president.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Hines. Councilmember Flynn.
Speaker 1: Madam President, I like this amendment very much. But like Councilman Sawyer, I think it needs a little bit more data behind it so that we can understand the costs. I would like to see it. I'd like to see this come forward at some point as an amendment to this part of the code. But I'd like to know, for instance, everybody that I've tried to see, recordings of meetings I've been able to find. So I know that we already archive a lot of them. I don't know what is not being archived. So maybe, Councilwoman CdeBaca, we could work together to figure out who isn't reporting and and why not, and can we get them to do that? I think it's an excellent resource that we do need to provide. I don't know that it's soup yet to put it in this up, to amend it into this ordinance. But I'd like to come back and have that done, for instance, if I can ask Councilwoman CdeBaca. Madam President, do we know? Would this applied to in-person meetings that are not broadcast on Zoom once we go back to in-person, if there is simply meeting in a in a room in the web building and it's not broadcast on Channel eight, where are you talking about? Like audio recordings of meetings and things like that as well. So to do.
Speaker 4: That, that would actually make sense. I think through COVID, what we've recognized is the potential of always having this alternative for for a virtual participation. And we know that it's easier to listen to a meeting than it is to read the meeting minutes. And so in 2021, I think that we should always default to recording meetings, whether it's a zoom recording or a voice recording that gets uploaded somewhere. It just makes more sense to have that as the standard rather than just your written minutes.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Madam President, I agree. And I think perhaps we could ask our staff to gather the data on what boards and commissions that are listed in this ordinance, and there's a ton of them. What is their current practice? Do they record now? If they do, do they archive it? Do they make it available on the website? I think that's that's something we should pursue immediately after this. But I don't think that we should put it in the code right now because we don't have the answers to these questions. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Flynn. And, you know, would be open to learning more about that, but likewise, would like to see that stakeholder process so that we're making sure we understand the intended and unintended consequences of our actions and we not seeing anybody else up in the queue. Madam Secretary, roll call on the Second Amendment, which would require all virtual meetings subject to this ordinance to be archived on the city's website.
Speaker 3: CdeBaca, I. Claire?
Speaker 1: No. Flynn No.
Speaker 3: Herndon?
Speaker 1: No.
Speaker 2: HINES No.
Speaker 3: Cashin?
Speaker 2: No.
Speaker 3: Kimmich? No. Ortega. No. Sandoval.
Speaker 4: No.
Speaker 3: Sawyer. No. Torres now. Black? No. Madam President.
Speaker 0: No. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 3: When I tweeted this.
Speaker 0: When I 12 nays the second amendment to 20 1-057 excuse me 0572 has failed council bill 20 1-057 to is currently on the floor for publication. Questions by members of Council on Council Bill 20 1-057 to. CNN. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 21, dash 057 to please.
Speaker 3: Black. I. See tobacco. I. Clark.
Speaker 2: All I.
Speaker 3: Flynn.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 3: Herndon.
Speaker 2: I. Hi. Hi.
Speaker 1: Cashman and I.
Speaker 3: Can each write. Ortega like Sandoval, I. Sawyer. I mean Torres. I. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced results.
Speaker 3: 30 nights.
Speaker 0: 13 Eyes Council Bill 20 1-0572 has been ordered published. All right. Next up, we have Council Bill 516. Councilmember Flynn, would you please make a motion to take Council Bill 516 out of order, please?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance amending the local open meetings laws to authorize electronic participation and electronic meeting methods during emergencies and making other conforming amendments.
Modernizes open meeting laws to allow for use of emerging technology. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 5-18-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06072021_21-0516
|
Speaker 0: Nine Eyes Council Bill 20 1-0404 has failed. We're going to go ahead and move on to our next item here. We need to do a point of clarification. Tonight, council voted to postpone final consideration of Council Bill 20 1-0516 and it looks like a motion was inadvertently skipped and so is a point of clarification. For the record, the previous and last vote on Council Bill 21, Dash 0516 will be reconsidered so that the minutes can correctly reflect and be corrected the intended action accurately. And so Council Member Flynn, we're going to go ahead and do this now before we get into the next two public hearings. And so would you please make a motion to reconsider the last vote on Council Bill 21, dash 516 for us, please.
Speaker 1: Certainly, Madam President, I move the council bill 20 1-0516. Be reconsidered. If I get.
Speaker 0: Thank you. We've got the motion and the second. Any questions or comments by members of council? All right. Seen none. Madam Secretary, roll call on the reconsideration of Council Bill 21, dash 20516.
Speaker 4: Black I.
Speaker 3: Clark.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 3: Flynn.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 3: Herndon.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 3: Hines. I guess.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 3: Can I? Ortega. I. Sandoval. I. Sawyer. I. Torres, I. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced the results.
Speaker 3: 12 Eyes.
Speaker 0: 12 Eyes. Final Consideration of Council Bill 21, Dash 516 will now be reconsidered. Councilmember Flynn, can we get you to please put Council Bill 516 on the floor for final passage as amended?
Speaker 1: I think I can be persuaded into that. I move the council bill 21, dash 20516 be placed upon final consideration and do pass as amended.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. We've got the motion. And I believe I got that second from Councilmember Herndon. Councilmember Herndon, your motion to postpone.
Speaker 1: Yes. Now that I move that final.
Speaker 2: Consideration, the council bill 21 to.
Speaker 1: 0 516 with its public hearing be postponed to Monday, June 28th, 2021.
Speaker 0: Very good. We've got the second, I believe, by Councilmember Flynn, questions or comments by members of council. Councilmember Herndon.
Speaker 1: Yes, ma'am. Apologies to my colleagues. We are doing this because I failed to do the motion earlier when I was looking at the wrong line on the script. So my apologies. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Marcus, for trying to correct me my mistake earlier, but we need to do it over. So I got it right the second time. Thank.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Herndon. We've got the postponement for final consideration to the meeting posting requirements, and I don't see any other hands raised, so. Madam Secretary, roll call on the postponement, please.
Speaker 3: Herndon, I. Hines.
Speaker 2: All right.
Speaker 4: Cashmere.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 3: Can I? Ortega, I. Sandoval. Hi, Sawyer. I. Torres I. Black I. Clark.
Speaker 2: All right.
Speaker 1: So I.
Speaker 3: Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce results.
Speaker 3: 12 eyes.
Speaker 0: 12 eyes. Final consideration of Council Bill 21, Dash 516 with its public hearing is postponed to Monday, June 28. All right, we got that one all taken care of. And so now we are moving on to our second public hearing. And a reminder, we have one more after this. And Councilmember Flynn, would you please put Council Bill four or six on the floor for final passage, please?
Speaker 1: Yes, Madam President. Thank you. I move that council bill 21, dash 0406 be placed upon final consideration and do as.
Speaker 0: Thank you. We've got the motion and the second the required public hearing for Council Bill 406 is open. Maybe please have the staff report and we have Scott Robinson here, I believe. Oh, let me see. Scott, your audio doesn't seem to be working for us. No. Go on it. No. Okay. We're going to go ahead. We have had this issue before and so Scott's going to go ahead and get back in and join us so that he can do the staff report. And so if our legislative analysts can be looking for Scott as he returns.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance to amend Chapter 59 (Zoning) of the Denver Revised Municipal Code relating to the Denver Zoning Code and to amend and restate the Denver Zoning Code.
Amends the Denver Zoning Code by making numerous changes to correct, clarify, and make minor substantive changes to all articles of the code as part of regular code maintenance and upkeep. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 5-4-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06072021_21-0404
|
Speaker 0: Council Member Flynn Will you please put Council Bill four or four on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 1: Yes, I will think about present. I move the council bill 20 1-20404 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 404 is open. May we please have the staff report? And I believe we have it here.
Speaker 8: Yes. Hello? Can you hear me all right?
Speaker 0: Mm hmm.
Speaker 8: All right. I will pull up. My presentation. All right. Thank you very much. I'm Ellis TV, and I am here to present the proposed rezoning at 1035 three East Mississippi Avenue. All right. So we are in Council District five in the Windsor neighborhood. The subject property is on Mississippi Avenue between Geneva and Havana, just north of Arapahoe County. It's a little less than two acres and has a vacant drive thru ATM. The proposed rezoning is to annex three, so the suburban neighborhood contact's mixed use up to three stories and that is to facilitate redevelopment of the site as an x three allows a mix of users including light automobile services with limitations. So before we jump into existing context, I want to touch on a little background on rezoning requests on this site. So this application is the third rezoning application that CPD has received on this site. The first was in 2018. At that time, the previous version of Blueprint was the adopted plan. Guidance Staff recommended approval and planning board recommended denial. The applicant withdrew. The second was in 2019. This time, under the current version of Blueprint, staff, recommended approval and planning board had a split vote of 3 to 3, meaning that the board made no recommendation. The applicant withdrew shortly before the city council hearing. After withdrawing that second time, the applicant, the property owner and the neighbors began mediation, which I'll touch on again later in this presentation. So the current zoning is B one with a condition which I'll talk about on the next slide. Be one is a former Chapter 59 Limited Office district intended to form a transition between more intense commercial and lower intensity residential land uses. Other than banking and financial services, retail uses are not permitted. It's adjacent to Sue I and Max five and then Arapahoe County to the south. So the condition of the zoning is to adhere to the 1993 site plan, which allows for eight drive thru ATM stalls surrounded by surface parking and landscaping. So that means that without a rezoning on this site, the only allowed use is the auto oriented ATM service that is no longer needed by the adjacent bank and therefore vacant . So the land use map here says commercial. But as I just said, it is vacant and it's adjacent to a single unit, residential and commercial uses. So the third image down outlined in red shows the subject property on Mississippi Avenue. And the other three images are some residential and commercial buildings nearby. The Planning Board voted 5 to 3 to recommend approval of this rezoning on April seven. So the applicant, the property owner and the neighbors were in mediation from May 2020 through March 2021. While all parties were able to come to agreement on almost all issues, they were not able to reach agreement on operating hours. This impasse in the discussion effectively ended the mediation with no agreement in place, and the mediation summary is included as an attachment to the staff report. So on the application is before you. Today we received 16 letters to and support from Holland and Hart attorneys representing Belco Credit Union and 14 letters in opposition to from attorneys representing the neighborhood organization and the remaining 12 from neighboring residents. We also received a letter from the Range View Neighborhood Association with 97 signatures in opposition to the rezoning and the proposed redevelopment, stating that the request is not consistent with adopted plans and the site should become residential. These issues raised focus on the impact of on the residential character of the surrounding area traffic and environmental and health , concern over a gas station and a convenience store next to a residential area. We know that it is hard to separate the rezoning from a potential project, but that's exactly what our analysis calls for. We're not looking at a specific development proposal. We're looking at whether the proposed zone district meets the review criteria. So as the staff report detailed, our analysis found that the proposed max three zone district is consistent with the review criteria as a mixed tourism mixed use district that is intended to provide a transition to lower intensity uses such as single unit, residential traffic and environmental issues are addressed through different processes separate from rezoning. We also heard concerns over questions whether there were other zoned districts that would be more appropriate on the site. But as part of the official rezoning application, staff evaluate only the zone district that an applicant lists on their application. Okay, so now we can jump into the review criteria. So we have just the two citywide plans to to review in this location. So the proposed map amendment is consistent with several strategies from Comprehensive Plan 2040 listed here and detailed in the staff report. In Blueprint 2019. The future neighborhood context is Suburban, which has the most varied development in Denver's neighborhoods. It is largely single unit, but also higher intensity residential and then commercial development focused along main corridors and centers bordering these residential areas. The future place of this area is called Community Corridor, which typically provides some mix of office, commercial and residential in heights of generally up to five stories. Mississippi Avenue is a residential arterial, so arterials are designed for the highest amount of three movement blueprint lists, small retail nodes and other similar uses as appropriate uses adjacent to residential arterials. According to the Blueprint Growth Strategy, the site is within community centers and corridors. These areas are anticipated to see 25% of new housing growth in 20% of new employment growth by 2040. The proposed MAP amendment to S-Max three will focus low scale, mixed use growth in a community corridor in an appropriate context, which blueprint identifies as an AI done as a intended location for this kind of growth. Blueprint also has policy language around rezoning properties from the former Chapter 59 zoning code and out of custom zoning such as the site plan specific condition on the subject property. Therefore, staff found that the proposed rezoning is consistent with Blueprint Denver. Their proposed rezoning will result in uniform application of district building, form, use and design regulations, and it furthers public health, safety and welfare through the implementation of adopted plans. The current zoning allows only a drive thru ATM and proposed ATM. X-ray facilitates increased density in a variety of building forms. This analysis considers the proposed as an three district not a specific development proposal. That said, we have heard residents concerned about the location of gas tanks as permitted by some x three. Those tanks are regulated by the Department of Public Health and Environment and the Fire Department rules to ensure public safety. This rezoning would bring the property out of a former Chapter 59 zoning into the Denver zoning code. And such a change is listed in the zoning code as an appropriate, justifying circumstance. Be requested secretary is consistent with your neighborhood contacts description the under strict purpose and intent. So based on finding all review criteria have been met. CPD recommends approval. Thank you and I will stop sharing my screen, but I am happy to reshare later on if it would be helpful to have some visual. But first I have to get my computer to let me do that.
Speaker 5: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Very good. Thank you. I appreciate it. Tonight, counsel has received six written comments on Council Bill 404. There are no submitted comments in favor of the application and six 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 members do any members need more time to read all of the written testimony that was submitted? Scene one. Council Secretary, please let the record reflect that all written testimony, both in favor and in opposition of Council Bill 404 has been read by each member of Council and all written testimony will be submitted to the official record of the hearing. And this evening on Council Bill 21, Dash 404, it looks like we have 19 folks signed up to speak this evening, and so we will go ahead and get started here. And our first speaker is Bethany Gravel.
Speaker 4: Hello. I'm here on behalf of Belco credit union. I am available for questions.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Bethany. Our next speaker this evening is Jim Irwin Sobotka.
Speaker 2: Same as Bethany. I'm here on the Belco team and available for questions as well.
Speaker 0: All right. Very good. Thank you, Jim. Our next speaker is David or Mancini. Or I'll let you go ahead and correct me, David, on your last name spelling. Your last name pronunciation. You can go ahead with your comments, David.
Speaker 5: All right.
Speaker 0: We'll get David into the queue here. Call them on the phone. It seems like. There you go, David.
Speaker 1: I also.
Speaker 0: Go ahead.
Speaker 2: With your phone. Yes, my name. My name is David Maroney, and when I signed up, I also hit.
Speaker 1: The box that I'm available to answer questions for the Belco team. And the speaker for us is actually Doug Kirby with Belco. If he should be on your list.
Speaker 5: Okay.
Speaker 0: All right. Yep, he is. Thank you, David. All right. Our next speaker this evening is Jeff Wieder.
Speaker 2: I'm going to stay with that same trend. I'm with Delko here to answer any.
Speaker 5: Questions you may have.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Our next speaker is Terrell. Coral.
Speaker 1: Thank you. This is Terrell Gural. I'm the attorney for BALCO here. Ready to answer questions.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you for being here with us. The next speaker is Doug Kirby. If you want to. Go ahead, Doug. Oh, there you go.
Speaker 2: There we go. Hello? Can you hear me? Mm hmm.
Speaker 0: We can. We can.
Speaker 3: Just. Good evening. I'm Doug Kirby, vice.
Speaker 2: President, business, technology and Administration at Belco Credit Union. Thank you for this opportunity to speak with you tonight. Belco was founded in Denver in 1936. Today we have over 345,000 members with the majority living and working in the Denver metro area. Giving back to our community is top priority for Belco, which is showcased through our partnerships with the Latino Leadership Institute, the Denver Art Museum and Denver St Patrick's Day Parade. Our property of 10353 Mississippi has sat unused for the past five years because our current zoning only allows us to build and operate a 24 hour, eight lane drive thru banking facility, which is now an obsolete use for the site. Without rezoning, this location would remain unused and unproductive. Our application strictly adhere to the direction of Blueprint Denver 2019 and the Comprehensive Plan 2040, and we have the support.
Speaker 3: Of planning, board.
Speaker 2: And city staff.
Speaker 3: In pursuing estimates three zoning.
Speaker 2: We're simply asking for the same zoning regulation and opportunity afforded other commercial properties across the city. We've been engaged in.
Speaker 3: Mediation with the range.
Speaker 2: Of your community for over a year, and we're successful in finding numerous areas of agreement. For example, the neighborhood asked and we agreed that there be no access to the site from Geneva. The neighborhood asked, and we also agreed to use neutral colors on the building exterior facing north and west neighborhood, asked for substantial and important buffers for the neighboring properties. We agreed to maintain 50% of the property as landscaped open space. We agreed to plant mature trees, install landscaping berms and screening walls. And we committed to maintain our high standards for site site maintenance and landscaping. After Planning Board vote to recommend approval of the application before you tonight at the recommendation of Planning, board members Belko and Murphy, USA reach back out to arrange you. In an earnest effort to find agreement on hours of Operation Range, you had requested operating hours of 6 a.m. to 10 p.m., which Murphy could not commit to. However, Murphy did agree.
Speaker 3: To greatly shorten.
Speaker 2: Their original request to 4 a.m. to 1 p.m. by 3 hours per day, now offering 5:30 a.m. to 11:30 p.m.. Similar to various businesses.
Speaker 4: Operating within.
Speaker 2: This community. Please know that Belco is also a neighbor to this site. We've been in business at this location for over 25 years. We chose to partner with Murphy because of their outstanding record of safety and security. Like Belco, they're committed to giving back to our community through their partnerships with Boys and Girls Club and United Way . We ask for your fair consideration of this rezoning request on the merits of compliance with all plan guidance consistent with six lane are through your corridor staff and planning board recommendations for approval. I sincerely thank you for this time this evening.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Doug. Our next speaker this evening is Lawless Jackson. And if I mispronounce your first name, go ahead and correct me. It's okay. Go ahead.
Speaker 3: Can you hear me? Thank you. Can you hear me?
Speaker 0: Yes, we can.
Speaker 3: Okay. My name is Lawless, A.C. Jackson, and I'm here with my husband, James Allen Jackson. We live at 920 South Elmira Street in Denver, Colorado, 80247. We live I mean, we're against the rezoning request for 21 404 before you this evening because we felt this would not be the best and highest use of the property. It would, number one, it would adversely affect the property values it immediately abutting the property in our name and our neighborhood. Number two, we suspect there to be potential for harm to the water supply in our area. We, as do many of the neighbors, in fact, have wells which we rely on for our domestic water and irrigation use. I do not want to see any increases in toxins in the water table in this area. Number three, there's no need for an additional gas station at the site as there are at least three within one block radius. And we already have a new Murphy station, in fact, at Parker and Iliff, which is perfect. It does not abut any residential properties. Number four added exhaust fumes will generate in such a concentrated location, such as ours will adversely impact the quality of the air we breathe and may lead to increased disease and sickness due to carcinogens in our air. Additional emissions in our air are not what we need. The intersection of Mississippi Avenue and Havana expr extremely congested with traffic and we simply do not need high traffic business at this location. The traffic levels would increase unnecessarily, leading to increased speed through our neighborhood, which is already horrendous. There are plenty of locations where a new gas station can be built. This is not one of them. I do also want to speak directly to the rezoning request. I know that this is a rezoning request, but we but we believe that if this rezoning request is approved, then it opens the door for the intended purpose.
Speaker 5: Of the sale from.
Speaker 3: Belco to Murphys of a gas station. And so that's what we are here to prevent. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you for your comments this evening. Our next speaker is an architect. And please, Aaron.
Speaker 2: Hi there. Can you hear me?
Speaker 0: Mm hmm. Go ahead.
Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you. My name is Aaron Atkinson. I represent the Range View Estates Association, which is a registered R.A. directly adjacent to this particular property. I just wanted to touch on a few of the points that I made in my correspondence, which you sent in on behalf of the association who objects to this particular application and urges the Council to deny it. The reason is that the applicant has failed to present sufficient evidence that this, should the use of this parcel, should be dramatically increased in intensity and the two tenants from the zoning code that should be particularly noteworthy to council or division 3.3 of the different zoning code, which states that the development application must improve the compatibility with existing neighborhoods. The second is Article three that states stating that the development application should improve the transition from commercial to residential. Given what you have seen in the protest petition and you will hear in the testimony tonight, this these two elements have been failed by the application. Regarding compatibility. The existing use is simply a more compatible use given the situation in the location of this parcel. This parcel abuts range view. Single user homes on two sides. Which means that it is essentially the last gate between the more intense uses at Mississippi and Alabama to the very residential single user homes to the west of this parcel. So to allow this the zoning of this particular parcel to be dramatically increased in intensity to S-Max three is incompatible with those residential uses directly to the West. The fact is that to change from be one with conditions as it had been used by belco to a a use that can be 24 hours in nature is simply too much on this adjacent neighborhood and it does not improve the transition between those two uses. In fact, it defeats it. At this point, you would only highlight the stark differences between the highly intense commercial uses of the East Side with the highly residential uses to the West. And it would serve it would be a disservice to that community greatly. The existing application has to show they meet the Blueprint Denver and the comprehensive plan and it has failed that both the authenticity of neighborhoods point regarding the modes of transportation as well as the climate aspects of the comprehensive planning blueprint. Denver The applicant can't simply rely on the fact that this was governed by Chapter 59. To succeed, they have to prove that they meet these other criteria, but they fail to do so. So on behalf of my client ranch, you request that you deny this application. And thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker this evening is James Jackson.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 1: This is James Jackson. I'm at 920 South Elmira Street. I listen to Aaron and I listen to my wife and they pretty much made my same point. So I don't think I need to add anything to it. Thank you for taking the time to listen to us. Have a good day.
Speaker 0: All right. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Jackson. Appreciate it. Our next speaker this evening is Peggy Stall.
Speaker 3: Can you hear me?
Speaker 0: Hello. You can go ahead. Taking.
Speaker 8: Okay. I'd just like to thank you for this opportunity to speak with you tonight. And, um, I live directly behind this area where they want to rezone it to fmx3.
Speaker 3: And I have a few reasons why. I'm a nurse. I work at night. And for this a busy of an area.
Speaker 8: Because Murphy Gas Station wants to buy purchases. Gas stations are known for not being quiet and we have to sleep during the day, which leads to challenges on the sound. And the noise of a gas station would be very make it very difficult to sleeping. Another thing that really bothers me about having a gas station in my backyard, basically, is the odors that it would bring. And there's nothing you can do that can take the stench away like trees or a fence or a wall or anything. The stench of the gas station is bad, and Geneva Street is not set up for extra traffic. That would come with busy business.
Speaker 3: Such as a gas station or the S-Max three.
Speaker 8: There's no continuous sidewalk on this street and we see many people walking and riding bikes in which heavy traffic would put these people at risk for accidents. And I urge you to vote against this at and sorry, x three. Thank you for letting me speak.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Peggy. Our next speaker this evening is Maria AusLink. Go ahead. My name's Mia.
Speaker 8: My name's Maria Aisling. I live on Geneva Street. My husband built our home in 1986. I'm in Aurora, but where the sidewalk.
Speaker 3: Ends.
Speaker 8: In front of my house starts Denver. This proposed gas station will literally be in people in my neighbor's backyards. We have residents.
Speaker 3: From Windsor Gardens.
Speaker 8: That come through on in.
Speaker 3: Wheelchairs, scooters, bicycles and walking to.
Speaker 8: Pick up their groceries from King Soopers. We have no sidewalks continuing on Geneva, and it would put their lives at risk. We lost a senior citizen earlier this year on Havana and exposition.
Speaker 3: He was on a bicycle.
Speaker 8: And yeah, there's no. No sidewalks past my house. That's where it stops.
Speaker 5: This would put them at risk because.
Speaker 3: This will bring more vehicle.
Speaker 8: Traffic to our neighborhood. Please, if you wouldn't put a gas station in your backyard.
Speaker 3: Please don't put one in our.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker this evening is Pamela EADS. We're going to have to have you go ahead and meet yourself, Pamela. All right.
Speaker 3: There you go. Can you hear me now?
Speaker 0: Yeah, we can. Go ahead. Thanks, Pamela. Thank you.
Speaker 3: My name is Pamela EADS, and I live in a wonderful, unique and diverse neighborhood called Range View States, which encompasses both Denver and Aurora. I want to let you know that I am not against development and I would support a compatible use for this property. However, this particular s-max rezoning and gas station use is not a compatible use next to a neighborhood which this property abuts on two sides. Nor does it promote our quality of life in any way. I do not understand why this business use has been repeatedly suggested for this property. This is the third time we've been faced with this type of development, which would not be something anyone would deem a desirable neighbor. I urge you to vote as if you're living right next door to this property. Vote no on this particular development and rezoning change. There must be a better use so we can all figure out for this redevelopment one that would be beneficial for both business and residents. Please keep range view a place where people want to live and enjoy their lives. This incredible neighborhood is one of the most unique places in Denver. Thank you for your time and careful consideration of this issue, which is very important to your neighbors.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Keith Singer.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Thank you. Counsel Thank you. Cohen Murphy In the process, I'm the vice president of the R.A. I also live at 923 South Geneva Street and the range view neighborhood in the Aurora side. Perfectly clear we are not opposed or ever have been opposed to development. That's never been the issue with us. We've had a great relationship with Murphy and all we're looking for is something that would act as a transition. Why they put the bank on the corner, which is where the gas station should go and why we have the busy thing by the residents. I don't know. It doesn't matter. That's the way it is. I'm going to go off roading here and I may be a little bit weird in talking and I apologize, but my mother died last night and I'm here. But one of the things that happened in the process of that was over the last six months, we wanted to keep my mom at home. Why? Quality of life. What did we do? We had to fight with hospice. We had to fight with nurses. We had to fight with a bunch of people in order to have quality of life. And what does that mean?
Speaker 9: That means being at home. That means being able to.
Speaker 2: Celebrate the moments that you have every day, whether it's barbecues, kids playing and so forth. And. Putting a gas station next to your house. I sent pictures over and I hope you've got them. We're talking of there's a house.
Speaker 9: That their backyard is 15 feet from the property.
Speaker 2: Line.
Speaker 9: That's not quality of life. And quite frankly.
Speaker 2: Tonight is what you're voting on is our quality of life.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 2: There's a statement and I'm going to say it's a quote. Nobody likes to or wants to live next to a gas station. Now, you would expect us to say that. The truth is, it came from your board, your planning board member during taken from the transcripts of the public hearing. The same board member continues. Maybe we should take a hard look at our zoning districts and how they defined areas like that. Another board member said, quote, There's no part of me that would want to see a gas station in this location, unquote. And continues with, quote, I really hope that that that there will be a different use on the site period. Another board member also said in the same meeting and these are from the transcripts. Does there need to be a change to the zone district's question mark? We think there does. This is not right. You shouldn't have to do this. We should be able to do something that works for everyone and we're willing and, you know, stepping up, we will work with Belco to come up with something that works. Okay. Our future is in your hands. Vote like you live here. Vote like your family lives here. Vote for quality of life. Vote no. And give us an opportunity to do something that is much better for all parties. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Keith. Our next speaker this evening is Joni Larimer.
Speaker 3: Hello. My name is Johnny Lerma. I live at.
Speaker 4: 1010 South Geneva Street.
Speaker 3: I am right behind the bank.
Speaker 4: One thing I.
Speaker 3: Didn't like about the.
Speaker 4: Proposal was the the pictures. If they took accurate pictures for the proposal, you would have seen my trampoline and playground in the backyard there right next to the fence, because it's a safe place right now.
Speaker 3: And as a good neighbor.
Speaker 4: I look out for my neighbors, kids.
Speaker 3: When they come over and play, which happens multiple times a week. And I don't feel that.
Speaker 4: Close actually caring for the children in our community because they want to do this X and x three. And really, there is.
Speaker 3: The gas station and you could.
Speaker 4: Talk about it being other things that there is the.
Speaker 3: Gas station and that's their goal. If it was maybe a five story building, I would say the same thing. I appreciate what he was.
Speaker 4: Saying about the quality of life.
Speaker 3: I want my son to be able to play.
Speaker 4: Without worries of having someone come over to this fence and talk to him. Right now we know like the bank is pretty secure their security there.
Speaker 3: I'm not worried about my child safety right now and I don't want to have to be. And then just it.
Speaker 4: Has been touched on. Our neighborhood doesn't have continuous sidewalks. I know my son will go out, will go out bike riding and stuff and take walks or just really walk just really walk on the street and are relying on people's goodness in their driving. But when you bring in like other people.
Speaker 3: From not in the neighborhood.
Speaker 4: That won't be the case. And so it's really a safety issue, too, about bringing people about safety of this poor man dying.
Speaker 3: So that is all I have to say.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Johnny. Our next speaker this evening is William Friedman.
Speaker 2: Hi. Can everybody hear me?
Speaker 0: Mm hmm. Go ahead.
Speaker 1: All right, great. So I believe I'm the.
Speaker 2: Newest member in the neighborhood. I actually purchased our.
Speaker 1: Home at 1051 South Geneva on April 15th of this.
Speaker 2: Year and.
Speaker 1: Moved in on May 15th of.
Speaker 2: This year.
Speaker 1: Shortly thereafter, a one of my neighbors came to our.
Speaker 2: Door and told me, you.
Speaker 1: Know, the lot directly across Geneva from your property, across your front lawn, there are plans to turn it into three zone it.
Speaker 2: And they had insight that I did not have previously.
Speaker 1: They're planning on putting in a gas station in there. Had we known that that was the plan, we would have significantly offered a different amount of money. We would have significantly looked at the area a little bit more. And I you know, I'm speaking incredibly informally. I was not as prepared as everyone else. I would like to echo what.
Speaker 2: Keith Singer said.
Speaker 1: What the Jacksons said.
Speaker 2: And I would just like to read.
Speaker 1: A couple of statistics I did in one hour of research about the health.
Speaker 2: Concerns.
Speaker 1: Of living within 500 feet of a gas station. Mind you, I'd live less than 50 feet from gas station. I'm sitting in my home office right now.
Speaker 2: Which overlooks my front lawn. There's the street, and then there's the lot.
Speaker 1: There's nothing in the way right now. If there is a gas station across the street, my family has an eight times increased risk of developing cancer. According to the Colorado School of Public Health, a study done in 2018, there's ten times the amount of benzene is released compared to previous estimates.
Speaker 2: That was.
Speaker 1: These estimates were used to create EPA guidelines.
Speaker 2: On where gas stations can.
Speaker 1: Be. Let's see. And I'm sorry if I'm kind of rambling. I was not as.
Speaker 2: Prepared as everyone else. Leaking fuel tanks.
Speaker 1: Incredibly common. And the venting of these fuel tanks happens at night. When I'm at home, my fiancee is at home. We would be breathing this air. It is incredibly, incredibly problematic to our health. Gosh, I just you know, I'm I'm incredibly concerned about the opportunity or the potential of a gas station going in directly across the street from my first home that we bought together. I urge you and beg you to really consider and vote as though you live in this neighborhood because it is you know, our lives are at risk and we're not against development, as everybody said. I would love for there to be stores, shops, whatever over there. Just not something that impacts my health negatively. Thank you. Have a great night.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Don Stal. We'll have you. Go ahead and McDonald. There you go.
Speaker 1: Ahead. Yes, I'm at 1010 South Geneva Street. We live right next to the proposal that they want that they want to put the gas station in. When we bought this property, it was fine. It was great because they used it for free for the bank. This change that they are proposing is a dramatic change from what it would have been when we moved here. It was quiet. And there's no way that they that a gas station or anything like that would be the type that you would want to live by, or that is something that's right by your house. We already have a gas station in our little community here just down the block. That was the and and we have you would have two of them now within a quarter mile of each other in the same subdivision. If you look around the town of Aurora and Denver, you just don't see that it's hard to find a gas station that is by a community like that. The only one I know of is here one way down on Cherry Street and then over by Colfax. I see another one. It seems like that that Belco would be better served to look at other zoning proposals or to add a different venue to to to make it so that there's some other use of that property than a gas station. And we've urged them for three years now look for something else. Use your energy to look for another type of development from this. And they're stuck on this gas station. And I don't see why they cannot change and go say no, let's use this for something that would be more in line, that you wouldn't have these petitions and other people who would who are saying, no, we do not want this. And so I urge you, this is not right that we'd have such a dramatic change right next to it. I could smell I'd be able to smell the fumes from that gas station in my yard. If there were fumes there, I'd smell. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Daniel Grossman.
Speaker 1: I would. Huh?
Speaker 0: And I'll go ahead. And, Daniel, you'll have to. A new place.
Speaker 1: Good evening, counsel Daniel Brotman. I live at 1001 South Geneva Street, immediately adjacent to the proposed gas station. Again, as I mentioned earlier, your own planning board said, we don't want to look behind a gas station. No one does, and they shouldn't have to. And we are talking about a gas station for a very specific reason. Estimates three allows fast food restaurants and they allow the proposed gas station. It hits close to four years ago, Belco came to the neighborhood with the idea of a gas station with a fast food drive through. The neighborhood was adamant in saying, No, we don't want that. You heard earlier staff talking about how many times this has come to planning. The planning board and was rejected prior to this. They finally got past that. It was rejected prior to this at at the council's subcommittee level. Somehow it got through this time and now we're to cancel council and council needs to send a firm message of no a gas station if it's allowed, underestimates it. Three So it's fast food. Those are not appropriate uses for the residential neighborhoods to the west and to the north of this property. So on two sides you have residences. This is the corner of our neighborhood and it's just not appropriate. There was a conversation about immediate the failed mediation. And I have to tell you that what that was about was a whitewash on what was going on at all points. We have ask that, you know, we we maintain the burning. We maintain the landscaping. We don't want access onto the residential street, which is Geneva. Those are all conditions of B1, B1 as great. And the conditions that are on the current zoning takes care of the residents through the B1 and the conditions. Now they said those are great. We would have agreed to those. They haven't agreed to those. That's not before you tonight. That's not what's before this board. What's before this board is zoning that could back up to a six foot privacy fence. They can take out the vermin. They can take out the landscaping. They can put through an access to Geneva over the current Denver public school bus stop. All of those are being reserved. That's inappropriate. Again, I submitted a written piece on. They don't meet the conditions. Clearly, they don't meet health, safety and welfare. That is the primary condition that they don't meet again. The request is denied this and do more than deny. Tell the tell BALCO. Come to the table. Talk about real zoning. That should be allowed.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Daniel. Time. We have a lot of. All right. Our next speaker our last speaker this evening on this topic is Roger Miller.
Speaker 7: Oh. Oh, oh.
Speaker 5: Roger, I.
Speaker 0: Hi. Around here. I think something's going on with your audio, perhaps.
Speaker 5: No.
Speaker 0: We were having trouble hearing you.
Speaker 5: Okay.
Speaker 0: We're having some trouble. Hearing from Roger. So we'll go ahead and. Oh, there you go. Roger, are you there?
Speaker 1: I'm. I'm here. Are you there? Very like they are.
Speaker 0: Yes. I don't know what exactly happened there, but go ahead, please.
Speaker 1: Well, thanks. I just wanted to address you on the rezoning issue, as other people have talked about from being one to X three. I'm the current president of the Range, the R.A., and I've been in that position since before Belco proposed the first rezoning several years ago, and I kind of want to reaffirm some of that historical perspective. The parcel was originally residential and approved would be one of the limitations, so that business could be inserted with a very minimal impact to the immediate neighbors and the neighborhood at large. That first request from a Dallas developer that wanted to have a 24 hour fast food restaurant as part of the property. We met with them and said that we would greatly oppose their plan because the R.A. felt that any 24 hour operation abutting single family homes was just inappropriate. But they moved forward to the planning board phase and it was approved. However, as you heard earlier from LRO, a short time after that, they pulled the application and didn't pursue that. The further rezoning efforts the second time was again with this developer for a multi pump gas station convenience store and a separate drive thru coffee shop. They were looking for extended hours that were not appropriate for the proximity for our residents. Again, only a few feet would separate the businesses from working families, some with small children. Once again, the plan went to the planning board and was forwarded, but this time with a tie vote 3 to 3. Yet another zoning request was pulled and we thought this seller finally saw that the proper zoning was not going to be smacked through. Several months passed and we were informed that the gas station rezoning was back on the table, but this time without the separate drive thru coffee operation. Even though the small outbuilding was not going to be there, we still believe that any zoning should not include a 24 hour operation, which estimates 3 hours. A good neighbor like Belco shouldn't continue to try and force this issue over several years. We have a gas station and convenience store, as we mentioned earlier, on our east boundary, thanks to the city of Aurora. We were told we would not see negative impacts, but how wrong they were. Increased traffic, including multiple large delivery trucks, are daily occurrences through the neighborhood. It is Force One neighbor immediately next to it to uproot his family and move after several years. He said it was just way too noisy with all the cars and could not get restful sleep and could not enjoy his yard outside. Please, I implore you, don't be like Aurora. Don't force us to have another 24 hour operation across the back fence from our homes. We're not opposed to commercial development, but make it an appropriate zone. Not so much story as they suggested. Would you like to have a 24 hour operation outside your back yard? We don't either. Please help.
Speaker 5: Us.
Speaker 0: That's the time we have available. Thank you for joining us this evening. And that concludes our speakers questions from members of council. On Council Bill 404. Council member Sawyer.
Speaker 4: Thanks, Madam President. So before I get started, I also just quickly want to send my condolences to Mr. Singer on the loss of his mother. Our thoughts are with you and your family during this time. And we really appreciate your willingness to be here tonight to give testimony anyway. So a couple of questions or I guess probably start with for Ella. You is a protected district. So what is that? What? What exactly does that mean?
Speaker 8: Oh, yes. Few the adjacent single unit residential districts are protected districts. So that means that a mixed use district, like a smack three being adjacent to those, has some slightly more restrictive building form standards around that. Um, so I can, I can pull up the exact specifics, but I think in the case of us, Annex three, the side and rear set backs are a little bit higher when that property is adjacent to a protected district.
Speaker 4: Okay. So in this example, the adjacent properties are, as you see, I think there's a.
Speaker 8: Yeah. Yeah. And those are all a few are protected district. So so the the proposed rezoning would have different standards. It would have higher setbacks on the sides that were abutting those few properties than it would on the Belco side, which is not a protected district.
Speaker 3: Okay. But so the.
Speaker 4: You mean the Belco side that is currently the bank still.
Speaker 8: Correct. So what if it's a little it's the protected districts are the adjacent districts, but the impact is on the the proposed rezoning site. So the they would have the higher setbacks on the sides that face the two protected districts, and that wouldn't apply on the side that faces the Belco side because the Belco site is at that next five.
Speaker 4: Okay. Got it. So then it's safe to say that there's a in order to have mixed use there, there needs to be a transition. And we heard a couple of people talk about that in their testimony. Is that is that right?
Speaker 8: Um, yeah. I mean, the transition is that kind of situation is contemplated by the zoning code. But in its inclusion of things like protected district setbacks, where it says you have to be farther away from something because it is a low density residential.
Speaker 4: Okay. Got it. So what were the other potential zoned districts that were appropriate? I know that there was some testimony. I know you said CPD only looks at the the zone district that is applied for, which is obviously understandable. But there were a couple of other zone districts that have been considered. This has come through before. So what what were those other zone districts and why did they not work out?
Speaker 8: Well, I think it's a hard, hard question to answer if we say considered. But I would want to take that over to the applicant team just because I actually went through all the notes for all the pre APS and all you know, for all of the times that we've seen this case. And each time the conversation was at least what I could find detailed in the record was already landed on the slate. So I'm not sure whether or not the property owner really considered other zone districts, and I just don't want to speak for them because those were conversations had without me from CPD side. I think just I mean what we do is look through the, you know, the plan guidance is we kind of the the biggest tells you point in the right direction. So we would look through what the language of community corridor in the suburban district what what ten zone districts align with that. And there would probably be other annex districts that you know, there are the two to a2x, there are some other options there that I think and again, having as you as you noted, not having done that analysis here, because that's not what the application was. But I think it's probably likely that you could make an argument that some of those other ones are are consistent as well. One, just to share one kind of conversation around this, that planning board and planning board member to ask like would six five meet the plan direction? And it does say up to five storeys. But we also are looking at context. So I think there are as with many, many sites in Denver, there isn't just one district that makes sense. But in terms of what was contemplated and what worked and didn't work, I would want to defer to the applicant and not not speak for them on that one.
Speaker 4: Okay. Does the applicant want to jump.
Speaker 3: In here and respond?
Speaker 0: We can go ahead. And I believe we need to get Jim Irwin back in. So there we go. Sabella. Go ahead, Jim. Or Doug, whichever wants to respond.
Speaker 2: I'll have Jim and I can speak.
Speaker 0: Okay. Jim, did you want to respond to Councilwoman Sawyer's question?
Speaker 2: Sure I can start it. Just let me rejoined. I came in right when you were talking. Sorry to cut you off there, but yet. Councilman Sawyer. So when you look at when we were looking at the as you know, the suburban zone districts, you know, we really kind of landed on and obviously the residential ones out the window. And so we're looking at the, you know, the commercial ones here. So we have the SCC, which is the commercial corridor and the S-MAX. And then also there's the M.S., which is the main street. So, you know, the main street one, we we didn't feel like we met the intent and the purpose of those of of that zoned district. So then it kind of boiled down to looking at the snacks in the SCC zoned districts. And so that commercial corridor district, you know, it's very it has much less restrictive standards as far as setbacks, you know, building flexibility in the building circulation, the parking lot layout, the building form. And so the most restrictive suburban zoned district ended up being s-max. And then when we looked at the transition with the properties along Havana there, there S-Max five, and then we kind of stepped down in building height and went to the S-Max three and then you get into the residential. So if you look at the residential, the SS, you next steps in the S-Max three building heights, they're very close to within a I believe about five feet apart from each other. And so we felt that the step down from the S-Max five to the SS, you know, it landed on the estimates three was the most restrictive zone restrictive that's at least.
Speaker 4: Okay. Great. And I think maybe back to a question for Ella then, is if this is some x three, the surrounding ones are some x five in blueprint s and x three is not appropriate for arterials, right?
Speaker 8: Um, I think the language around, um, let me just pull up the, um, the language around what is appropriate along arterials. Um, that section doesn't, it doesn't give specific guidance on the street type, doesn't give specific guidance on building heights because it is meant to go hand in hand with the future place type, which does. So it's kind of looking at a combination of the two, but it does talk about, um, arterial streets, um, tend to support a higher level of adjacent development intensity than collector or local streets and that, that this particular type. Um, let's see. Sorry, I'm trying to pick out the, the right language here that can help. Uh, yeah, it says typically contains commercial uses, including shopping centers, auto services and offices. So, um, yeah, I think that the S-Max three is one of the zone districts that we found to be appropriate around in arterial, in this location.
Speaker 4: Okay, great. Really appreciate that clarification. Um, I know that in other rezonings where we've had some, some a lot of contention, sometimes the property owner has gone to host and executed an agreement for affordable housing, a commitment for affordable housing on that land, even if affordable housing is not meant to be built there. Did that happen in this situation?
Speaker 8: That did it. And I honestly, I'm trying to remember the timeline of when that became kind of standard this this pre up might have been before that and that is that is voluntary and yeah, so I, I can't remember because I actually didn't do the pre-op for this one, but I'm not sure if that came up. But that is the applicant's choice. Always. It's always voluntary.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 4: Yeah, absolutely voluntary. I was just curious whether it had happened here or not. And then finally, what what issues caused the mediation to fail? I know that there was the talk of the hours of operation. Were there other things or was that really kind of the sticking point?
Speaker 8: So my understanding and I am limited to the the summary that's in the staff guide, you know, that it was important. That was, um, it was important for me to stay neutral and for that to stay neutral. So I was not part of those conversations. But I think there were a lot of very difficult topics that that were slowly worked through over time. So I think there was a lot of there was a lot of challenge, but my understanding was that the rest of them were eventually worked through. And there was some agreement and it was in writing, but then it was the hours of operation that they just finally, after, you know, ten months of actively, officially in mediation, were able to reach an agreement on it.
Speaker 4: Okay. Thank you so much. Really appreciate it. Thanks, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Sawyer. Next step, we have Councilmember Sandoval.
Speaker 4: And I am pregnant and can give you different. Can I go in December?
Speaker 0: Yes, we can. Go ahead and come back to you. Councilmember Black.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. And thank you, Ella, and everyone who is here tonight. This is a great example of why customized zoning is a problem. I think if I recall, this is from 1994 and our city has changed a lot since then. I have some questions for Nate Lucero, who is the city attorney, who is our zoning expert. Nate, are you here tonight?
Speaker 0: We can bring Nate up into the queue here. Okay. There you go. Councilwoman Black, you can. Nate's in the queue.
Speaker 4: Go ahead with your pick. Nate. Nate, I have a few questions for you, so I think every person who is opposed to this zoning is actually opposed to a gas station. And either almost everyone or everyone who's opposed to it mentioned that someone on the planning board said that no one wants to live next to a gas station. So can you please remind us what Planning Board's role is? And do they evaluate the same criteria as Council?
Speaker 2: Good afternoon. Members of Council Nate Research Assistant City Attorney. Councilwoman Black, thank you for the question. So the Planning Board's role is to evaluate and make a recommendation on these rezoning applications. The recommendation to this body, whether or not to approve or deny rezonings. And and they evaluate the exact same criteria that this council does. And they do not evaluate particular projects. But I realize that there was some commentary by some of the planning board members. But ultimately the reason that this particular application garnered a recommendation of approval was because of the fact that the board, in its opinion, felt like this application for this particular zoned district met the criteria that you are reviewing this evening.
Speaker 4: Okay. So to be clear, neither the planning board nor council approves actual development projects like whether it would be a gas station or a coffee shop. It's just the zone district. And if we meet the criteria to approve that zone district.
Speaker 2: Yes, ma'am. That's correct.
Speaker 4: And what about the Good Neighbor Agreement? I know that a lot of time was spent trying to negotiate a good neighbor agreement. Is that one of the criteria for either planning board or council's criteria approval?
Speaker 2: No, it is not good. Neighbor agreements are private agreements between property owners and in this case it might be between the property owner of the proposed rezoning and the existing neighborhood. But there is no role for the city to play in good neighbor agreements, whether it comes to the negotiation of those agreements or more so the enforcement of those ingredients, the enforcement would be up to the individuals that are parties to that agreement.
Speaker 4: So is there any situation that would get this city to get involved to further regulate what might go on that property? So if CPD felt like Smoke three was the appropriate zone district, is there a waiver or something that could be attached to that that might somehow further restrict what would be? What could go on that property.
Speaker 2: There are opportunities for customizing zoning, whether that's through a waiver or condition or APD, which is what exists currently on the property. But. Under today's code, you have to meet very strict criteria in order to have a PD on property and you want to come forward with an application with waivers and conditions. The the policy of CPD is that we we ought to try and look for standard zone districts that work opposed to customizing zoning districts. And, you know, for the reason that you pointed out earlier, which is, you know, it's difficult to administer these things over time.
Speaker 4: And so if this story was approved by council, does that guarantee that a gas station would go there or does it just mean it's that zoned district and there's any variety of things that could go there?
Speaker 2: It would be the latter. S-Max three has different uses that could potentially go into that zone district. So no, you're an approval of this zoning request tonight would not would not mean that 100% a gas station is going to be erected there.
Speaker 4: Okay. Thank you, Nate. Council President Gilmore. I had a few more questions that I can continue to ask. That's fine, if you prefer.
Speaker 0: No, that's fine. Go ahead.
Speaker 4: Okay. I have a question for I think his name is Mr. Bronson or Botsman. Sorry if I didn't write your name down. Right.
Speaker 0: Mm. Daniel Botsman I believe so. Will try to get Mr. Botsman back in the queue here. All right. We've got him here. Go ahead, Councilwoman.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Thanks for being here, Mr. Brotman. You talked a lot about mediation and your desire to work with Belco. Did you attend those mediation sessions over those many months?
Speaker 1: Absolutely. I actually from four years back, we've we've been we've been talking with Belco and requesting a zoning other than one that allows a gas station. There's no guarantee that there's a gas station. However, this zoning that's being requested allows a gas station. So if you don't approve it, they can't have a gas station. They can't have fast food. They can't have a five storey building. So if you if you say no tonight, it denies a gas station.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Think the reverse is not true. They don't have to build a gas station, but for four years, they have pushed a gas station on this site.
Speaker 4: Okay. Thank you. All right. I understand that. But my question is for you. You said you attended all of the mediation sessions.
Speaker 1: Or the other one? Yes.
Speaker 4: In the past, you attended all of them but one.
Speaker 1: Yes. And again, this is not about just the time that's talking about. We've been.
Speaker 4: Asking.
Speaker 1: People on the request of the the gas to push away from as.
Speaker 4: As my friend Councilwoman Sandoval sometimes says, this is our opportunity. Okay. And and how many homes are adjacent to this property that we're discussing?
Speaker 0: Are you asking Ella?
Speaker 3: A back door batsman. Oh.
Speaker 0: Go ahead, Mr. Brodtmann. We'll have to have you go ahead and unmute, Mr. Brosnan, to answer Councilwoman Black's question. There you go.
Speaker 1: Immediately touching this property there, seven, eight. The residential district, as you saw from the petition, has hundreds of.
Speaker 4: My question was, how many how many houses are adjacent to this property?
Speaker 1: Again, seven or eight.
Speaker 4: Okay. So I'm looking at a map and I think there's two.
Speaker 1: So I can tell you I'm across the street. There are two houses.
Speaker 4: Across the street to the south. It's not adjacent. But there are numerous people tonight said that they were adjacent to the property. And I just don't quite understand it. When I look at the map, there's actually two that abut it and then there are two across the street. So that would.
Speaker 1: So so the ones across the street are still within, as you heard the testimony earlier, within that zone of gas station fumes. That's going to cause.
Speaker 4: They're not just the way they're not adjacent.
Speaker 1: Directly across the street. I mean, the only the only barrier is a street that.
Speaker 0: That's fine, Mr. Botsman, but could you please answer the question? How many homes are directly adjacent next to the property in question?
Speaker 1: Okay, the back fence has like about four or five houses, but again adjacent to meaning four adjacent. Sorry, my legal mind gets going and adjacent, certainly across the street. My house is adjacent. I'm sorry, it's, it's across the street, but. But I'm going to have the full view of this gas station.
Speaker 4: Okay. Well, I. I hope that all my council colleagues are looking at a map because there's two houses that are adjacent to the property and there are two there across the street. And how many homes are in the neighborhood.
Speaker 1: And I believe the president of the association would be better answer to answer that. Obviously, more than 97 out there are at least 97 that have opposed this. So all of those.
Speaker 4: Okay. And then I think the neighborhood president is named Mr. Miller. Mr. Miller, can I ask you a couple questions, please?
Speaker 0: All right, we'll need to get Mr. Miller back into the queue. So we'll have the staff do that. All right. Mr. Miller, did you hear Council Member Black's question or would you like her to repose it?
Speaker 1: Re posted if you would, please.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. Miller. How many houses are in your neighborhood organization?
Speaker 1: We have approximately 142.
Speaker 3: And our assumption.
Speaker 1: Preventative.
Speaker 4: Are some of them in Denver and some of them are in Aurora. Is that correct?
Speaker 1: Yes, we have 66% in Denver and 33%, 34% in Aurora.
Speaker 4: And how many signatures did you have to get to get a protest petition?
Speaker 1: According to the instructions, we had to obtain those signatures from the properties that were listed in an approximate distance from the proposed plot, which would be the two, three houses across the street and. What for? Houses. I think there are four houses that are to the north of that proposed property.
Speaker 4: And so how many signatures did you have to get? For the protest petition.
Speaker 1: We got one, two, three, four, five, six. We had to get seven and we got all seven.
Speaker 4: Uh huh. And I think you were the person who talked about noise in the neighborhood. I live west of you, but I live very close to Hampton and I hear Hampton roaring every night. And I know a lot about Hampton and I know in my neck of the woods, there's about 90,000 cars a day. How far away is your neighborhood from Havana, which for those of you who know south, the southeast part of our metro area. Hampton turns into Havana.
Speaker 1: We are one building lot away from Havana.
Speaker 4: Mm hmm. So I think had even. Yeah. Hampton or Havana in Mississippi? At Havana. At Mississippi, I think is nine or ten miles wide. Okay. Those are all the questions I have for now. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Black. Next up, we have Council Pro Tem Torres.
Speaker 3: Thank you and thank you, Councilwoman Black. Some of the questions that I also had, I do have an additional one, I think, for Ella, just so I can understand arterials and connectors. Is there any distinction when it comes to those of gas stations drive thru services? Do those speak to those street types at all? Is there any language that intersects them?
Speaker 8: You Blue Blueprint doesn't get that specific, but generally it does. Talk about arterials are a little more intense than collectors, so they have more through traffic. And the way that blueprint talks about that is how that informs the appropriate level of adjacent development intensity. So by that measure, arterials would support the would be adjacent to higher levels of development intensity than other than than collectors or local.
Speaker 3: Okay. Who who can speak to the the good neighbor agreement that was attempted.
Speaker 8: Well, the the applicants and then the the the neighbors and the R.A. were all all part of that.
Speaker 3: Let me start with the applicant. Wherever that might be. Doug. Doug. Hi, Doug. Hi. Can you tell me just a little bit more about the hours of operation where you are sticking to a 24 hour operation and no movement off that?
Speaker 2: No. When it started that, we actually started with we we didn't request a 24 hour operation at all. What happened initially when we we talked about it, the initial of operation that we we requested was four in the morning, two one in the morning. So 4 to 1. After we had some more discussion, we came back. And I want to make sure I tell you this correctly. We had during the actual meeting, we looked at.
Speaker 3: Going from.
Speaker 2: That.
Speaker 0: Time period to.
Speaker 2: Offering opening at 530 in the morning or setting a time at 530 in the morning and then closing by 1030 that same or I'm sorry, 1130 that same day. So like, like I said in my Talk to you, that was a three hour difference within the day period that we compromised even further. So but we never did. To your question, we never did push for a 24 hour operation.
Speaker 3: Okay. Got it. Thank you. No further questions. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Torres. Councilmember Flynn.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Madam President, let me follow up on Council Torres's line, because we heard a lot of talk about how this zone district allows 24 hour operation, but there apparently is an agreement. And the agreement was supposed to go from, I think, 3 a.m. to 1 a.m., but it was then pulled back to 530 to 1130 because someone clarified that for me. Would that be done? Can do that?
Speaker 2: Yes, absolutely. First of all, we were not able to reach an agreement. So there's not a per se agreement in place. But what we attempted to do was, like I said, four in the morning, two that one, four in the morning, two one in the morning. And then we moved it again to 530 to 1130.
Speaker 1: That's what I heard. But that's just a voluntary commitment that you've made to no one in particular in any agreement, but just a publicly stated commitment.
Speaker 2: Yeah, we. Yes, sir. We attempted to go to a good neighbor agreement through our mediation, and that was definitely a part of the mediation discussions. I think that answers your question.
Speaker 1: Yes, it does. Thank you. So absolutely there's nothing to hold you to that. There's no written agreement and there's no waiver or condition, certainly in your application, that would commit you to that as part of the resolving.
Speaker 2: Correct. Correct. Correct.
Speaker 1: Okay. Ellen, would that would that have been an appropriate thing to include in the the rezoning the as MH three with waiver of operating hours.
Speaker 8: Well. So the the use limitations for all of our youth. I mean, it's a whole chapter in the zoning code. They vary based on the youth. So I think it's a little bit tricky to assign a blanket limitations that would apply to all uses if they were really created for a specific one, because the code already builds in more, more flexibility than that. So we you know, we do. There you could pursue a waiver or conditions. In this case, it would be waivers, conditions to limit that. We tend to you know, as we're talking about the beginning of this hearing, we we tried to do custom zoning for good reasons because they they leave us stuck in the future. So CPD does try to explore other options first, but we do, as you guys know, you see cases come through with waivers and conditions. They do happen and they do need to be initiated by by the applicant. So we don't ever imposed them on them.
Speaker 1: Maybe this this might be slightly unfair. If you can't do it, just let me just tell me. But there were three members of the planning board who who voted not to recommend this. And I know we discussed it briefly in some other questioning, but do you recall any of their specific citations to any of the criteria by which they on which they based their vote?
Speaker 8: Yeah. So in the conversation, it was a long hearing with a lot of a lot of different topics covered. And it wasn't. The three people who voted against it weren't didn't very explicitly say, you know, I'm sure they had their their criteria based reasons, but they didn't explicitly state that. So I am reading a little between the lines. I think that there was a lot of discussion around the public health, safety and welfare criteria. And and I think just a little on the questions that we had earlier on about the the adjacency and how the zoning code deals with that.
Speaker 1: So basically the same thing we're hearing tonight, and I and I did read that in the staff report, at a high level, they talk about health, safety and welfare. It almost makes me wonder whether we ought to be looking at the at the permitted uses that allow gas stations as a use by. Right. Maybe have that with with some some other restrictions, because that seems to be the basic problem here. But apparently the planning board made its recommendation not on the criteria, but they were considering the actual project that was going to be done. A gas station is what I'm hearing you say.
Speaker 8: I didn't mean to communicate that. I'm sorry if I said that. I mean, I don't I think that they the conversation was, you know, it's with the testimony like gas station came up. But the people who were I think the people who were more uncomfortable with it were more along the lines of a zone district that allowed a gas station.
Speaker 1: Exactly. And that's my point, is that they were they were judging it based on the specific project, the specific use that was being proposed by the applicant. If it were just, hey, I'd like to come in and come into the Denver zoning code out of Chapter 59, former Chapter 49. I'd like to do some x three and I'll decide what I want to do later. This probably would have sailed through through the planning board, but because the gas station was mentioned. That seems to be what the whole discussion was around. And that's precisely where we're not supposed to be making our decision on what the project is. Right. So this this merits a lot a lot more discussion. I have just one more question. L I don't know if you can answer this or, or maybe me, but since this is on the future place under Blueprint, which is the only plan that guides us here other than 2040, the future place type is commercial quarter, correct. And so where other districts considered that are in the CC category rather than mix.
Speaker 8: So it's the community corridor and blueprint, and I think that The Notebook has a lot of alliteration. The applicant, Jim Aaron Sabato, was talking earlier about that. He mentioned the C.C. district option when when we adopted this blueprint, there is a lot about improving the the urban design and the pedestrian realm. And given that kind of whole of the guidance from Blueprint, it's a little harder to find consistency with the CC districts, especially as there are some kind of from from those perspective, some better options with the M.S. and X. So we don't see a lot of CC rezoning for that. For that reason, just because they're they were they were intended to provide a Denver zoning code version of a lot of what we were seeing on the ground. But they're not really aspirational.
Speaker 1: And that's kind of confusing, though, given because if blueprints that are says that the future place type here is community corridor. But but we have a hard time finding consistency with any of the CC zone districts. That seems like a disconnect and it seems like there could be a reason to say that this is not consistent with the with the planning for the area that that particular criteria. So it is very confusing for me. Thank you. I'm happy to listen to the rest of the debate. Thank you all.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Flynn. Next step, we have Councilmember Hines.
Speaker 2: At the council president. I want to thank CBD and applicants for all this. This has been going on and the neighbors that's been going on for a long time. So thank you for your for your patience tonight and over the last numerous years. I one of the neighbors testified that that they used well water is I don't know I heard or at least that's what I heard. And I want to verify if if that is actually what I heard. Is is there are there addresses immediately adjacent to this proposed rezoning that uses that use? Well, water. I don't I don't really know who to ask.
Speaker 0: I don't know. Ella, do you know the the answer to that question?
Speaker 8: I don't, unfortunately. And I also don't know who might have said that to help you figure out who to promote, but maybe someone.
Speaker 0: Yeah, we have the the Jacksons, James and Lawless Jackson. And so we can see if either one of them are. There we go. Go ahead and.
Speaker 2: Yes, welcome back.
Speaker 0: Uh huh. Go ahead.
Speaker 3: Hi. We are not adjacent. We are two streets over. But yes, we do use well water. And there's several homeowners in the neighborhood who use well, water for domestic and irrigation.
Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you. I think that's the only question that I have. But thank you for confirming that that you and other neighbors use. Well, water for for your own use and for irrigation use.
Speaker 3: Correct.
Speaker 2: So it's both or some use one of the three. Some use it for both.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: It's something that some use it for both. Some use it for.
Speaker 3: One or the other. But there's several of us.
Speaker 2: Yes. Okay. Thank you for both. All right. Thank you. And thank you. Thank you. Council president.
Speaker 9: Sure.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Next up, we have Councilmember Ortega.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Madam President. I just wanted to ask someone associated with the ownership of the property. I don't know if that's Mr. Kirby or who that should be, but my question is. Is is there currently an option contract on the property that is contingent on the rezoning passage?
Speaker 2: Yes. We're looking to sell the property. Murphy Oil.
Speaker 9: Okay.
Speaker 2: So I think that's I believe that's your question.
Speaker 9: Yeah. Yeah, that that was. And is it intended to be a convenience gas, a convenience store, gas station, or is it just simply a gas station?
Speaker 2: It's against gas station and convenience. But we can let somebody from Murphy or another group talk if they want to answer that differently.
Speaker 9: That would be great if you've got someone from Murphy that can answer the question.
Speaker 0: All right. And Doug, who would that be that we want to bring up into the queue?
Speaker 2: I think either Jim or David.
Speaker 0: Okay. We've got Jim here in the meeting already, so. Go ahead, Jim. Yeah.
Speaker 2: There was the question just is there a convenience store aspect with the fuel station?
Speaker 9: Yes. And then I was going to ask a question about the the size, because I heard in earlier testimony that half of the property would be made available. That would include green space and. Those such users on this are not users, but improvements on the site. Is that accurate?
Speaker 2: Yeah. Generally speaking.
Speaker 9: Go ahead.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah. So generally speaking on the green space comment, there's a shared detention pond between this parcel in the Belco parcel to the east. And so if you look at it, you know, an aerial view, your view on the west side, you'll see that a third of the property is is currently a detention pond with adjacent landscaping around it. So, you know, when you look at just this property in itself and take that existing greenspace into consideration, you're left with about 50% of that. That parcel will be, you know, strictly.
Speaker 9: Building and parking.
Speaker 2: You know, uses it. You need degrees. You know, you're required to have detention for both sides. So you must use it, modify it. I mean, that would stay that was.
Speaker 9: The remainder would just be building in parking. Do you can you just sort of give an idea of the number of parking spaces that would be anticipated?
Speaker 2: Typically for for a fuel state, you know, a property of this size, it's probably in the realm of, you know, 8 to 10, I believe is is the number of installs.
Speaker 9: And that is that pretty consistent with the same size convenience store gas station.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah. Yep. I'd say that's pretty consistent when you when you look around Denver proper for this size parcel and in the in the building that they're looking at.
Speaker 9: Okay. Those are all my questions. Thank you so much for answering them. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Ortega. We've got Councilmember Sandoval.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. I have a question for Mr. Kirby or Kirby. So when Denver resigned in 2010, part of your parcel was reason to miss five or S Amex flights, and the other portion was left as the B-1. Can you explain why that was done?
Speaker 2: Yeah. We ended up only using the front half of that piece of property to build our full service branch. So the rezoning occurred to do that full service branch.
Speaker 4: Really interesting. When was the property reason to expire? Do you know the history of that?
Speaker 2: I do. It's going to take a second to pull that up. Bear with me. I'm sorry.
Speaker 4: No problem. Take your time.
Speaker 0: And I don't know if Ella maybe has that answer. I'm.
Speaker 8: I'm also trying to cover it up.
Speaker 5: Okay.
Speaker 8: It was loads.
Speaker 3: All right. It was round.
Speaker 2: 2016.
Speaker 4: So in 2016 you re zoned in the front portion of the property to modify, then you left that other portion to be won. Is that what I'm hearing correctly?
Speaker 2: Correct. And it's what it is today.
Speaker 4: Can you explain to me why you didn't resign your whole entire parcel? Because you're if I if I understand correctly, you're the you were the property owner of the entire parcel, is that correct?
Speaker 2: Correct.
Speaker 4: So what was the what was the why would and I'm a bit confused if this was old zoning and it's the whole entire parcel that you own. And one of our justifying circumstances is to get full zoning into new zoning. Why was this allowed when Castle allowed to stay in the Old Zone District? How is that decision made?
Speaker 2: I don't know that answer. I just know that what we did was we zoned the front part of the property. And I don't believe and if this is false, I apologize. But I don't believe anybody asked us that question or pushed us on that. So any thoughts?
Speaker 8: Yeah. So I pulled up our our zoning map and also our rezoning map, and I'm actually not seeing a rezoning on that site. So I'm wondering, Doug, and this might be a limitation of the data that, you know, how far back our data goes, but I believe this had all the rezoning. So that leads me to think that maybe what happened in I think you said 2016 was such a different like a building permit or some other city process. I know there are a lot of them and they are confusing. And so I'm wondering if perhaps the the Belco credit union site, the other building was just in the old code and it got re zoned as part of the 2010 rezoning. And this one got left behind in that citywide process because it had a condition because when the the parcels that were left behind were because they had some kind of custom zoning attached to them. So that and from what I can see, might, might be the history.
Speaker 2: And that's only possible. I'm, I'm more than willing to research that for you. Um, so, but I, however, we were able to build our building. We were I mean, that's but I apologize for not only.
Speaker 4: The question for you. Can you talk to me about who hired Galloway in your who put together your application. It's it looks like on the public record it's by Galloway did you pay for that or did the petroleum. I can't remember the name. So it had a major regulator.
Speaker 2: It's Murphy. Murphy USA.
Speaker 4: Murphy USA, who paid for Galloway to put together this rezoning application.
Speaker 2: Murphy, USA.
Speaker 4: So you did not have the owner of the property. You had the person who's currently under contract. They paid for Galloway to put together this particular application for your property. Is that correct?
Speaker 2: Correct. And we we were involved from all of the mediation, I mean, from start to finish. So we worked directly with Galloway throughout the process.
Speaker 4: So how come you haven't in the years that you own this property and you haven't been working, how come you, as Belco didn't pay for someone to assess and do a rehab application and instead had the person under contract do that? Can you explain that to me?
Speaker 2: And I mean, I don't know, I guess maybe not following your question, but we work directly with Galloway to. Breeze on the property along with Murphy Oil Main. It was it was a joint endeavor. I and we we did.
Speaker 4: Okay, let me rephrase my question so I can ask it in a different way at any time since you run the property, since you had the ability to reason on your property. Correct? Correct. Correct. And so you only are interested in rezoning the property once you had it under contract and you allowed the person who you have it under contract to lead the rezoning and pay for the consulting group to put together the rezoning package. Is that correct?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 4: Okay. So my question for you is, why is a property owner in a business? Why did you not re zone the property prior to having it under contract?
Speaker 2: I'm not sure there was a requirement to do that.
Speaker 4: There is. I just find it interesting that I find it interesting. It happens often, but I find it interesting that you have been paid for this, that someone who has your property under contract is paying for all of this. So that's my question. So, Ella, I have a question for you about the Annex three Eastern District. So in the intent of the in section 3.2.4 of the zoning code under a suburban neighborhood context criteria three says the mixed zone district standards are also intended to ensure you develop contributes positively to established residential neighborhood and character and improves the transition between commercial development and adjacent residential neighborhoods. So my question for you is, in Blueprint Denver, it talks about low, low density, like, you know, how you have the scales.
Speaker 3: Of.
Speaker 4: And it talks about low, right? Which low can be 1 to 3, 1 to 3 stories. My question is, why does CPD not analyze these sites more? I know. I know we're probably going to get into this more in this Thursday. Why doesn't CPD take a more active approach and and and do analysis when these kind of rezonings come through? Why is it property driven? Right. If we are the experts in the planning department are the experts I really believe you are who have led all of these neighborhood plans you've read, led the comp plan, you led Blueprint , Denver. How come more analysis doesn't go into these sites to figure out what the Zone District would fit best in that area?
Speaker 8: I think it's really it's really just responding to the the structure of rezonings in the zoning code and that they are applicant led. So in those which we try to do as much filtering and redirecting in the pre-op stage as possible. And and perhaps can just go a couple different ways. Sometimes people come in and they're like, Hey, I've got this weird old zoning and I want to do something else. And that that's when we'll kind of talk through how to think about it and point people in the right direction and be like, Hey, these are these are some zoning districts that are likely to meet the criteria. And sometimes people come in with very specific here, I want to build X, Y, Z, so then we'll talk about, all right, well, here are some options that meet planning criteria and also would allow that. And then sometimes people come in and they're like, I want to build X, Y, Z, and I want this zone district to do it. So then the conversation does tend to be around how that might go. And I mean, not surprisingly, in the preoperative conversation for this third time, there was caution around like we don't see a lot of a difference in the conversation from the previous time, but we did urge, urge the applicant to at least let the mediation play out. And so they they did continue to think they were supposed to have a planning board in February, but we're still in conversations and opted to push it out to let those wrap up . Unfortunately, they wrapped up without an agreement, but they were, at least at that time, final. So that is kind of been the bumpers that we have. And so but in short, it is really to just respond to the fact that it is an applicant led process. And we tried to insert our our guidance where we can.
Speaker 4: Thank you. I have one more question for the property owners. So in 2018 that you or whoever, whether you or it was someone who had the property under contract, applied for some X three in 2019, you or whoever, whoever led the application applied for msmx3. When you put this property up for sale again, did you talk to whoever you had it under contract with and tell them that this type, this exact zone district has failed twice and that you might want to go through the drawing board and you might want to sit down with CPD and do a charrette and figure out a different zone district that might be more compatible with the neighborhood. Is that something that you, you and whoever have you have this under contract, had those discussions.
Speaker 2: Yes. And we actually sat down with Councilwoman Sawyer and did have discussions about what we were talking about doing and and through talking to l.a. Councilman sawyer. And we felt mediation was the best direction we could go with that and have more conversations around it. The first time that it fell through, the buyer removed themselves. And and so the second time it came through was with the group we're talking to today.
Speaker 4: So if I'm hearing you correctly. This same buyer has. This is the second time that they're trying to rezone the property.
Speaker 2: And I guess we withdrew to further mediation. So that gave us more time to chat with the homeowner's association. And David, if you want to talk to that, and I think you can do it and I'm not giving you all the information. And I apologize if I'm not.
Speaker 4: So then who? Who hired Holland and Hart?
Speaker 2: That would be Belko.
Speaker 4: So Belko hired. When did you hire him? In part.
Speaker 2: I don't know the exact date, but we've had them for roughly the last 6 to 8 months and I could I don't know the date. So.
Speaker 4: And were they part of the relay part of the mediation process?
Speaker 2: They were in the last. Were they in the last mediation? Maybe not. I don't remember if they were in on that or not. Kerry may have an idea of that. I can I can chime in. They were in Holland. Holland and Hart was not involved in the pre. Thank you. There were a lot of people involved. I apologize.
Speaker 3: And I'll just.
Speaker 0: Get another question. I'll go ahead. Jim and Claire, I was.
Speaker 2: Just going to add that, you know, a big reason back in October of 2019 that it was withdrawn was because of, you know, obviously the public outrage. Right. And so a big thing we focused on in early 2020 was reaching out to a the public and via the council staff, specifically, Councilman Sawyer. But we did I think we met with almost all of the council members or at least whoever we could. It was during the beginning of the pandemic. And I believe we did meet with you, Councilman Sandoval, back in March of 2020. Just to go through it, because there is history on this that's it's not a normal site. You know, it has a lot of a lot of hair and obviously 100 topics every.
Speaker 4: Okay. I just have one more question. Thank you. And I know I'm talking super slow.
Speaker 3: So I'm so sorry about that.
Speaker 4: And if I talk any faster, I won't be able to.
Speaker 0: You're good.
Speaker 4: Thank you. So to the owner. How long have you had the property up for sale and how many potential buyers have you worked with?
Speaker 2: So the property's been up for sale. I believe since around 2016. As far as potential buyers, I can't tell you how many. People made offers on the property or put in bids on the property. But to my knowledge to.
Speaker 4: Okay. That's it. Thank you. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Sandoval. And seeing no other questions. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 404. Councilmember Sawyer.
Speaker 4: Thinks that I'm president. There's clearly a lot of history on this site. I want to thank the residents of Range View and Belco and Murphys, as well as our mediator Steve Charbonneau, for the hard work and the attempts to find a resolution on what to do with this property. You all worked really hard and I'm sorry that you couldn't come to some sort of positive conclusion on that. I do have a number of concerning concerns about this rezoning. So let's talk a little bit about the criteria to start. I don't believe it's consistent with adopted plans. Councilman Flynn touched on this a little bit in his questioning. There is no neighborhood plan for the area, so you have to look at blueprints and the whole lot in question. Is designing this community corridor suburban context? The description in blueprint of a community corridor clearly states and I'm quoting here, buildings have a distinctly linear orientation along the street with narrow setbacks and give active ground floors along community corridor to create interest and engage patrons as they walk by, end quote. Most importantly, another quote here Transitions between corridors and low scale residential are important and quote here There is no transition between the community corridor and the single family homes immediately adjacent to this parcel, which are designated residential low in blueprint. This parcel is being turned into that transition. Additionally by their very title drive thru services do not create interests and engage patrons as they walk by their automobile heavy users and they discourage walkability and ground floor activation, which blueprint Denver specifically calls for in this area. On this cell lines, I know we're considering zoned district and not the use in this situation.
Speaker 3: But this zone.
Speaker 4: District allows all sorts of potential forms, including drive thrus and gas stations. In short, it's not consistent with blueprint. Additionally, the proposed district does not promote the uniformity that's required. So Councilwoman, seeing the ball brought this subsection three point, 2.4.1 of the Denver zoning code says, and I'm quoting here, Section A The mixed use zone districts are intended to promote safe, active, pedestrian, scaled, diverse areas and enhance the convenience and ease of walking, shopping and public gathering within and around the city's neighborhoods. And Section D, the mixed use zone district standards are also intended to ensure new development contributes positively to established residential neighborhoods and character, and improves the transition between commercial development and adjacent residential neighborhoods. End quote. Again, I know we're considering the zoning district and not the use in this situation. This zone districts allows potential forms like drive thrus and gas stations by possibly, possibly allowing a gas station on this parcel, which is allowed under the S-Max three zoning. We are not being consistent with the suburban neighborhood context and the zone district purpose required by criteria is again, a car centered use doesn't promote walkability or public gathering, and a gas station certainly doesn't contribute positively to the established residential neighborhood right next door. Other zoning would look better into the context of this neighborhood and would have made sense with regards to the transition to low density residential in the adjacent neighborhood. But this isn't it. Finally, and I think most importantly, this rezoning doesn't further health, safety and welfare. Again, I know we're considering this own district and not the use in this situation. But this zone district allows all kinds of potential forms, including drive thrus and gas stations. And the potential for these uses on this property is a threat to the health, safety and welfare of the community members. It's the causal link between benzene emissions from gas stations and health impacts such as cancer has been debated historically, but many cities have recognized the significant concern to residents on this issue and taken steps to address it. We heard testimony earlier this evening. Many of these residents are using well water, according to the 2015 front porch article quotes examples in other cities where zoning mandated spacing exists to protect homeowners from the negative health impacts of gas stations are Milford, Connecticut, where gas station cannot be within 300 feet of housing. Raleigh, North Carolina, where a city level approval must be obtained if a gas station will be within 400 feet of housing. And Chicago, Illinois, where neighbors within 150 feet must give approval before a gas station can be built within that distance. Denver doesn't have any language in our zoning code that would require setbacks of any distance between a gas station and housing. And frankly, I think what we've identified here is an opportunity to correct that issue. Nevertheless, we have an ethical responsibility to ensure that any infill development we approve will not adversely harm the health of our residents . And I don't believe that we can affirmatively say that in this case. Additionally, the hours of operation of any potential drive thru or gas station facility would adversely affect this community. We heard testimony that most of the residents concerns in mediation could be overcome, but the gas station hours can't be shortened enough to fit the applicant's business model and work for the neighbors. It's not unreasonable for the community to ask for more than a few hours without the noise and pollution coming from a gas station. I can name at least one other site in District five where there is a vehicle oriented service adjacent to housing, and my office regularly receives noise complaints on that property. Those residents have been able to clearly show that the use has negatively impacted their quality of life. And the same thing will happen here. By approving this rezoning, we are asking residents to take on potential health and quality of life burdens that they never imagined and never agreed to when they purchased their homes. It's also something city planners specifically designed against in our adopted plans and in our zoning code. So, Madam President, I don't support this rezoning. I'll be a no tonight, and I would urge my fellow council members to do so as well. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Sawyer. Next up, we have council member Black.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Council President Gilmore. I know a protest petition was filed and in controversial rezonings. It's really difficult to overcome those. I do have some issues with the protest petitions that I will bring up at another time, but all I can say that this is a really great example of why spot zoning is a problem. No fault of the property owner. The current zoning basically prohibits any use of that property. They don't need it to be there for a drive thru. They have no need for that and so there actually is no use to it, which actually makes it without value. And so there. Put in a terrible position again at no fault of their own. And so there the area sits, just unused asphalt radiating heat, which is not a good thing and is definitely not good for our climate or for our health and safety and welfare. I'll again say that council does not approve development plans and we don't decide whether a gas station or a coffee shop or a dental office is built. We approve zoned districts and our job is to make sure an application meets the criteria. And I think CPD did a great job showing us that some x three does meet the criteria. Of course, I do understand why neighbors care what goes on this parcel. But what I heard loud and clear is that they're opposed to the use, not to the zone district. But again, neither neighbors nor council get to decide what a private property owner does with their property. As long as the laws are met. We've had in my time on council quite a few rezonings similar to this that are on a commercial street but adjacent to a residential neighborhood. And the neighbors objected because they didn't want, you know, higher intensity use or any use adjacent to their neighborhood. But in many of the cases I'm thinking of, and in this case, the parcel wasn't actually in the neighborhood, it's adjacent to the neighborhood. And this, I guess, part of the good neighbor discussions was that they weren't even going to have any access to the residential street was owned only on Mississippi. As I said earlier, I live near Hampton and I also live near Colorado Boulevard. And while commercial development is not appropriate in my neighborhood, I do think that commercial development is appropriate on those streets that are adjacent to the neighborhood. And our plans do encourage that. As a next three is recommended by CPD and is a lower intensity use. And again, we are not being asked to approve a gas station but a zone district. So adhering to the role that council has, which is to evaluate the criteria, I do believe that the criteria has been met. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Black. Next up, we have Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. Yeah, I. Councilman Sawyer pretty much said exactly what was on my mind. Recognizing that our job is not to assess a particular project, to assess the appropriateness of the zone district. I think a zone district.
Speaker 2: That.
Speaker 1: Includes allowance for uses.
Speaker 2: That are a threat to the health, safety and welfare of the adjoining neighborhoods.
Speaker 1: Is not the appropriate zone district.
Speaker 2: Unfortunately for the applicant.
Speaker 1: That's the case with this zone district. And so.
Speaker 2: I will.
Speaker 1: Also.
Speaker 2: Be voting against this evening.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Cashman Council Pro Tem Torres.
Speaker 3: Thank you so much. So it's been interesting to kind of layer some of what we're talking about with blueprint and community corridors as they are experienced in this part of Denver versus how they're experienced in in the west side in West Denver. Federal Boulevard is the community corridor. Alameda, Colfax, Sheridan are community corridors. These are not local corridors, which I think of when I when I think of 32nd and Lowell, where you do have much lower intensity kind of shop at districts kind of boutique locations. When I think of Federal Boulevard, I'm a little envious that this might be the only circumstance that folks kind of speak to when they talk about possibly living next to a gas station or an auto service location. That is all we have on Federal Boulevard. So that brings up for me some of the health and safety issues that I think some of the residents rightly mention. Maybe we don't need more new gas stations and we've got to regulate that out, but we don't have those kinds of regulations in place just now. And it's definitely something that I think if we are serious about climate goals, it could be something that we look to in and starting to eliminate kind of our proclivity to approving rezonings that allow for drive thrus for gas stations, for a variety of different things within context where you can get a lot of other things like a mixed use development. But I am swayed, I think, by the strict criteria and what this is looking like and the zone district itself, and we'll be voting in favor of it. All right.
Speaker 0: Thank you, counsel. Pro Tem Torres. Councilman Herndon.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. I appreciate the time we have taken to go through these conversations. I do feel that the criteria has been met and so I will be supporting vote in support. I just I'm bothered by the language that has been used by some of the applicants. And I just really feel the need to just to state this, you know, we don't need to.
Speaker 2: Exaggerate.
Speaker 1: Your case just in a state the reasons why you in support an opposition and that's fine. Everyone can't be adjacent to the gas station next to. And I, I just feel the need to say that. And, you know, my son is in kindergarten. Lucy is one of his classmates. She lives across the street from our house. That's not a Jason. Just just state the case. I just wish we wouldn't do those things. And hearing things about property values and crime, about who you think is going to use this gas station, I think gets to the conversations about privilege that we're having. And I just want I want people to hear what they're saying. And I don't know if my other colleagues were struggling with some of the things that people were saying. It just really didn't sit well with me, has nothing to do with why I believe I'm in support. I do believe that criteria has been met, but I just I want to encourage people to hear what they are saying. Sometimes we have conversations. And then lastly, just on a side note, I appreciate Councilwoman Sawyer bringing up the front porch article because we had an exhaustive conversation in the Central Park neighborhood about gas stations. And I know so much more about benzene than I ever thought I would want to know or should, because there was a question about where they should be built in Central Park. And I felt and not not felt, but all my conversations with Didi, because they did build a gas station off of North Shore Boulevard and then one an East Bridge that were across the street, not adjacent to household residents. And there was no reason to believe that there were additional health concerns. And so I'm very familiar with that. And so hearing about health concerns, I from my conversations with the health experts, that was not an issue. Just a sidebar. I want to bring that up since Councilwoman. So I referenced the front porch from Central Park, so I will be in support. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Herndon, we have Councilmember Ortega up. And just a quick reminder, we have two more public hearings after this one as well. Go ahead, Councilmember Ortega.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Madam President. I'll be brief. Many of my comments have been made on both sides on this issue, and I just wanted to highlight that we've been having a conversation about health, safety and welfare with many projects that have come in and been resolved and are built next to railroad tracks. That store in many cases because there are cars that sit on those tracks, many types of hazardous or hazardous materials slash flammable liquids. We're getting really close to bringing something before council. We've been doing extensive research from the only place where standards actually exist, and it's in cities in Canada. So where we're talking about real potential for impact from proximity to genuine hazardous materials. We have no standards and it is our responsibility under homeland security. There is an expectation not just not just a responsibility, but an expectation of local government leaders to address where our vulnerabilities are and to have things in place. And so I'm bringing that up because when we talk about comparisons of how we look at how zoning is applied across our city, it's it's almost as though at times we have a double standard. And I believe on this particular application, the criteria has been met and I will be supporting it tonight. But I just want to give you a heads up to be looking forward to the draft ordinance that we'll be bringing. We're going to be meeting with a couple key city agencies before we bring that forward. But this is. A long overdue issue that will help address part of the inequities that often exist when we deal with our rezoning applications. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Ortega, and appreciate the time that we had community members here and that we had our discussion as well and really looking at the criteria that we need to evaluate this on. It is the zoned district and I do believe that the criteria has been met and I agree with Councilmember Ortega. Sometimes it does seem like we live in two different cities. Quick example from my home in Montebello, where I live. I did a quick Google search. I have over 25 7-Eleven. In the surrounding area right from my house in Montebello. So I am concerned about the equity that we are actually talking about when we talk about the end use versus the zoned district. And so given that I believe all the criteria has been met, I will be voting in favor of this tonight as well. And a quick reminder, council members, since community planning and Development has determined that the requirement for a legal protest has been met, ten affirmative votes instead of the standard seven affirmative votes of council are required to pass this bill. And so we are going to go ahead and. Madam Secretary, roll call, please.
Speaker 3: Sawyer.
Speaker 4: No.
Speaker 3: Torres. I. Black I. See tobacco. Clark.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 3: Flynn.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 3: Herndon.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 3: Hines.
Speaker 2: Now.
Speaker 1: Cashman No.
Speaker 4: Can I?
Speaker 3: Ortega. I. Sandoval.
Speaker 4: Hi.
Speaker 3: Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced the results.
Speaker 3: Nine eyes, three days.
Speaker 0: Nine Eyes Council Bill 20 1-0404 has failed. We're going to go ahead and move on to our next item here. We need to do a point of clarification. Tonight, council voted to postpone final consideration of Council Bill 20 1-0516 and it looks like a motion was inadvertently skipped and so is a point of clarification.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 10353 East Mississippi Avenue in Windsor.
Approves a map amendment to rezone property from B-1 with Conditions to S-MX-3 (business district in the former chapter 59 code to suburban mixed-use), located at 10353 East Mississippi Avenue in Council District 5. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 4-13-21. Community Planning and Development has determined that the requirement for a legal protest (signatures by the owners of 20 percent or more either of the area of the lots included in the proposed change or of the total land area within 200 feet from the perimeter of the area proposed for change) has been met (petition signatures represent 0% and 26.6%, respectively).
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06072021_21-0424
|
Speaker 0: 12 Eyes. Counsel Bill 20 1-0406 has passed. We are now on the homestretch. Our final public hearing tonight. Councilmember Flynn, would you please put Council Bill 424 on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 1: Yes, Madam President. Thank you. I move that council bill 21, dash zero 4 to 4 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. The required public hearing for Council Bill 424 is open and I see we have Libbey here for the staff report.
Speaker 4: Yes. Can you hear me?
Speaker 0: Mm hmm. Go ahead.
Speaker 4: Okay, great. I'll share my screen. Okay. So I'm Louisianans with community planning and development and I'll be presenting the Map Amendment application at 2162 South Grant Street. This application is located in Council District six in the Rosedale neighborhood. The applicant is requesting to resign from UCC to YouTube, which allows the Urban House building for a duplex tandem house and then as well as accessory dwelling unit accessory building for the site is located on Grant Street, just in the block south of Evans Avenue. As stated previously, the existing zoning is urban single unit C, so this allows for the Urban House primary building form on a minimum zone, lot size of 5500 square feet. You can see it just on the west side of Grant Street. The zoning is YouTube. And then when you move to the east side of Grant, it's mostly us. You see, with the exception of the property directly north, which was rezone from UCC to YouTube in 2020. The Washington Park View Plan is applicable to the site with maximum heights between 95 and 98 feet, and which will impact any future development as that's greater than what the proposed YouTube would allow. Existing land use is single unit residential. And you can see this area is kind of a mixture of single to unit and then multi-unit residential. This slide shows the existing building form and scale with the subject property on the upper right hand side. This is one of those sites where the building was constructed on the very back portion of the lot. AS That's why you can't really see it in the picture. And then it just south there's a single unit home and then one of the duplexes across the street. This application was complete in the middle of January, and a postcard notifying neighboring property owners within 200 feet of the site was sent out on January 22nd. The planning board heard this application in early April and unanimously recommended approval on the consent agenda. And to date, staff has not received any public comment letters. The Denver zoning code has five review criteria that must be met in order for rezoning to be approved. The first is consistency with adaptive plans, and there are three that are applicable to the site. The proposed rezoning meets several of the strategies in the comprehensive plan. It will increase development of housing close to transit and encourages quality infill development where infrastructure and services already exist. And Blueprint Denver The future neighborhood context is urban. These areas are mostly single and two unit residential areas with some multi-unit and mixed use embedded throughout. There's regular block patterns with alley access. The future place type is low residential and these are predominantly single and two unit residential uses on smaller lots. And then Grant Street is a local street, which is also also most like mostly characterized by residential uses. Blueprint also provides further guidance on when it's appropriate to rezone from a single unit, stone district to a two unit zone district. And this request depends upon three things small area plan guidance, neighborhood input in existing zoning patterns. So I'll discuss the small area plan guidance in a bit. And the applicant received mostly support from neighboring property owners, which you can find in the application that was submitted. And then we've discussed that there is a pattern of the two unit zoning in this area as it's all along the western side of great and then directly north of this street. And there's also more criteria for when you're proposing to rezone to a district with a smaller minimum zone size. So in this case, going from the C size to the B size. And for that and there needs to be a pattern of smaller lots with similar uses. So this map shows kind of the average lot size in the area. And you can see that it is mostly smaller than what the C district is and maybe more consistent with a B. And then the growth area strategy is all other areas of the city. This is where we anticipate to see 20% of new housing and 10% of new job growth by 2040. And so a rezoning to a two unit district would allow for a minimal amount of growth in density consistent with this growth area strategy. This area is a half a mile from the Evans Light Rail Station and it's also included in the Evans Station area plan. So while the actual site is not on the map, the urban residential concept area in the plan does include the area that goes all the way between the alley, between Grant and Logan Street. And so that would include this eastern half of the block along the eastern side of Grant Street. To the western half of that block. And it describes urban residential areas as appropriate for single family duplex accessory dwelling units and row houses. So a rezoning to a two unit district to allow a duplex would be consistent with the urban residential guidance in the EP and station area plan. Star finds that the Arizonan meets the next two criteria. It will result in uniformity of district regulations and will further the public health, safety and welfare primarily by implementing adaptive plans and allowing greater density in close proximity to a light rail station. There's also a justifying circumstance and changing conditions. I mean, the guidance and blueprint Denver on when it's appropriate to rezone to a two unit district with a smaller minimum zone that size, as well as changing conditions in the area, including new development near the Evans Light Rail station, as well as the rezoning just next door directly north of this site to a two unit sound district. And lastly, staff finds that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the urban neighborhoods context, the residential zoned districts purpose and then the specific intent of the You TV Zone district. Therefore, staff recommends approval based on finding that all five criteria have been met. And that concludes my presentation.
Speaker 0: All right. Well, thank you, Libby. And thanks for folks staying with us with us this evening. And counsel has not received any written testimony on counsel Bill 21, Dash 0424 and we have one individual signed up to speak this evening and we will go ahead and go to Nathan Keebler Slingo.
Speaker 2: Nathan Keebler Slingo. I am the applicant. I own the property at 2162 and currently lives here since 2004. And I appreciate and agree with everything that Libby is presented. And available for questions. Thank you.
Speaker 5: Okay.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Nathan. That concludes our speakers this evening. Questions from members of Council on Council Bill 424. All right. Councilmember Flynn.
Speaker 1: Libby. This is about 6/10 of a mile from Evans Station. So what are what is the proximity to transit criteria being gauged on? Is it the Broadway bus corridor? Is that are we saying that people will now walk 6/10 of a mile to to a light rail station?
Speaker 4: Yeah, that's a great question. You know, I think usually within the half mile buffer. So a quarter mile is like the comfort level for typically walking. But a half mile is something that I think we do consider. You know, it's not as close as a half mile is a five minute walk there, but it may be definitely walk or a shorter or a longer bike ride. You could say.
Speaker 1: Mile, half mile is usually about 1012 minute walk. Mhm. This is like this is just a little greater than a half mile. And I'm also concerned that you use the Evans Station plan even though technically this parcel is not in the Evans Station plan area. You said something about the half block between Graham and Logan. Can you explain that again?
Speaker 4: Yeah. So even though it's not in the map in the Evans Station area plan, if you read the description of the urban residential area, it describes that area as encompassing everything up until the alleyway between Grant and Logan Street, which would include this property.
Speaker 1: Okay. Okay. I did pull the Evans Station plan up while you were talking, so I'll look at that if there are any other questions. Although I don't see any other questions, so maybe I don't have time to do that. All right. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Flynn. And not seen any other hands raised for questions. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 424. Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Council President.
Speaker 2: I do believe this application meets the zoning criteria as well as fits well into the existing community context.
Speaker 1: So I'll be supporting this application this evening.
Speaker 0: All right. Very good. Thank you, sir. Councilmember Flynn.
Speaker 1: Hey, Madam President and Councilman Cashman. I concur. It appears to meet the criteria, although I'd quibble about conformity with districts, with area plans when it's not in the area plan itself. But I just want to express an ongoing concern with UPS zoning in single unit neighborhoods to two unit of zoning. When I looked at this particular neighborhood, I have seen where duplexes have gone up, prices have gone up. We are not preserving affordability by adding density in these neighborhoods. It's just not happening and it's very troubling. I think the assessed value on this particular parcels, about $450,000, the duplexes across the street are assessed at 600 and $700,000 . Some of the older homes built in the thirties, forties that are on these blocks in Rosedale are some are on Zillow for, you know, 400 or 500 middle 500. But the new duplexes that are taking their place and they're gentrifying the neighborhood are selling in a six and seven hundreds. And it's a troubling trend that is displacing displacing neighborhoods. I agree that it meets the criteria, but I think sooner or later we're have to come to grips with the displacing factor of this scrape and building expensive duplexes in their place. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Flynn, and seen no other hands raised. I do believe that this does meet the rezoning criteria and I'm happy to support it tonight. And I guess the only other thing I would throw out, Councilmember Flynn, is that increase in price, though, also houses more people in our city, which we know is a necessity as well. And so much more conversation I believe we need to have, especially with host involved, to determine when we are up zoning, what that really means for the broader community. And so with that, Madame Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 424, please.
Speaker 3: Cashman.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 3: Can each. I. Ortega. I. Sandoval.
Speaker 4: I. Sawyer. I.
Speaker 3: Torres, I. Black. I. Clark.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 3: Flynn.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 3: Herndon.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 3: Heinz.
Speaker 2: I. Hi.
Speaker 3: Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 3: 12 Eyes.
Speaker 0: 12 eyes. Counsel build 20 1-0424 has passed. There being no further business before this body this evening. We appreciate everybody staying with us. This meeting is adjourned.
Speaker 5: Hey.
Speaker 7: It's so good to be back.
Speaker 5: You sit and you try to figure out what's going to succeed. No. Sees a. It is time.
Speaker 7: To seize this. Does. I didn't realize he had given me.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 2162 South Grant Street in Rosedale.
Approves a map amendment to rezone property from U-SU-C to U-TU-B (single to two-unit), located at 2162 South Grant Street in Council District 6. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 4-20-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_05242021_21-0615
|
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Herndon, and very important reminders for us as we move forward into the the solemn recognition of Memorial Day and the holiday. All right. Not seeing any other hands raised for announcements. We're going to move on. There are no presentations this evening. There are no communications. And there is one proclamation being read this evening. Councilmember Cashman, will you please read Proclamation 20 1-0615, please.
Speaker 5: Yes. Thank you, Madam President. This is Proclamation 20 10615, declaring June four to be National Gun Violence Awareness Day in the month of June to be National Gun Violence Awareness Month. Whereas every day more than 100 Americans are killed by gun violence alongside more than 230 who are shot and wounded. On average, there are more than 13,000 gun homicides every year. And WHEREAS, Americans are up to 25 times more likely to die by gun homicide than people in other high income countries. And. WHEREAS, there have been more lives lost from gunfire in America than in all the wars in which U.S. troops have been engaged since our nation's founding. And. WHEREAS, in Colorado, nearly 80% of firearm deaths are suicides, and nearly half of all suicide deaths in Colorado involve the use of a firearm. And. WHEREAS, Gun violence dramatically impacts minority communities, with nearly three quarters of Coloradans killed by firearms being people of color. And. WHEREAS, in 2020, Colorado had 846 gun deaths with a rate of 14.2 deaths per 100,000 people, which ties us for the 18th highest firearms mortality rate of all 50 states. And. Whereas, in 2020, Colorado reported 11 mass shootings that killed six and injured 52. A year earlier, the state had four shoot mass shootings that killed two and injured 20. And. Whereas, in 2020, the number of people injured in shootings in Denver rose 512% from 2019 to a three year high of 305 victims. Nearly a third were children of teenagers, children or teenagers. And. Whereas, in 2020, in Denver, 117 persons died from gun violence, with suicides claiming 47 lives and homicide another 70. And. Whereas, thus far, in 2021, 46 people have already died from gun violence, with suicides claiming 15 lives and homicide, another 31. Whereas in Denver each year, some 700 young people are killed or injured by guns or are victims of gun related gun involved crimes each year? 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 23rd birthday. And. Whereas, to help honor Hadiya and the many Americans whose lives are cut short or injured by shootings every day, a national coalition of organizations designated the first Friday in June as National Gun Violence Awareness Day. And. WHEREAS, the idea was inspired by a group of four Dias friends who asked their classmates to commemorate her life by wearing orange because orange because hunters wear orange to announce themselves to other hunters when out in the woods. And. Whereas, by wearing orange on June 4th, 2021, Americans will raise awareness about gun violence and honor the lives of gun victims, gun violence victims and survivors. And. Whereas, through the work of the Youth Violence Prevention Action Table and other initiatives, we renew our commitment to reduce gun violence and pledged to do all we can to keep firearms out of the wrong hands and encourage responsible gun ownership to help keep all Denver residents 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 this year, June four, 2021, to be National Gun Violence Awareness Day in the entire month of June to be National Gun Violence Awareness Month, and encourages all citizens to support their local communities. Efforts to prevent the tragic effects of gun violence and to honor and value human lives. Section two The Clerk of the city and county of Denver shall attest and affixed the seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation and a copy be transmitted to Everytown for Gun Safety and Moms Demand Action.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Cashman, your motion to adopt.
Speaker 5: Yes, thank you. I move the proclamation 20 1-0615 be adopted.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Comments by members of Council. Council member Cashman.
Speaker 5: Yeah. Thank you, Madam President. I'll let the proclamation stand for itself. It's. It's a dizzying number of statistics that demand our attention and the attention of all Coloradans and certainly all folks living in our city. We can. And the Second Amendment will be debated by good people on either either side, as long as we are a nation , I'm guessing. But I think we can all agree that we need to be sure that firearms are handled responsibly or out of the hands of people who have no business procuring firearms, and that we keep our children and all of us as safe as possible. I did want to give a shout out to our friends at the state capital who have a number of bills moving through the process right now to give cities more control over gun laws that they think make their jurisdiction more safe. Council member excuse me, Senator Chris Hanson has a bill that I believe will be debated tomorrow to create a state office of Gun Violence Prevention. So working together at the state and local level with the support of our constituents, I think we can perhaps bring more sanity to a situation that seems to be out of control right now. That's all I've got. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: All right. Well, thank you, Councilman Cashman. And not seeing any other hands raised. I appreciate the work that you've put forward in this proclamation and very happy to support it this evening. Madam Secretary, Roll Call Cashman.
Speaker 3: I can. I. Ortega, I. Sandoval.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 3: Sawyer. I.
Speaker 0: Torres, I. Black I.
Speaker 3: See tobacco. I.
Speaker 0: Clark.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 0: Flynn. I. Herndon.
Speaker 2: I. Hines, I.
Speaker 0: Madam President, I. And I'm secretary. Please close the voting and announce the results. 13 Eyes. 13 Eyes. Proclamation 20 1-0615 has been adopted. Councilman Kasman, we have 5 minutes for a proclamation acceptance. Would you like to invite someone up to accept it?
Speaker 5: Yeah. I believe Rachel Barnes from Moms Demand Action is is in the attendees list, if we can promote her up.
Speaker 0: All right, we'll get Rachel into the queue.
Speaker 5: I see Rachel right there. Rachel. The floor is yours. Go ahead. And you'll need to. There you go.
Speaker 3: Sorry. This is very slow on my end. Thank you so much, city council, everybody. And Councilman Cashman, thank you so much for your support for this. I was going to list some statistics that that has already been done in the proclamation. And as a mother myself, I cannot imagine losing a child to anything. And so many mothers are losing children to gun violence, having their children killed. So it's so important that we raise awareness of this issue and continue to work to make this city, the state, our country, more safe. Because we have had over 40,000 over 40,000 people killed in 2020 by gun violence. And it's it's unacceptable and so incredibly sad. So thank you so much for this. And I hope that with awareness comes some change. And thank you.
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation declaring June 4 to be National Gun Violence Awareness Day and the month of June to be National Gun Violence Awareness Month.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_05242021_21-0407
|
Speaker 0: No formal motion or vote is required this evening, and so we'll go ahead and move on then. 407 Council Member Sandoval We need a motion to take Council Bill 407 out of order, please.
Speaker 1: And move that council bill 20 10407 be taken out of order.
Speaker 2: You.
Speaker 0: All right. It's been moved. And we have the second by Councilmember Herndon. Questions or comments by members of council. Councilmember Herndon.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. We need to take this item out of order so that we can postpone final consideration and the public hearing date.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Madam Secretary, roll call, please. Herndon.
Speaker 2: I. Hines. I.
Speaker 0: Cashman.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 3: Can each i. Ortega, i. Sandoval.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 0: Sawyer, i. Torres I. Black I. CdeBaca, I. Clark.
Speaker 2: All right.
Speaker 0: Flynn.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 0: Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 1: 13 Eyes.
Speaker 0: 13 Eyes Council Bill 20 1-0407. May be taken out of order. Council Member Sandoval Will you please vote? Council Bill 20 1-0407 on the floor for final passage.
Speaker 1: And move that council bill 20 1-0407. Be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: Right. It's been moved. And I believe we got the second from Councilmember Hines. Councilmember Herndon, your motion to postpone.
Speaker 2: Yes, Madam President, I move that final consideration of Council Bill 20 10407 with its public hearing be postponed to Monday, June 21st, 2021.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Has been moved. And we've got the second by Councilmember Hines questions or comments by members of council. Councilmember Herndon.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. This postponement has to come at the request of the applicant for more community outreach to be done.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Herndon. Madam Secretary, roll call on the postponement. Brendan.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 4: And I.
Speaker 1: Cashman.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 3: Can. Each. I. Ortega.
Speaker 0: I. Sandoval. I swear I saw as I look. I see tobacco. I. Clarke.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 0: Flynn.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 0: Madam President, I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results. 13 eyes. 13 Eyes. Final Consideration of Council Bill 20 10407 with its public hearing has been postponed to Monday, June 21st, and 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 call out an item for a separate vote. Council Member Sandoval Will you please put the resolutions for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor?
Speaker 1: I move that resolutions be adopted and bills and final consideration be placed upon final consideration and do part passed in a block for the following items. 21 series 20 1059705450546052405250527052805440501053405350547031604580605028105120513050405170505.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. It has been moved.
Speaker 4: Okay.
Speaker 0: We've got a second by Councilmember Hines. Madam Secretary, roll call, please. Black. I CdeBaca. I quote.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 0: When.
Speaker 2: I. Herndon.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 6: Cashman.
Speaker 2: I. Oh.
Speaker 3: Can each. I. Ortega, I. Sandoval.
Speaker 1: I swear.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 0: Torres, I. Madam President, I. And then, Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. 13 eyes. 13 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 combined public hearing on Council Bill 21, dash 0083 Changing the zoning classification.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 990 North King Street in Villa Park.
Approves a map amendment to rezone property from E-SU-D to E-TU-C (single- to two-unit), located at 990 King Street in Council District 3. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 4-13-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_05242021_21-0083
|
Speaker 2: Pocket gov offers a wide variety.
Speaker 0: We have two public hearings tonight. 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 when called upon. Please wait until our meeting hosts promote you to speaker. When you are promoted, 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. If you've signed up to answer questions, only state your name and note that you are available for questions of counsel. Speakers will have 3 minutes. There is no yield of time. If translation is needed, you will be given an additional 3 minutes for your comments to be interpreted. You will see your time flash on the screen when you have 30 seconds left. 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 Sandoval, would you please put Council Bill 83 on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 1: I move that council build 20 120083. You be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 2: Secondly.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and I believe we got the second from Council member Herndon. The combined public hearing for Council Bill 83 and Council Bill 515 is open. Speakers may offer comments on either or both items after the conclusion of the public hearing. Council will vote separately on each. May we please have the staff report? And I see we have Scott Robinson here.
Speaker 4: Yes. Good evening. Can you hear me, Mr..
Speaker 0: Mm hmm. We can.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President, and members of Council Scott Robinson with the planning and development. This is a request to rezone 2650 Perkins Court 3205 and 3280 Tanaka Street and 2700 Boulevard away from a new 30 with wages and conditions you owe to you owe to impurities. So 5 to 7 seam x 12 07x 16 07x 27. The property is located in Council District nine. In the Five Points neighborhood. It is in the international market area just northwest of where Broadway turns into Bright Boulevard and just southeast of the South Platte River. Properties of 13 acres. And the applicant is requesting a rezoning order to facilitate the development of the property. Here's you're going to see the zoning of the subject property. I'll get into that in the next slide. You can also see the surrounding zoning, which puts former Chapter 59 duties and other custom zoning, as well as some schematics eight, 12 and 16 and otherwise. Industrial zoning. So majority of the property is zoned art and certainly with wavers and conditions, which, as a former Chapter 59 zoning district that is primarily residential but was supporting commercial uses, allowed waivers and conditions to limit height on the property to 75 feet, required 12% of the property be set aside as open space and allowed zero foot setbacks. Duty 605, which applies to the first proportion of the property, has basically the same requirements as the AMI with waivers and conditions. However, a 220 foot tower is allowed on a portion of that 605 property, and then the remainder of the property is owned by A and B, which are industrial. Here you can see the existing land uses. The property is currently vacant, surrounded by a mixture of multi-unit, residential, industrial and commercial and mixed use. And here you can see photos of the property from around the site. This property went through the large development review process. The large development framework was approved in April of 2020 and amended in November of 2020. That leads to calls for amendments to the existing departments in order to market general development plan. But those amendments are waiting to be approved until it. If the this rezoning was approved. After following the zoning, the Government Review Committee will approve the changes to the General Development Plan. The amended GDP contemplates between 1014 hundred residential units and one between 1.20 5,000,001.5 million square feet of commercial space. But it maintains the requirement for 12% open space on the property. It also calls for updated design standards and guidelines for the existing generic market design standards and guidelines that apply to this property. Others have also been updated to reflect the changes to the proposed development pattern and also eliminate conflicts with the DOH seven design overlay, which will be included in the new zone districts and also improve the height transition to the river by requiring or limiting height along the river to 55 feet. And I'll get into that a.
Speaker 2: Little bit more.
Speaker 4: Later. Slides. Also, as part of the review process, the development agreement was negotiated. That development agreement covers a number of things, including construction, maintenance and funding responsibilities for public improvements, environmental standards and materials management standards for the moving of dirt and things like that. On the site vesting of property rights. A number of specific property rights in the zoning would be vested for a period of ten years under the development agreement that includes the transportation demand management plan and also a voluntary, affordable housing. That voluntary, affordable housing commitment would require 15% of any residential units built to be affordable for a period of 60 years. For the rental units, the four rent units that are built on site. Again, 15% of those units a up to a maximum of 80% AMI area median income was at least 25% of those at 60% AMI or below, with a guaranteed of at least 40 middle 40 units to be built at that time. On a specific parcel, there would be one parcel set aside for an affordable housing development. If for sale units are built, they would again be required to be 15% of those set aside as affordable for those up to 100%. Ami with that at least 30% of those up to 80% pay line the. The agreement also would require at least 30% of the affordable units to be two bedroom or larger. The proposed zone districts are a mix of mixed zone districts that's urban center neighborhood context, mixed use zoning eight stories which would allow 110 feet, maximum height , 12 storeys or 150 feet, 16 storeys, 200 feet and 20 stories tall and 50 feet. You can see the map on the right where those specific zone districts would be applied with the greatest height and density concentrated in the center, then stepping down as it gets closer to the edge of the development and gets closer to the river, stepping down to that extent on the river. Then again, the design standards and guidelines would further limit the height immediately adjacent to the river to 55 feet instead of 100 feet. And then the seven is the river north design overlay that includes additional requirements to ensure. Good urban design and don't form in this area. It would apply to this property as well. This rezoning application went to planning board on December 16th of 2020. I received a recommendation of approval by a 5 to 4 vote. The concerns from members of the planning board that voted against it. One was concerned about that height transition. And as I mentioned, the design standards and guidelines have been updated to address that. The other members had more general concerns about compatibility, but the impacts on the general safety and welfare that this type of development would for this rezoning would have and the impacts on things like affordability. This went to the Land Use Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on February 2nd, and you have in your pocket four letters of support from registered neighborhood organizations. 34 other letters of support and two letters of opposition. In order to approve a rezoning, the city must find that these five criteria have been met. The first criterion is consistency with adaptive plans. There are four plans that apply to this property. The first plan is Comprehensive Plan 2040. As described in the staff report, staff finds the proposed rezoning consistent with multiple strategies from Plan 2040, including the strategies from the strong and authentic neighborhoods vision element relating to high quality urban design and development in appropriate locations. In terms of equity, state funds, the proposed rezoning consistent with these three strategies from the equitable, affordable and inclusive vision element relating to providing a variety of housing options at locations that are close to existing amenities. And in terms of climate stuff, I propose presenting consistent with these strategies from the environmentally resilient vision element, again relating to development and mixed use development at appropriate locations. The second plan is Blueprint Denver. The future neighborhood context designation for the subject property is Urban Center, which calls for high intensity residential and commercial development, a substantial mix of uses and a high quality street activation and connectivity, which would be consistent with the urban center context of the proposed zoning and the requirements of the proposed TMX seven zoning. The future of place designation is high residential, which calls for a high mix of residential and commercial uses throughout in this area. Buildings are the tallest in the context and includes highlight coverage and shows that acts in a very urban, walkable environment, again, consistent with the proposed Sea Annex zoning in the Southern Design Overlay. Arkin's court and an Argo Street are designated mixed use collective streets, which call for a mix of uses and pedestrian oriented buildings. Consistent with the proposed zoning and many other streets in the area, are locals providing that connection from the larger streets to the actual development and the arterials, like Broadway and Park Avenue? The city's growth strategy designates this under the high and high median residential areas in downtown, an urban center context intended to accommodate 5% of new jobs and 15% of new housing by 2040. Hoover in Denver also includes a number of other strategies and recommendations, including views that relate to applying design overlays in appropriate locations , which together the proposed design is intended to be applied here and also rezoning properties out of former Chapter 59 into the design the Denver zoning code, which this new zoning would do. Also because this property is a larger rezoning. So it went through our Equity Analysis Fund or Blueprint Denver, where we looked at the three equity concepts outlined in the plan. First is access to opportunity, which is looking at how well this area has access to quality of life and that it is both in quality education. This area scored lower on the health metrics and also has less access to high capacity transit. In order to address those. The development is including additional parks and open space to improve health, including access to recreational manatees, including connections to the multi-use pass along the river, creating a walkable environment and improving health and safety. Also improving access to affordable housing so that a wide range of people will be able to access those incentives. And while it's not close to. High frequency transit. Under the definition, it does have access to existing bus routes and the transportation demand management plan. We do have an agreement that includes additional strategies for improving access to transit. The second equity concept is vulnerability to involuntary displacement. Looking at the potential for residents and businesses to be involuntarily displaced, this area has some vulnerability to displacement, scoring high on the percentage of renters in the area. In order to address this. As described earlier, there is an affordable housing commitment which covers both for rent and for sale development on the property. But also the applicant has committed to local marketing for those affordable units to help the people that already live in the area, to stay in the area and not be displaced. The third equity concept is housing and jobs, diversity, looking at a range of housing and employment options in all neighborhoods in terms of housing diversity. This area scores lower in diversity because of the lack of diversity in size, rental or for sale units and lower cost units. So again, the affordable housing agreement that I described earlier will increase the number of affordable units down to 60% AMI, and also includes that requirement for larger units of two plus bedrooms and covers, both for rent and for sale housing. So would address those housing diversity issues. In terms of jobs, jobs, diversity. The jobs in this area are fairly similar to the job makeup in the city overall. And the proposed mixed use zoning would allow for commercial uses and jobs of a similar mix. So it would maintain that level of job diversity. And so if that staff finds the proposed rezoning consistent with the recommendations of Blueprint Denver. The third plan is the River North Plan from 2003, the future land values concept. For this property, it's residential mixed use, which calls for either residential mixed use for commercial mixed use zoning consistent with the proposed zoning calling for compact mixed use, pedestrian friendly developments. There's no specific guidance in the plan except for along the river. It calls for urban design guidelines to limit heights to 55 feet, which, as I described earlier, the amended urban design standards and guidelines would limit height along the river to 55 feet. Also calling for urban design that reinforces that district oriented and transit supportive character of the area which the proposed zoning D of seven design overlay would do. Let me first plan is housing an inclusive Denver which is the city's affordable housing plan. It lays out strategies for providing affordable housing in the city, including promoting development of new, affordable mixed income and mixed use rental housing, which this application would do again through the affordable housing agreement I described earlier. However, it's important to note that that affordable housing agreement is not necessary to meet. Plan consistency in this application, staff finds that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the plans, even without the affordable housing agreement. It is just an additional voluntary agreement that the applicant has committed to. So staff finds the plan for the proposed rezoning consistent with adopted plans. And the first criterion. The second criterion is uniformity of district regulations. Staff plans. The proposed rezoning would result in development consistent with the proposed zoning districts. The third criterion is to further the public health, safety and general welfare. City staff finds that the proposed rezoning would do so by implementing the city's adaptive plans and requirements development that is walkable, compact and mixed use. Improving safety and health outcomes. Also, the affordability requirements would improve the welfare of the area and access to parks and recreation. Again, improving health and safety and welfare. The fourth criterion is justifying circumstances. Staff finds the proposed rezoning justified by change for changing conditions. As described earlier, the majority of the site is zoned for a former Chapter 59 zone district. So rezoning into the rezoning code justifies rezoning of those parcels for the properties that are already in the Denver zoning code. The ivy portions, those the rezoning of those parcels is justified by changes in the neighborhood and newly adopted plans which call for this area transitioning from an industrial area into a higher density, mixed use commercial corridor. And that, as you can see, an area is well underway. So rezoning those properties out of industrial into mixed use and investors is justified by the changes in the area. And the last criterion is consistency with neighborhood context, zone, district, purpose and intent. Staff finds the proposed rezoning would result in development consistent with the urban center neighborhood context description any purpose and intent of the C annexed zone districts and the D of seven overlay. Over that staff finds all five criteria are met and recommends approval of the actor to answer any questions. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Scott, for your presentation. And tonight, counsel has received one written comment on Council Bill 83. There is one submitted comment in favor of the application and no submitted comments in opposition of the application. All members of Council that are present have certified that they have read each of the submitted written comments. Do any members need more time in order to read all of the written testimony that was submitted? CNN council secretary let the record reflect that all written testimony, both in favor and in opposition of Council Bill 83 has been read by each member of Council, and all written testimony will be submitted to the official record of the hearing. We have 30 individuals signed up to speak this evening and would like to remind folks that we also have another public hearing. And if you feel like you're repeating information or it's information that has already been said, we ask you to keep your comments shorter, if you would. And so we're going to go ahead and start with our first speaker. Is there a comfort confer? Go ahead, please, Sarah. And you're going to have to unmute yourself, Sarah. All right. Well, we're going to see if we can get. Sarah. Unmuted and her camera on. If not, well, it looks like she's connecting to her audio, so we'll give it a second. All right. We're going to go ahead and see if we can get Sarah. You into the queue here.
Speaker 3: There we go.
Speaker 0: There you go. Yep. Go ahead, please. Introduce yourself and.
Speaker 3: Tribe architects, and I'm here with the applicant team to answer any questions that come up.
Speaker 0: All right. Thanks, Sarah. Our next speaker this evening is Ann Bowers.
Speaker 3: Yes. Good evening. My name is Ann Bowers. I'm with the applicant team and.
Speaker 0: I'm here to answer questions on transportation. All right. Thank you. Our next speaker is Laura Newman. Hi.
Speaker 3: Can you see me and hear me?
Speaker 0: Yep. Go ahead, Laura.
Speaker 3: And thank you, Madam President, and members of council. My name is Mark Newman and with the local development team here to answer any question. And I'm joined alongside my colleagues, Sarah Copper and Sean Campbell. They'll also be available to answer questions. But I do just want to say that as a team, we're really enthused to be here with this evening and to share and discuss our development plans along this significant stretch of the South Platte River. We're very, very fortunate as a three generation family business to be able to commit and invest alongside our partners in North Denver and the city at large on this stretch of the South Platte for many, many years to come. This site is just a stone's throw away from our office, and it's close to our homes and we're excited to roll up our sleeves and get to work on creating a great place for all of Denver to enjoy. And we've had very, very informative conversations over the past nearly two years with various neighbors and organizations, both cities, planning department and agencies, to help plan for a site that will be a true community asset, we believe, for decades to come. So last thing I'll say is that our team at the city has done a really great job working hard and moving us through the LDR process and our amendment to the GDP development agreement. So hats off to them and again, happy to answer any questions along with my colleagues from colleagues throughout.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Laura. And our next speaker is Caitlin Quander.
Speaker 3: Good evening, Caitlyn Quander and available if there are questions, legal questions related to the development agreement. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Next up, we have Shawn Campbell.
Speaker 2: Hi. Good evening. Can you hear me?
Speaker 0: Go ahead.
Speaker 2: Thanks for having us. Again, I won't reiterate too much of what Laura said, but we are very excited to be have the opportunity to develop this piece of property along the South Platte River in our backyard. Our team at formative has developed several projects in the Five Points and and north side of Denver and specifically industry next door to this site years ago and where our offices are over here and many of us live here in the community. And over the last couple of years, as Laura said, our outreach and our discussion is with both our knows and neighbors and business alike have informed the final product. And we're very proud of what we're putting forth to you all here today. And we're happy to answer any questions or provide clarity on the details of our agreement and the proposals. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Sean. Our next speaker is Alfonso Espino.
Speaker 2: Yes. Hello? Can everybody hear me?
Speaker 0: Mm hmm. Go ahead.
Speaker 2: Thank you for having me here. Thank you for having me. My name is Alfonso Espino. I live right down the street, essentially, and we're swans here. And I'm a resident of District nine. Obviously, I'm here to voice my opposition to the proposed reason. To me it's pretty clear that the CBD Fund Department has for some reason passed their own litmus test on what equity is and essentially has proposed and has been uplifting this message on behalf of the applicant that this site, the proposed development, is some semblance of equitable. I'd like to say that there has been no equity, close to zero equity proposed for the units at this site. It's basically nonexistent. It's a very small percentage. I believe the number is 15%. Just based on that alone, that is inequitable. That is not equity coming out of Blueprint Denver's words and striving for equity. It is not inclusionary. It is, if anything, discriminatory in the way that they approach their equity when you're only. Putting up 15% of your units to 80 and 60% army levels. That is discriminatory when it is an overwhelming amount of the units that will not be available to an overwhelming amount of people that currently and will in the future live in the city of Denver. We, the city and council members here love to use the argument that it is a supply and demand issue. You've had ten years to prove that correctly and you've had ten years where you have been proven wrong. It is not a simple supply and demand issue. The city and the city and the city council has refused to do anything about it and is giving up precious land in this city. For the sake of developing units that will most likely remain empty in its lifetime. Units that will only add to, I believe, the last time I checked, 50,000 luxury and market rate units that are currently sitting vacant in the city and you are discriminating against. Anybody but people who have defined as your community, the developers of the site, the applicants of CPD and this council. Typically not everybody, but a lot of these members have defined discriminate in the community as anybody but the poor and working class. And to me it is quite ridiculous for the economic colonizers to be speaking on equity on the behalf of those that you've chosen to admit in community. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker this evening is cable doc.
Speaker 6: Hi. Good. Good evening, members. My name is Taylor Belden.
Speaker 0: Let me see. It looks like you might have froze. You might need to turn your camera so we can hear your audio.
Speaker 6: Actually to Alba Wedgeworth, where she and I helped to remove the railroad tracks on Walnut Street. At the time, I was the only retail business in the area, which was mainly occupied by industrial based businesses such as foundries, hardware suppliers and concrete providers. Much has changed since then, and I, for one, am a huge proponent of the change. The inflow of both residential and retail businesses has brought a vibrancy to the neighborhood that had previously been nonexistent. I welcome my new neighbors from developments such as Madeira and Camden Reno. I appreciate the economic stimulus that these new residents provide to long standing local businesses such as Erica Motorsports Ratio Brewing STEM Ciders and Chroma Coffee. Large scale product projects like Gennaro will only continue to enhance the district and allow businesses like mine to create jobs and generate tax dollars. I have seen the plans for Gennaro, and I'm impressed by the thoughtfulness and.
Speaker 0: Care. You're cutting out again. We're not able to hear you. You might have to turn your video off. Can you hear me? We get your comments cut out a bit. And so I would prefer so that we can get your full comments on the public record, if you wouldn't mind turning off your video. And sometimes the audio will work better then and if you want to go ahead and start over so that we can get your full comments into the public record. There you go. Go ahead and try again. Thank you.
Speaker 6: My name is Taobao. Doc and I have owned a business Erica Motorsports in the Rhino Arts District since 1999. In addition, I am a property owner and a founding member of the Rhino Business Improvement District. My history in the area dates back to when there were railroad tracks on Walnut Street, which I helped to remove with Albert Rudge. At the time, I was the only retail business in the area which was mainly occupied by industrial based businesses such as foundries, hardware suppliers and concrete providers. Much of that has changed since then, and I, for one, am a huge proponent of the change. The inflow of both residential and retail businesses has brought a vibrancy to the neighborhood that had previously been non-existent. I welcome my new neighbors from developments such as Madeira and Camden right now. I appreciate the economic stimulus that these new residents provide to my long standing local business neighbors, such as Ratio Brewing, Stan, Ciders and Crema Coffee . Large scale projects like Norco will only continue to enhance the district and allow businesses like mine to create jobs and generate tax dollars. I have seen the plans for New Nahco and I am impressed by their thoughtfulness and respect for the river. They will be taking a neglected parcel of land and creating a place that people can call home. The developer has also gone above and beyond the number of affordable units to be provided by previous developers, which was in the 8 to 10% range. And this developer has almost doubled that offering by providing 15%. Now more than ever, are city leaders such as yourselves need to be laser focused on economic recovery. You must recognize the importance of job and revenue creation. Projects like Norco will provide both. I urge City Council to approve the general market project.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker this evening is Mattie Hughes.
Speaker 3: I. Can you hear.
Speaker 0: Me? Mm hmm. Go ahead, Maddie.
Speaker 3: Hi. My name is Maddie Hughes, and I'm a resident of District ten. I have lived in Denver for over three, three years now. And I have to say, I am saddened and disappointed in the glacial pace that City Council has taken to work toward economic and racial justice in Denver. I am from Milwaukee, a city known for its extremely racist history of redlining and police brutality. And I came here thinking Denver was a more progressive city, but I was wrong. Colorado ranked sixth in the U.S. for police killings and fifth in the US in the rate of police killings of black people. You may not see the racial and class discrimination and the decisions you make on this board, but I am here to tell you in. First of all, housing is a human right. Humans require shelter, not just the ones who have it had the odds stacked against them from the start, but also the ones who are born into poverty or encountered hardships along the way that resulted in them experiencing homelessness. None of you have ever stated whether you agree with this basic truth, but most of you vote as if you don't. There are opportunities for you to stand up for the disadvantaged living in encampments. But you act against their interests. Further disenfranchize the working class of the city. To be clear, we are separate from the professional managerial class. We are essential workers. So when you approve rezonings for expensive developments that raise the cost of living and push out the area's original inhabitants, there is a term for this. It's called gentrification, and it's a form of institutional racism and economic discrimination. So even though you declare at the start of every meeting that in these times of social change, it is critical for you to have opportunities to hear us members of the public. I want to ask you what the point of that is if you consistently ignore this point when we bring it up. I also am not sure if you're aware but wanted to bring it to your attention that much of Denver was run by the KKK. Not so long ago. There is an art.
Speaker 0: That you marry. If you could keep your comments to the rezoning that we're talking about, it's related.
Speaker 3: Thanks. Much of gender was run by the KKK. Not so long ago. There is an article currently on the Denver Library website about this entitled When the KKK Ruled Colorado, Colorado not so long ago, Klansmen ran the government and most businesses in Colorado. I bring this up because as white people, not indigenous, this land, then as an elected body, you have a responsibility to learn our violent history and to reverse it with policies guided by morality and care, with knowledge. At the start at the start of all your meetings that our government has historically excluded and erased indigenous peoples, although we live on Cheyenne in Arapaho Lands. But these developments that you continually approve further push out any indigenous people who do not want to.
Speaker 0: That's the time we have a lot of. After our next speaker, we have Douglas Jackson.
Speaker 2: Madam President, members of council. My name is Douglas Jackson. My day job. I run an organization called Project Cure. We do medical relief all over the world. I've been a resident of Rhino and Lotus since 2010. Our friend Brian Vogt at. Botanic Gardens would tell us that there are four microclimates around the world called Steppes that's in the Gobi Desert, the south of South Africa. That's in Patagonia, Argentina, and here in Denver. And what that means is that water is probably our most scarce and most valuable natural resource. When I was a little kid, we lived down by what's now the melting pot down in Littleton. There wasn't even guardrails along Santa Fe, and my dad would drive this little dune buggy down and my brother and I would play in the Platte River. We'd watch the ducks and the geese. But the farther you got north along the Platte River, the scarier it got. It was industrial, it was dirty. It was not a great place to be. But I watched the city council and what you have done along areas like Riverfront Park, and it is a revitalization to this city. That's incredible. We walk through the park, we ride through the park, Riverfront Park, at least 2 to 3 times a week. And I have seen the diversity. I've seen a healthy environment. I've seen an economically and environmentally sound location because of what we've done. We know that in communities like in Portland and Austin, the Detroit International Riverwalk in and in El Paso, in San Antonio, that when people address community needs and they embrace the natural resources like the river. We've watched those communities thrive. Here's a bit of trivia that's kind of interesting. This year, two and a half million people will visit the Alamo in San Antonio. This year, 5 million people, twice as many, will visit the Office of the Riverfront Walk in San Antonio. This is an opportunity for us to continue to develop Denver's greatest natural resource, the Platte River and the tributaries. It's 13 acres that we get to rebuild. We get to create the vibrancy. We get to put the german-polish what we have in this town. And I encourage the city council not to miss this opportunity.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Douglas. Our next speaker this evening is Nolan Bingle.
Speaker 3: Good evening. My name is No. Let me go on with the global response to coalition organizing for Health and Housing Justice. Tonight, we're opposing this reason, mostly because it doesn't address displacement. At this point, we're talking about a lot of luxury market rate units and then quite the disparity of of some units that potentially support homeless youth
Speaker 7: . So what that.
Speaker 3: Looks like and feels like is the large disparity on that campus, also with.
Speaker 2: The.
Speaker 0: Men's shelter.
Speaker 3: Right, right next to it. So it's disappointing that we're talking about 20 stories, 15, three, 12 story rezoning, and we can't get any diversity within those units. We have to put or we'll do this very specialized population to the side of the project. Yet within those buildings we don't have any income diversity. 80% in my is just about market rate. Let's be real to the neighborhood. Median income in Globeville is 40%. So we're not and that's not even that's not talking about the folks that are being displaced, which may their arms are even lower than that. So it's disappointing that we're talking about this large scale of entitlements and aren't addressing displacement at all in an area that has faced displacement five point has faced an extreme amount of displacement and globally response. You are right in the midst.
Speaker 7: With.
Speaker 3: Tons of private development surrounding two areas with tons of units. The neighbors are at their health and safety and well-being is impacted every day by the risk of displacement. Nine out of ten neighbors are at risk of displacement. If the only response they were stable, we would be having very different conversation right now. But unfortunately, they're not. And and that's.
Speaker 7: Another thing we want to talk about.
Speaker 3: Is just the general of the equity equity process.
Speaker 2: Or the lack of it.
Speaker 3: We have a really long way to go. We that that again, the analysis of vulnerability to displacement, even looking at what the neighborhood arm is, it isn't looking.
Speaker 7: At in in globally.
Speaker 3: It isn't looking at change over time. So there's just a lot of things that how can we move at results that address displacement if we can't even start with a good analysis of vulnerability to displacement. So again, as disappointed by that, we just there's no actual outcomes aligned with preventive.
Speaker 7: I think the potential project that.
Speaker 3: 30.
Speaker 0: To 50 am, I.
Speaker 7: Promise you is, you know, has.
Speaker 3: Has some potential. But having it separate and not addressing displacement at all is frustrating. And we need to think about new points of action like new reason criteria, thinking through putting site planning with rezoning so that we can actually come to some outcomes so that we can create new tools like an equity scorecard.
Speaker 7: Etc., etc..
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you, Nola. Our next speaker this evening is Jeff Shoemaker.
Speaker 7: Good evening. Can everybody hear me?
Speaker 0: Mm hmm. Go ahead.
Speaker 2: Thank you. I'm Jeff Shoemaker. I run the Greenway Foundation. For the last 47 years, we've been dedicated to revitalizing rivers and reconnect with communities and members of council. It's so good to see you. It's been way too long. And this is an example of my father's vision. Who founded the Greenway Foundation that one day the best place to live, work and play in Denver would be along the South Platte River. The team you have before you informative hour, long time, long time engaged members of the Rhino community. And this is their latest example of that, including the fact that they are committed to 15% of their residential portion of their development to affordable housing. The project before you engages our river, it engages then faces our river. It improves our river through water quality, through accessibility, through recreation, through people gathering and the opportunity to bring our award winning environmental education programs free to the banks of the river in this very area. And what pleases me the most selfishly, is the first project out of the gate, if this project is approved, is to take back a section of the river that needs help. And by the way, the we are at the Greenway Foundation already engaged in engaging in a vision to take the river from 38 to Globeville Landing Park to City of Quinn, Avoca Park X blocks upstream and find and create that next vision to make the river even better. I strongly urge you to support this proposal. These are good people. They care, they're engaged. They have a record, they have a proven record. And I encourage you to vote yes and let the record show, Madam Chairman, that Jeff Shoemaker didn't need to be muted at 3 minutes. Thank you all very, very much. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Jeff. Our next speaker this evening is Tess Storti.
Speaker 3: I cancel on you for allowing me to speak tonight?
Speaker 1: I. My name is Tess Sturdy.
Speaker 3: I live in District nine. I heard someone characterize this area as a neglected plot of land, and I just wanted to. To make sure that that was accurately portrayed. Because the truth is that this wasn't neglected. There were actually hundreds of people who lived on this plot for years and were traumatically displaced to make room for this development. The thing that is most concerning to me is that we've been talking about we talk about developments outside of the scope of the environmental impact that all of these developments are having on our lives and our lungs and our life expectancy. The Environmental Protection Agency deems the area along I-70 and Vasquez a Superfund site. Did you know that there's a landfill that's leaking into the Platte River due to government due to government ineptness. At best, at worst, an effort to poison the marginalized people that live in the area. Areas of concern include the continuing problem of leachate flowing into the South Platte River from the toxic landfill under the recently constructed Globeville land landing outfall and the problems connected to the toxic landfill under the Denver Coliseum and parking lot. These are right by this development. And so I would like to know what kind of environmental impact has been, has been developed or looked at for all of these new developments, this one included. This is a huge development. It doesn't address the housing displacement that's going to occur, quote unquote. Affordable housing by this council, when used is not really affordable. That it's it's a it is just a guise for doing what's right. And it's not, you know, but it's a it's a guise for gentrification and displacement and the playground that this city has become for developers. And it doesn't matter where the developers are from. When we are, we are purporting that this that they are doing this out of the kindness of their heart, you know, that they don't have to provide this. When we all spoke months ago, we were here till 1 a.m., almost speaking about how when we were begging not to approve the development of this site, people spoke about like councilman never spoke about the the criteria and how we everyone spoke about how the criteria was outdated and needed to be changed. And yet here tonight, we're still using the same criteria that we all of you, you know, noted was not sufficient. And so I'm just curious how in the months leading up to this very meeting why the criteria hasn't been updated to include the environmental impact and to include the true housing displacement that will occur. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Simon Cullen.
Speaker 2: Again. Everyone hear me? Mm hmm. Go ahead. Right. Hi. My name's Simon Cohen. I live at 2680, Blake Street Unit 14 in the Curtis Park, five points in Rondo neighborhood. I've lived in this exact spot for seven years now before I was renting a city gate apartment at 28th. And Brian from 2011 to 2014, city gate is one block right across the street from the proposed Indigo Market Project. My current home is just across the train tracks here on Blake Street. As a homeowner in the district, I like to say that what our neighborhood needs most are retail services and additional parks. This is true are on the northwest side of the tracks on Brighton Boulevard, near my old apartment at City Gate. There are barely any restaurants and a walking distance of the proposed development in nowhere to get basic goods and services like groceries, pharmaceuticals, dry cleaning and the like is primarily due to the lack of density in the neighborhood. We need more people. More residents and more apartments, more daytime populations in office buildings. We cannot count how many restaurants and stores shut down during COVID and same shutdown, even once retail could reopen at limiting capacity. The store owners say this is because they cannot get enough customers to make reopening profitable. The bottom line, they need more customers both day and night. This proposed development at Diamond Market will add over 1000 residents and several office buildings, which will provide customers with potential retailers to come to the neighborhood and allow the residents to have options to buy basic needs and goods without having to drive to adjacent areas. When I moved into my townhouse in July of 2014. There's hardly anything here. Lake Street was still a one way, and there are a couple of bars open, a very good restaurant in the immediate and even in the broader area. Since then, I've seen my neighborhood flourish with restaurants, shops, gyms, etc., mainly due to the influx of new residents in the neighborhood. There's also increased safety in the neighborhood for all the new residents and families moving in. In addition, I'm the proud owner of a beautiful golden interior puppy named Oscar. He's very energetic and loves nothing more than to be outside. Our neighborhood needs more parks. Both dog parks for our pets can run off leash and park share with people, kids, pedestrians and cyclists. I believe the Riverfront Park, the De Niro Markets Development will be a centerpiece of the community and help those from around the neighborhood and the city gather and hopefully build new friendships and relationships. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker this evening is David Hagan.
Speaker 2: Good evening, folks. Thank you for taking my call tonight. Is there any way I can share my screen for just a moment?
Speaker 0: Unfortunately not. They were. No, there's not a way. No.
Speaker 7: I was going to share, but I'd like to talk about tonight.
Speaker 2: Is the discrepancy in life or that you are is a 13 year difference in number of years, you're expected to live in certain parts of Denver versus other parts of Denver. I'm curious as to how we're going to rent luxury apartments to folks when they find out that the life expectancy is 13 years less in that neighborhood than it is in Los Park or Cherry Creek. And then how are we going to get folks to rent those apartments when Suncor is polluting the area at a rate much higher than they've been permitted to do? And some say something like 7 million people die every year to fly in particular due to exposure to fine particulate matter, which is exactly what Suncor is doing. They're spreading a bunch of fine particulate matter in that area at much heavier amounts than they are in other areas. We also have let's see what else. Oh yeah. So there's 20,405 or so empty apartments, right. Currently in Denver. I thought it was a little bit higher than that. There's 27,000 on on the way. I'm not sure if these apartments are on the way as well as those on top of the 27,000. But that puts it at 50,000 apartments. What is going to make folks want to rent these luxury apartments versus other luxury apartments? To me, it sounds like we already have some hard things in against what's going to make you want to rent there. I'm going to die younger or I'm going to get exposure to fine particulate matter, and I don't think I want to live there. That's a conversation for a day tomorrow. We need to be having a conversation about why are we doing this to the folks that already live in that area. But I'm very much opposed to this happening, putting a separate building for the minimal amount of affordable housing that most of it isn't even affordable housing is not okay, and they should be mixed together and it should be a much higher rate. Right now, we don't have an apartment problem. We don't have a housing problem. We have an affordability problem. We have the housing to has all of the folks that are in Denver right now. We just are charging way too much and we continue to raise the rents. It affects everybody. It doesn't just affect the folks at the bottom. It affects all of us on the way down. Rents across the board continue to rise and people that do not continue to make more money without getting an entry salary. How are we expected to pay our rent? And that goes up and down. And then the folks that can't pay their rent are forced to move outside of the city. So are the people that are cleaning your houses and cleaning the buildings and the people that are working in the retail stores. How far out of Denver are they supposed to live before that? They can afford to their housing and who's going to pay for them to get bused back into Denver to do the work that nobody that the affluent folks don't want to do? These are questions that we need to be asking ourselves. Everybody deserves a place to live. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you, David. Our next speaker this evening is Stephan Bencic.
Speaker 4: Hi. My name's Steve Munchak. I live in District six in University Park, so I just want to say so the seniors that kind of came from a lot of cold, hard facts. Housing First, there is not nearly enough supply here to meet demand as we're seeing. And I will give the councils some credit here. This is something we're starting to see a lot more awareness of. So I'm optimistic about that. But we still do have a ways to go. And the second one is that the city's rezoning process is rather Byzantine and makes building that much needed supply a lot harder than it should. Yes. And the fact that we're sitting in a hearing about whether or not somebody should be allowed to build affordable housing on an empty lot already zoned for residential use, it's kind of evidence of that. I wholeheartedly support this request for rezoning because like I mentioned before, we really, really need it. You can see it here and all the exploding rents and the property prices throughout the city, which has become a really hot topic. Pretty much everyone before me.
Speaker 2: Has mentioned and the rampant.
Speaker 4: Displacement and homelessness that come out of this. This deal, which meets all the legal requirements possible, is a win win for everyone involved will benefit the people of the city by driving down housing prices and the cost of living, which I agree with. A lot of people who spoke before me is probably the biggest issue facing the city today. Well, there's so much to be done on the housing front. I strongly urge you to vote yes for this. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Katie Blakey.
Speaker 3: Hello. My name is Katie Blakey and I live in District ten. First off, Mr. Robinson from CPD said that there is some vulnerability, displacement in this area because of the high percentage of renters. Then one wanted to say that over 318 people have already been displaced directly because of this rezoning. On November 30th, 300 people were displaced for this rezoning to take place, with Denver police attacking unhoused people and their advocates pepper balls and pepper spray. The initial rezoning meeting for this property took place just 16 days later. 18 more people were displaced from this area this year on April 27. Also wanted to express my frustration with how opaque the process around this rezoning has been. During the initial LUDIE committee meeting. There were considerable issues with the rezoning, including the environmental and health impact of such a large development so close to the Platte River. It was an incredibly contentious discussion, but the rezoning got pushed out of Looney anyway. The required public hearing for this was supposed to be on March 15th, but was delayed until today, May 24th without explanation. One of your colleagues recently said during a webinar on council processes that the content of a bill would not materially change between when it was passed out of the committee and when it comes before the full council. Why then the two and a half month delay on the public hearing for this bill? How can the public know or trust that you all CPD and the developer have put in the necessary work to address the issues brought up during that leading committee meeting? Because of the lack of transparency around this bill, I ask that you send it back to committee so that the public can have a greater input and visibility on this rezoning, which could which could significantly impact the health of one of our most vital waterways and better address solutions for the potential displaced.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is David Pardo.
Speaker 2: Hi. Thank you, city council for making time to hear from all of us today. My name is David Carto. I serve on the board of Highland United Neighbors. I live in District ten, not representing honey tonight. Just representing my own interests. Which are those of a renter. I heard plenty of comments before earlier tonight about how there are all of these vacant luxury apartments, how these will remain vacant when they're built, all of those sorts of things. So I went in and I looked at the four buildings that are next to this property. So you have the Waterford, the Imlay Building, City Gate, and a building by MRA. Not sure what they stand for anywhere between all of them. They have roughly 1000 units. 67 of those are available. Which sounds like it's roughly 6.7%, but that's actually incorrect. Only seven of them are available for move in today. The rest are available for move in in the future because a current resident is leaving for any. They bought a house. They're getting married. They're moving in with their significant other. They're changing cities for whatever reason. They need a bigger place. Only seven out of 1000 units in that immediate area are actually available today, are sitting vacant right now. We have a housing crisis in the city. We don't have enough units and for any number of reasons. This is where we can build apartments. We can't seem to build them in Hilltop. We can't build them in the country club neighborhood. We can't build them in bulk. So instead, the children of those relatively fancy neighborhoods end up being able to afford rent in places like what is about to be built. And it would be great if instead of 15% affordable, it was 30% affordable or even 50% for it. If that would pencil out, it would be great if the City Council would take up affordability. Now that we've changed some of the laws at the state level and mandate for levels of affordability and projects. We can't really do that yet. So in the interim, it makes sense to build more housing. It makes sense to build more housing in a place where the active vacancy rate is under 1%. It makes sense to build it in a place that is currently an open field that I drive past every single day on my way to the office. And yeah, I absolutely support this rezoning and the things that will come of it. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Jesse Paris.
Speaker 4: Yesterday evening. A member of the council cannot be hurt.
Speaker 0: Go ahead, Jesse.
Speaker 4: Yes. My name is personal representative for Denver. Homeless, formerly homeless out loud, black star, symbol for self, the best of the best of times, as well as the Unity Party of Colorado. The front line black male and I will be the next mayor of Denver in 2023. I am against this rezoning tonight. This is not affordable. Affordable for all who can afford this. The rich white yuppie boy yuppies that are moving to the city. This is not going to help the poor residents of this area. Five points at least. Denver. This is ethnic cleansing at its finest in a council tax office tonight you let us know that what you said. So I am definitely against this really go back to the drawing board and actually great affordable housing. People can actually afford this who honestly can afford people that are moving from other states such as California.
Speaker 7: And New York.
Speaker 4: With higher economy, higher income. That's the only people that can afford this. The natives, the people that have been here for generations cannot afford. Live at this property. This is not affordable. No matter how many times you say that there's a affordability clause and there's affordability within this. Only 50% of the units are actually affordable. It's not affordable. Out of 1200 units, only 50% are actually going to be affordable.
Speaker 2: That is an atrocity.
Speaker 4: So we're watching a devastated council, so we'll be taking note of your vote. If you pass this, we know exactly where you stand. Oh, honestly, it meets all the criteria. Start you say. So there's really nothing I can set up on a tank or vote on this. But we would preferably, as they actually demand you to not vote yes on this rezoning tonight. We don't need no more unintended consequences from all this development that is going on in the moral high income states where you have to have moral high income in order to survive. As the previous speakers have already stated. This area is full time and that is not the answer. Providing housing that people can actually afford to access this property could be something.
Speaker 2: That.
Speaker 4: Can actually accommodate those. Or at 3:30 a.m. across the board we get the developer wants to create housing that nobody can afford. So people from out of state are the city that are flying in left or right because their economies are tanking and they're coming here because it's actually affordable to them. But to us native people that have been here for generations, it's just not affordable to us. So we have no vote tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Steven Swanson. Go ahead. All right.
Speaker 7: Hey, how's it going, everybody? My name is Stephanie Swanson, and I am in favor of the result. I live at 1750. We want us to shoot at the Colorado in one of the affordable units. I've lived in Denver for about eight years now. And over the course of eight years, I've seen prices go up and up in Denver. In about four years ago, I bought my first condo in Cap Hill and scooped up as much money as I could to buy my first condo as a 400 square foot condo in Cap Hill. It was a converted motel about three years ago from one of my clients. I do personal training, by the way. I think I mentioned that one of my clients here had mentioned the Colorado was being built, and I wanted to kind of get out of where I was living. And the Colorado never had a affordable program. About 10% of the units there were income restricted. And I thought, hey, why not? Maybe I can get out of where I live and move and move up, I guess. So I ended up winning the lottery program for one of the affordable units of the Colorado, and it changed my life a lot. Like my quality of life just skyrocketed, and especially during COVID, because our gym shut down and I had to kind of adapt. And thank goodness I was able to live up in Colorado close to all my clients because primarily I work with people downtown and it gave me the opportunity to still work and earn a living and a pretty get I mean, better living, living at the Colorado. It gave me more opportunities that I wouldn't have been able to have living in my prior spot. So with the Navajo Market, I feel like it's going to open up a lot of new opportunities for people like myself. And I'm really impressed with the there they have 15%, I guess of their units are going to be affordable versus my 10% in my building. And I believe that we have 34 units in the Colorado and the Navajo. It's 150 acres. So that's a lot of potential for people to help improve their lives and their circumstance. And so I'm certainly in favor of what this has done for my life, and I'm really excited for what it can do for other people's lives as well. So that's kind of my stance on this whole rezoning. So thank you so much.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Our next speaker is Jordan Blond.
Speaker 2: Hi. Has Jordan Black? I'm an urban designer in the city of Denver. I grew up in Denver, lived here for the majority of my life. And I'm also the former chair of the Mayor's Bicycle Advisory Committee. And I want to speak in favor of this rezoning, especially from a public realm and mobility standpoint. I think that when you have the opportunity to use development to achieve better mobility, better access, better connectivity, and a better set of places and parks for poor people, that's a really special opportunity and something that shouldn't be passed up. I think the protected bike lanes or the separate bike lanes along that Argo are really needed and the connections down to the trail, the Platte River Trail are very needed there. It's currently pretty hard to access the trail and it's unsafe to do so. And it's very old infrastructure and I think there's a lot of room for for improvement. But the piece that probably is most exciting to me is how this is all going to be improved to connect people to the river, create a more meaningful place along the river. As I said, I grew up in Denver. I spent a lot of time in this area. I used to live up the street up until September of this past year. And, you know, the river is a it's something that we only have on of and it's something that we haven't treated well over the past hundred or so years. And using development to to improve it is something that we should definitely say yes to. I will see the rest of my time. Thank you, Counsel. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Jordan. Our next speaker this evening is Susan Powers. Evening, Madam President, and members of the City Council. I wish I could see you in person rather.
Speaker 7: Than this way, but we'll take it.
Speaker 0: My name is Susan Powers, president of Urban Ventures. I live at 1475 Dale Gainey Street in Denver. Council District nine have been here for living here for for 16 years. Last month, Golub and company selected Urban Ventures and River Development as their.
Speaker 7: Affordable housing partner. On the demand scenario market site, and we're.
Speaker 0: Moving forward with the development.
Speaker 7: Of a very unique addition to Denver, which will offer supportive housing to homeless youth young.
Speaker 0: Adults between the ages of 1825. Shannon Cox Baker was a founder of River Development, and I have both been involved in the creation of hundreds of.
Speaker 7: Affordable housing units over the past 20 years, and we have learned a lot about what.
Speaker 0: Works and what doesn't. What we see around us every day is that people in this age group of 18 to 25 year olds are some of the most vulnerable people and need.
Speaker 7: Special or special combination of services to help them move their lives in a different direction. The service provider together, who I hope to be hearing from soon, Chris Nelson.
Speaker 0: Has an.
Speaker 7: Excellent track record and with their experience, we believe this project will be a successful success for the.
Speaker 0: Residents.
Speaker 7: When we presented this concept to Gala, they fully embraced it, which we know is a.
Speaker 0: Critical is critical.
Speaker 7: To moving for.
Speaker 0: An idea to reality.
Speaker 7: We reached out to the.
Speaker 0: Community and we're becoming getting.
Speaker 7: What we believe will be a long term relationships with a number of organizations. To help us make this the best housing environment for residents, Shannon and I are working on a number of affordable housing developments in the metro area.
Speaker 0: And see this relationship with the globe.
Speaker 7: As the strongest commitment to.
Speaker 0: Affordable housing that we've seen with a master developer.
Speaker 7: That will truly.
Speaker 0: Incorporate affordable housing throughout.
Speaker 7: Their development and to also support the creation of housing for a very low income population. As you know, there's currently no affordable housing exist in the generico market neighborhood and we can have another conversation about how about how we got to that point. But we are where we are.
Speaker 0: Through Gallop's commitment and this project that we're developing, 15% of the units will be affordable and we're exceeding their requirement.
Speaker 7: For creating 40 units.
Speaker 0: That are at below 60%. Because what we plan to develop is.
Speaker 7: 56 units that will be at the army levels of 30.
Speaker 0: To 50%. In addition, Gallup is assisting us with some of the.
Speaker 7: Pre-Development issues on the site so that we're ready to submit for tax credits in August of this year. Finally, when I think of those young adults, I know that they are the future. They are our future. So what could be more impactful for us and for Gallup and for Rivett than to address their housing needs in our developments? We hope this serves as a model for other development developers in town and I can assure you that what we create in this property.
Speaker 0: Will be important for the lives of people. I appreciate your attention and hope you support the rezoning. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Joe Loconte. Good evening, council members. I'm Jill Logan to the executive director of the Denver Street Partnership and a resident of the city's Park West neighborhood. I'm speaking today in support of the proposed zoning change. The Denver Street Partnership is a coalition of community groups advocating for people.
Speaker 1: Friendly.
Speaker 0: Streets in Denver. Streets that are designed.
Speaker 3: For people are living in public.
Speaker 0: Spaces that connect us to job.
Speaker 1: School.
Speaker 0: Services and each other and.
Speaker 3: Help foster health, happiness and.
Speaker 0: Opportunity for community members. The proposed development at Tin Argo Market will.
Speaker 1: Enhance pedestrian and bicycle connectivity and safety within the.
Speaker 3: Neighborhood, as well as access to downtown and other surrounding areas.
Speaker 0: The Demonstrates Partnership is particularly supportive of the proposals to provide an elevated and protected bike facility on the narrow streets, to build a new multimodal.
Speaker 3: Access ramp to the Platte River.
Speaker 0: Trail and to extend the Reno Promenade, the de Argo bike lane, while also connecting to the future bicycle improvements the city is planning on where WADA and Allegheny.
Speaker 1: Leading people on.
Speaker 3: Bikes.
Speaker 0: Directly into Union Station. I therefore encourage you to vote in support of the proposed zoning change. Thank you very much. Thank you. Our next speaker is Chris Nelson.
Speaker 2: Good evening. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 4: Good evening. Council members. Can you hear me?
Speaker 0: Mm hmm. Go ahead.
Speaker 2: Great. Great.
Speaker 4: So my name is Chris Nelson. I live in Erie, Colorado, and I'm here to talk to you tonight about what Susan shared. And we've talked a little bit about is this idea of housing for youth experiencing homelessness. And so my role is that I'm the chief executive officer at an organization called Together in Boulder, and we have been around for 55 years and are formerly known as Attention Moms. Now, the reason why this is important is that across our country, in every community, one out of every 30 adolescents will have an episode of homelessness in any given year. One out of ten young adults will have an episode of homelessness in any given year. And we can say the Voices of Youth Count Project through Chief and Hall is the research behind that data. The reasons why young people become or experience homelessness.
Speaker 2: Are largely.
Speaker 4: And unequivocally not their fault. So 30% of young people leading the foster care system experienced homelessness within 12 months. Young people are still even in liberal or progressive communities like Boulder or Denver. Young people are kicked out of their homes because of their orientation or their identity. In fact, close to 40% of young people across our country, in every community that are experiencing homelessness, are experiencing homelessness as a root cause of their identity or orientation. So. So I share that information with you. Not to make it seem as if young people who have episodes of homelessness are broken because they are not, but often don't have the skills necessary to get the job in housing to move on. So when we look at protective factors for young people, we talk always about a sense of belonging and community are the most important things for all of us, and specifically young people experiencing homelessness as well. And so there were a couple of comments earlier this evening about, you know, sort of isolating this population. But in fact, the model works because the population builds the network and relationships, the support that we all need it. It's developmentally normative to have young people living in dorm as they transition into adulthood. And it's a cultural norm to want to live with roommates or have to live with roommates in many contexts. And so when we talk.
Speaker 2: About the.
Speaker 4: 2700 location on this site, 55 units of permanent supportive housing, non time, limited supportive housing for young people transitioning from episodes of homelessness is life changing for them. It's also a significant upstream solution to the problem of chronic homelessness. The leading cause of chronic homelessness in our country is youth homelessness. So the investment is significant. We have a track record. We've got permanent supportive housing for transition aged youth 18 to 25 in Boulder. I'm going to run out of time here. I obviously urge you to support this rezoning and we'll stick around to answer any questions anybody has. Thank you so much for your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker this evening is Darrell Watson.
Speaker 2: Council, President Gilmore and.
Speaker 4: Members of council. Good evening.
Speaker 2: Thank you for your service to the.
Speaker 4: City and county of Denver. My name is Darrell Watson. I'm a 30 year resident of Denver's District nine. My statement tonight is informed by my leadership roles in enhancing parks and establishing housing stability in Denver. Those roles inform my rationale. But I'm here tonight to speak solely as a resident of District nine to express why.
Speaker 2: You should.
Speaker 4: Vote yes on changing the zoning classification for this development. First, the exhaustive three year community engaged process.
Speaker 2: To develop the land use recommendations within Blueprint Denver.
Speaker 4: Including the review criteria used by council when.
Speaker 2: Considering zoning changes.
Speaker 4: As well as the River.
Speaker 2: North Plan supports this zoning change. Next, this development incorporates framework from several of Denver's multimodal.
Speaker 4: Plans and thoughtfully approaches density in a way that builds and connects to convenient transit options, improved.
Speaker 2: And safe.
Speaker 4: Biking, walking and.
Speaker 2: Rolling infrastructure.
Speaker 4: While providing much needed open space and unobstructed access to our beautiful Platte.
Speaker 2: River.
Speaker 4: Finally, there's a development on an industrial parcel will provide a significant.
Speaker 2: Increase in affordable units.
Speaker 4: Well above the city requirement.
Speaker 2: An equivalent linkage fee value.
Speaker 4: Providing the dignity of housing for many.
Speaker 2: Who would otherwise not be able to afford to.
Speaker 4: Live in Denver. It will create needed jobs, immediate construction jobs, and the planned retail space will also create longer term, necessary employment. The developers of this project demonstrated their interest and constructive two way community informed conversations by engaging in discussions with City Council, design, neighbors and other interested community members. These collaborative discussions with an eye to an equitable outcome were the catalyst for increasing our affordable mix to 40 plus affordable units for residents earning less than 60%.
Speaker 2: Ami also 30% of all affordable units.
Speaker 4: Will be two bedrooms, providing opportunities for families.
Speaker 2: Essential workers to live in the city.
Speaker 4: They love. Denver The equity focus also took them back to the drawing.
Speaker 2: Board to reduce the height of buildings as they draw down to the river.
Speaker 4: And to the extended South.
Speaker 2: Platte River frontage. I understand that these decisions are not just a matter of data. Your decision.
Speaker 4: Will impact people, and for some.
Speaker 2: There's a development impacts their sense of what Denver is as well as their sense of place. It's important that you hear those voices. The decision in the end is yours to make.
Speaker 4: I encourage councils to look.
Speaker 2: At your North Stars blueprint. Denver and.
Speaker 4: Denver Comprehensive Plan.
Speaker 2: 2040. These pivotal documents will lay bare.
Speaker 4: Any conscious and unconscious.
Speaker 2: Biases. They provide a clear, consistent, fair.
Speaker 4: And equitable.
Speaker 2: Process that all Denver neighbors can rely on as we collaborate on.
Speaker 4: Imagining and.
Speaker 2: Building an accessible.
Speaker 4: City for all. Thank you for voting yes.
Speaker 2: On this proposal.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker this evening is Brad Evans.
Speaker 2: It has become the water waterkeeper for the South. When I first heard about this project, I made some calls and learned a lot about it and found out that they were proposing. I have an MP to prepare for, so we immediately jumped into action then and started having meetings with this developer to start talking about the long term plan and River North that was set at 110. It was set at 55 feet up the river. And what we kept finding was that this development was responsive to having a deeper conversation.
Speaker 4: About the.
Speaker 2: Health of the river, the life of the river, and how their project would affect the river in the future. And I'm super excited about what this team has put together. It's a big deal for the South Platte River to have this kind of attention on a project that's this scale of so many years have gone by where projects turn their head, their heads or their backs to the river. And this is one of those rare opportunities where a project is actually making the river its central feature. So I'm here speaking on behalf of the project as the water keeper, because this is one of those once in a lifetime projects. As we all know, the Navajo Market has turned into a.
Speaker 4: Bunch of five story.
Speaker 2: Apartment buildings that never really integrated themselves into the river. And this project, as it's planned and as this developer has made major commitments, not just to me as the water keeper, but to as partnering with the city and with the adjacent developers to really develop develop what it looks like and become an active piece. So I'm super excited to ask you guys to support this project because the river is our life and the river will benefit from this kind of development, not just here, but in the future. So if you come across another development, it's going to go to these things that this developer has.
Speaker 0: I think. Brad, you got me to turn. There you.
Speaker 2: Go. Go ahead. You know, they came they came to it with a good plan. After our conversations and conversations with the community, they're coming to this project with a great plan. So I think this is an asset to Denver. It's an asset to the river. And as the water people having this kind of input on the project is an awesome. So I'm asking for your support for this project and thanks.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our last speaker this evening is Adam Astrof.
Speaker 8: Hey, City Council. Can you hear me okay?
Speaker 0: Mm hmm. Go ahead.
Speaker 8: Yeah. My name is Adam Ashraf. I live at 361 LRT Street in District seven, and I am in support of this rezoning. You know, this was originally supposed to come up in February, and since then, the housing crisis in Colorado has turned into a new and nightmarish phase. There's under 1500 houses, condos, townhomes, whatever, for sale in the Denver metro area. There's bidding wars starting for rentals. We are in a severe housing crisis with basically no slack units. And unfortunately, you know, we're never going to be able to solve our problems trying to extract a few dozen affordable units out of a large scale developer on land next to, you know, a rail line and a highway. You guys, you know, I'm glad I'm the last speaker. I hope the next hearing is fast. And, you know, at the end of this, you can all go home, get a good night's sleep and call Laura all day tomorrow and get her to start the residential infill project. Because unfortunately, if we don't start something now by 2023, all this fear and anger, the alternative facts you heard tonight about, you know, 50,000 magic vacant units. It's just going to get worse. So please support this. We need more homes now, but we can't build next to highways. You've got to take on your own neighborhoods. You've got to take on zoning. People are getting ground up, but we're spinning our wheels and this is going to take five years. So please call up Laura tomorrow and let's fix our city. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Adam. And that concludes our speakers. Appreciate everybody being concise in their statements. And we got through everybody and a good time. So we will now take questions from members of Council on Council Bill 83 and or 515. And it looks like we have up first Councilmember Ortega. Madam President, I wanted to first ask a couple of questions of Scott Robinson. In looking through the documents. It makes reference to the vesting period being ten years, creating vested rights on what can be allowed to be built. So if something doesn't happen outside the ten years, what does that mean to the property? Can you explain that? And I'm assuming that the vesting also is on the side of the obligations that are made as well in terms of some of the infrastructure improvements and other social obligations. Can you speak to that? Scott.
Speaker 4: Yes. So the vesting applies to certain elements of the zoning and the open space requirements. So basically what it means is that the city cannot unilaterally change those standards without the approval of the property owner for that ten year period. So from the approval of the developer agreement until ten years after that, if you say you cannot apply for rezoning or council members can apply for rezoning without the approval of the property owner. So the the other requirements of the zoning agreement, as far as the public improvements, the affordable housing, all those things, those apply in perpetuity . And any change to those would need to be agreed by both the property owner and the city.
Speaker 0: So if the ten years has expired and nothing has happened on the property. How how how does that ten year vesting apply?
Speaker 4: Right. So it's something.
Speaker 0: Like it used to happen in you know, in the past, if somebody got a rezoning and nothing happened over a certain period of time, it would revert back to the old zoning. So that's what I'm trying to clarify.
Speaker 4: Yeah. So it wouldn't revert back to the zoning. It would be in place until they went through another rezoning process. So what the vesting means is that the city cannot rezone it. So we cannot do a legislative rezoning, we cannot apply additional design overlays or things like that without the that apply to these particular elements of zone . So it's not the entire zoning code that's in the developing agreement that pulls out certain elements of the zoning code, mostly related to use and heights, so the city cannot change unilaterally during that ten year period. So whether or not over the ten year period. Over that ten year period. The city without the property owners consent initiated a rezoning on that property after that ten year period. It's like any other property in the city where the property owner can initiate a reserving. The city administration can initiate a resulting or council can initiate a reason.
Speaker 0: Okay. When was the last time this property was an application came forward on this property for rezoning?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 4: This property was reserved in 2007, I believe.
Speaker 0: Okay. But didn't have it. We had an application since then. And when I say this property, we're really talking about the there's multiple parcels on it with this application. And so can you just clarify that?
Speaker 4: Yeah. So the the properties within this application have not been resolved required to be resolved since 2007. There are other properties within the larger Donato market development that have been resolved since then.
Speaker 0: But none of these parcels.
Speaker 4: None of these specific causes.
Speaker 0: Okay. Just wanted to clarify that. A couple other questions, if you don't mind me continuing. So we have two separate applications, but we're doing one public hearing.
Speaker 4: So what is the what is the rezoning and what is the development agreement?
Speaker 0: Okay. So why I mean, historically, we would not allow applications for parcels that were not contiguous to one another. Can you explain why we're allowing that to happen?
Speaker 4: There's no rule against it. We've done it a few times in the past. It's just not common because normally when a developer build something, they own contiguous properties, but so it's just that it doesn't happen very often. But there's no reason that we couldn't do it and.
Speaker 2: We've done it.
Speaker 4: In the past.
Speaker 0: Okay. In several applications we've seen come forward in other areas of the city that were large parcels. I'm thinking about the seed property in southeast Denver, the Loretta Heights property in southwest Denver. Both of those had strong engagement from CPD along with the developer in engaging the community. Has that similar kind of effort taken place on this property?
Speaker 4: Uh, not to the level of Loreto or the Sea Dog property. In both of those cases, there were not adopted neighborhood plans providing guidance for those properties. So we had to do more community engagement to understand. In this case, we have the River North plan, so we didn't need that same level of engagement over the large global review process that was required, a public meeting and community engagement. So we did go through that process.
Speaker 0: So how.
Speaker 2: Much.
Speaker 0: I'm sorry to interrupt you. How much does the. CVD now take into account an equity lens around the engagement process.
Speaker 4: Yeah, certainly. We are always trying to do better in our engagement and create more equitable engagement. And it is something we are we are having an increased focus on. So certainly in our in our processes are. Plans that were recently launched are about to be launched. There's a much greater focus on equity, more detail in how we're going to do equitable engagement.
Speaker 0: And equity isn't just about what comes out of the actual application. It's the whole engagement process with the adjacent neighborhoods. And seems to me that the engagement should be equal or greater when you're dealing with lower income and people of color communities, as opposed to just relying on existing plans as a means of assuming there's enough guidance to address, you know, certain things as part of an application. So I just wanted to share that. My last question is. Are you familiar with whether or not and maybe this is a question for the applicant. Any city resources are going to be sought out for the housing. On the on the site and particularly the affordable housing that is part of this application.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I'm not sure about that. So we can either ask the captain or I also have Andrew Johnson and read one thing from hosts. Two available to answer questions about the affordable housing.
Speaker 0: So either one, it doesn't matter to me who actually answers the question. I just think it's helpful to to know if city resources are being sought after, not not only for the affordable housing, but I guess it would be helpful to know from the applicant if you're looking at a metro district or tax increment financing to make the project work, or will this be solely financed with private resources?
Speaker 4: Yeah. So looks like we've got Brad here, and then maybe we can get one of the advocates who is probably.
Speaker 2: Good evening. Good question. Councilman Ortega, I can't speak to the specific details of the of the proposed affordable development. Maybe Ms.. Powers earlier could. But from in terms of the agreement, the 6% AMI in below affordable units that are contemplated as part of that development are eligible for funding from the city and county of Denver through host . The remaining balance of the requirement throughout the rest of the site are not eligible for. Well, I shouldn't say that they're not anticipated to receive affordable housing funding. Should they apply for some further and deeper restrictions are likely to apply for any of the developments that are that are funded with those.
Speaker 0: So there's there's nothing that stops you from trying to build greater affordability by securing some of those resources, whether it's for tax credits or looking at some of the city housing funds to help augment any of that. Is correct. Correct. To to assume. But that's not necessarily what the commitment is to correct the commitment.
Speaker 2: No, the commitment is for 50% affordability across the site of 80% and below. And among that 25% of the affordable units need to be affordable at or below 6%. Am I on? The primary satisfaction of that will come in the form of the kind of stand alone team permanent supportive housing development that you've heard some of the commenter speak to tonight.
Speaker 0: Okay. Have you guys had any outreach from the schools in terms of the school district, in terms of what might be available, given the fact that we're now going to have for close to 2000 units on the DeMarco property footprint, if you will, and any. Potential families that might be there. And as we have more and more kids in in the area. Has there been any input from the schools on a need or desire for a school in this area?
Speaker 4: Number of public schools is preferred on all rezoning applications, though they received a copy of the rezoning application during the review process. They do not provide us any comments but do not hear back from them on whether they have any concerns or needs related to project. Pretty good.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you, Scott. I have no further questions. Thank you, Madam President. All right. Thank you. Member council member Ortega. Appreciate that. Next up, we have Council Member Cashman.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam President. Let's see, I guess, Scott. First, Scott, can you talk a little bit again about the planning board vote? And you said it sounded to me like you were saying that the vast majority of the objection has been dealt with in the development agreement. Is that correct?
Speaker 4: So the on the money board vote there were four no votes. Recommendation of denial of the antiwar vote. Five in favor of those four. One of them said explicitly he was voting no because of the allowed height along the river, that at that time we had amended the disaster guidelines to include a 65 foot requirement. So the zoning at that time was allowed 100 and Tennessee. And so now out of that 65 foot limit into the design, certain guidelines. So we do believe that addresses the concern from that member. The other three no votes were more related to issues around the impacts on displacement, whether the affordable housing agreement was strong enough. And the other sort of general health, safety and welfare concerns and equity concerns. So we as outlined in the staff report in the presentation, we believe that the affordable housing agreement and the other elements of the zoning and the development agreement address those concerns and requirements. But those have not changed significantly since the planning board hearing.
Speaker 5: Okay. So what you're saying is you think one of the votes has been taken care of, but there are three that would probably still be in opposition.
Speaker 4: Yeah. Okay. More or less.
Speaker 5: Yeah. Thank you. Is there someone here that can speak a little bit about the team plan?
Speaker 4: Yes. I believe Marco from Daddy should be available.
Speaker 0: All right. Great. And Mark, if you want to raise your hand or. There we go. We got you in here. So. Go ahead with your question, Councilman.
Speaker 5: Yeah. Marco, I don't know if you heard my question, but I'm just wondering if you can tell me about the TDM plan proposed for this development.
Speaker 2: Good evening. Can you hear me okay? Yes.
Speaker 0: Okay. Please go ahead and introduce yourself.
Speaker 2: Yes. Hi. Good evening, everyone. My name is Marko. Kevin? Yes, I'm a study engineering supervisor for the transportation portion of development review for our department. And there will be a requirement for a2pm program, the specifics of which have not yet been determined. But there will be a requirement. In fact, the the TBM program is actually part of their overall traffic impact program to reduce congestion, but also offer incentives to just just improve mobility in general for not only vehicles, but pedestrians and bicyclists as well as utilization of transit.
Speaker 5: Okay. How many team planning is is as far as being a formality and our process is a bit new. How many formal TDs plans have had done have been processed?
Speaker 2: I don't know exactly, but that's certainly something that we can find out. If the question is how many plans that are in process, then I can work with with our department. And are you familiar with the new team ordinance?
Speaker 5: Yes.
Speaker 2: Yes, of course. Then I'll be working with Zach to get that information first for council.
Speaker 5: Okay. That'd be appreciated. Thank you. Last question, I guess is either maybe for Susan Powers or Brad, but the question being I'm a little unclear when this is. I'm trying to remember a conversation regarding the affordable housing element at the Kendra development at Arkansas and Birch. And what I'm remembering is that there was a preference from those dispensing the tax credits that affordable housing be in a single building and my remembering correctly at all.
Speaker 2: I don't know that it's a preference. Councilman Cashman But in order to receive an award of long term housing tax credits from from Jafa, you need to present a plan for financing. And generally it's on a competitive basis. And all of the things being equal, Jaffa boards. Biotech sorry, tax credits to those deals who have the greatest number of affordable units at the deepest of the affordability for the longest period of time. And so it tends to work that in almost all the big funds, 100% or very near hundred percent of the units are arguably affordable because it requires that level of subsidy in order to make economic sense of the transaction.
Speaker 5: Great. Last question. Whomever can answer it. If you could just clarify for me again of the affordable units on this site, how many will be in the the building for change and how many will be, I guess, spread throughout the rest of the development?
Speaker 2: So so the agreement itself contemplates 15% of the overall development. I think the plan is 1000 to 1400 units. So, you know, in the middle of that, we're talking about 1200 units and roughly 180 there for units of affordability specific to 6% and minor below. And that parcel, there has to be a minimum of 40. And I believe I heard the applicants or I'm sorry the developers of that parcel say that they're going to do 55 units. And I've seen Towers nodding. So they wish you can get into further detail.
Speaker 0: No, that's correct. Councilman Cashman we're planning 55 or 56 units.
Speaker 7: So it's a lot more than the 40 that are required. And those are at a lower AMI than what the affordable housing plan is contemplating.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I believe you said 30 to 50%, Susan. Yeah.
Speaker 7: Yeah. And I think the history of this is that the in the building project and maybe.
Speaker 0: Chris Nelson can come back.
Speaker 7: On here and, you know, the young adults that are moving in there, they are below 30%. I mean, they're coming in there without without many sources of income. So it'll it'll be far below 60% Ami.
Speaker 5: Okay. Thank you very much. That's all I have. Madam President.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you all. And thank you, Councilmember Cashman. Seeing no other hands raise. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 83. Councilmember CdeBaca.
Speaker 3: Thank you. You know, I've heard a lot of testimony tonight in support of this project that for me were included.
Speaker 1: Reasons that.
Speaker 3: Are justification for not passing this through right now. I think that criterion about advancing the public safety and welfare of an area is being missed every time we're settling for the rates of affordable housing that we're allowing and not taking into consideration all of the changes that are happening at the state level. I think that there are many elements of this project that will be great if they happen, but I'm very concerned that we're setting the bar so low in a place where we've heard multiple times we do not have any affordable housing. The need is so much greater there that I don't think that this meets that criteria of advancing the public welfare of this area. And so I'm definitely. Hope, wishing that we could have got something else. But I'm not supportive of this tonight. And I stand with the community members who have highlighted that even if it's come, even if it's consistent with a plan that wasn't built on equity, it's not equitable. And that is what community has raised over and over again. The plans that we're measuring these up against were not equitable from the very beginning, and so we have a very shaky foundation that we're building on. That's it for my comments. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Council member CdeBaca and the scene. I was going to give it a second. Councilmember Sandoval.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. So I was reviewing the design guidelines and standards, and I just have to call out design guideline standard 8.4 and what it does in the adopted design guidelines and standards for this whole entire project. It talks about specifically, it calls out along the river. And during my public testimony at Ludy and throughout this entire process, I have talked about how this was an opportunity to have this be the front door to the river instead of the back door to the river. And these design guidelines and standards were amended. May have just said this month of 2021 and it talks about with frontage along the South River loop shall be limited to 55 feet in height and a step back of 40 feet. So I would just like to thank the developer. I would like to thank everybody who worked on this project. And there are tons of design standards in this document that talk about parking. So when you have structured parking that it actually has to look like it is part of the already built environment. It talks about where pedestrian lighting, it calls out where pedestrian lighting is. It calls about calls out specifically even benches and landscaping. And it calls out the need for more trees. And it gives a lot of specificity to where actually where trees are supposed to be planted. I wish I had more design by my standards like this in northwest Denver as I was doing projects. I'll definitely be looking at this document and taking cues. It talks about Windows transparency. So in Denver we have heard about how architecture is not taking cues from the built environment and how our community does not feel that the infill development and redevelopment is lasting quality architecture. And I really believe that some of these design guidelines and standards will actually get this project to be a lasting project for the next seven generations. I'm I've been pleasantly surprised while browsing this document, so I just want to thank everybody on the project team to get it this far . These are pretty phenomenal design guidelines and standards. And with that, I will be offering my support this evening. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Sandoval. Councilmember Ortega. Thank you, Madam President. First, I wanted to share that that I share some of the sentiments of the community and concerns about just overall impact to the gas communities around the issue of displacement. We've seen that happen in their communities and obviously the five point community has experienced that as well. But that hasn't been a result of this particular project because the cargo market was a vacant parcel of land after the actual market left the city of Denver. This has not been a site where residential existed until, you know, more recent new buildings have been added to this site. I am excited about the opportunity for the 15% affordable housing. It's not as much as everybody would like to see, but the fact is we don't have the ability to demand or require that this application has been in the pipeline. And, you know, before any state legislation passed and as you all know, the Telluride ruling does not allow the city to it. You know, it did not allow the city to demand any affordability in projects that didn't have public financing in them. That was part of why I was asking the question. And obviously it doesn't preclude any portion of the property, particularly the what is designed to be the affordable component of this project to go after and secure city financing or charter financing to bring that affordability down, to be able to serve the emission levels that are identified in the project. I think the fact that this project interfaces with the river and creates greater opportunity for activity along the river is going to be good for the area. All of this development activity that's happening in this area also, I think, will put a lot more pressure on the city to step forward and to create the opportunity for an entire rebuild of the crossroad shelter across the street from this site. And make sure that not only do we have an emergency shelter that can meet people's immediate overnight needs, but that we have the ability within cities in this area to build up and be able to have more housing on that site and do a greater job of meeting the needs of of, you know, our vulnerable population in our city that is in need and demand of of more affordability. The fact that this will have 30 to 50 am I on the site I think is a good thing. So all of that to say that I will be supporting this tonight, I think as we have the opportunity down the road to look at the Coliseum property, which we the city of Denver own, we have the ability to demand a lot more from that site because it's city owned land. And I look forward to the opportunity to be engaged in that and make sure that that truly is a property and a project that will have full engagement with the community. The fact that we've got large parcels like this where we're doing a greater job with city staff time, that should be the same with these projects in this area of town as well. We're seeing that happen right now at the park, your golf course. But some of these large parcels in this area of town, we have not seen that same city staff time investment. And that I think needs to change because that's part of the equity in how our agencies are supposed to be doing a better job in engaging with our lower income communities. So thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilmember Ortega. Next step, we have council pro tem Torres. Thank you, Madam President. I'll just be really quick.
Speaker 3: I appreciate all of the partners.
Speaker 0: That have connected on this project from everything from youth housing to mobility and transportation to the waterway. I do want to mention, I think piggybacking on Councilwoman Ortega's comments, there is a tool coming through the state. It's been passed by both the Senate and the House, and it's on the governor's desk for signature. And that's House Bill 1117. That would give local, local jurisdictions the ability to create affordable housing standards. We don't have that right now. And that's that's the handcuff that we've got. But there is an advocacy opportunity right now for us to be able to open up this window statewide. And I look forward to seeing that happen. I do support the work that's gone into making this project as as open as it as it is and as open as it can be. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilmember Torres. Next up, we have Councilmember Connie.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Council President. I just want to observe what I think may have been a disconnect for some of the folks who testified today. Some folks maybe were very aware of all the components of the project and still opposed it. And I get that and it's fair. And I will just say that the community that has pushed hard has probably created space and resulted in more of these units in this project than would have been otherwise, even if it has been quite gotten to where you hope it would be. So I want to acknowledge those those folks. I also think there were those who testified who saw only a slide that mentioned 60 and 80% of am I. And this is a disadvantage of having a staff led process where rather than the project team getting in to share the story of the fact that they will go above and beyond that and that they already have a contract for sale, and that those units might be contingent on getting other funding. But that let's I just want to be really clear and underline this, because I think it might have gotten lost, folks. This this project will build housing for youth who are experiencing or exiting homelessness. That includes those youth do exist in this neighborhood. I have seen me any youth studies and you know have family members who've worked on projects. There are foster care used in this neighborhood who are at risk of homelessness. And there are those who have, you know, probably already been trying to make ends meet on their own with parents who've been deported or parents who have not been able to care for them. And so I do think that these these youth aren't necessarily other youth. They're Denver's youth. And if we voted this down tonight, we would be eliminating an opportunity for 50 plus units of housing for those experiencing homelessness. And I do think there are some who testified who did not realize that because it wasn't part of the presentation , it was part of the testimony that followed. And so that's just a disadvantage of this process. But I believe the project meets the criteria and I want to thank so I will be voting for it tonight. But I also just wanted to piggyback on Councilwoman Torres's point about 1117, because I think that I want to be clear , I don't think this project necessarily might have turned out differently if 1117 were the law of the land, because inclusionary housing is, at the end of the day, a market based tool. It is about taking land that was already purchased at a market rate and people who have to go to banks and lend and investors and pay them back interest rates and then leverage affordable housing within it. There are almost a thousand a thousand inclusionary housing ordinances across the country, and almost every one of them is between ten and 20% of affordability. And almost every one of them is between 50% and 80% of area median income. There are a few exceptions. You know, Boulder goes up to 25%. They also have some higher arms in there. Some cities go to lower AMI levels. Maybe they get you know, they may give bonus points for going below 50% of AMI, but then they layer subsidy or they get many fewer units. I just want to, you know, kind of set the stage because I think that as as all eyes turn from the state capital to Denver and we had to answer these questions when we went through the process. Right. Councilman Hines was at one of the hearings, but we were asked, can we trust local governments? Do you understand, Dan, that you can't require 50% of units at 30% of AMI? This tool is not well designed for that. I will say that for a single parcel you're going to get less flexibility for even for example, this parcel, this rezoning has multiple parcels, so it created the opportunity for this lower AMI housing. But if you just had, for example, a single parcel to be able to leverage that type of housing that requires services would be tougher . So I do think that as we begin to get questions from the community about what this new tool that's coming from the state legislature can do, I do think it's important that we all, as a body, spend more time thinking about the fact that it will continue to be a limited tool. We've sometimes gotten there through a voluntary agreement like today's vote. We've sometimes gotten there through requirements that were added because of financing, right where TIFF was involved or other sources of city funding, where we've given up vested rights, we've been able to negotiate. But there's a reason why a thousand ordinances in across the country come up at a similar level. And so I do want to just say that we're going to continue to have this tension about whether this particular tool can get as far as the community needs. And I think it can't it has to be paired with the other entities placement strategies that this community has also been fighting for. It has to be paired with the investment of public owned land like we have in Washington and on other streets. It will continue to have to require all of those other pieces because if the project. Can't be built. And I get for some folks, that's a goal. The goal is we'd rather leave the parcel vacant and that's that is a fair position for someone to take. But if the goal is to get some of the affordable units, the market limitations will apply. And I just want it because that this whole debate was the little bit surrounding that tension. And I just wanted to preview where I think we're going to keep having that tension even as we have more legal tools. It won't change the math so much. It might change the political leverage, but it won't change some of the ways this tool works. And I'm happy that we can bring in some national speakers maybe and start socializing some of this stuff and how it works and and preparing ourselves for the proposals we get from CPD. But I know for tonight I just, you know, again, the criteria are met, I'll be voting for it. And I appreciate, you know, a really heartfelt debate and the need that is coming out in all sides of of those who testified. So they.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Canete, Councilmember Hines.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Council President. There are a lot of reasons why I think this is a great project. I want to make one very narrow extension to to to the comments for the record. And maybe this is partly because of my experience with the safe outdoor spaces, both of which were in District ten. Councilmember mentions the, the, the program for, for services for the youth. And I think this is an amazing program. And I just want to share that. I, I was sad that it didn't it didn't come to fruition in a place that would have been visible outside my window. So, you know, just that I know that there is that, you know, the conversation article United Methodist Church. I would love this sort of program in my back yard or in my front yard, you know, and and that the the developer has been willing to to add that to to the to the project, I think is, you know, again, I'm just doing a very narrow extension. But adding adding this to the project I think is is great. I think it will be transformative for these.
Speaker 7: Youth, of course.
Speaker 4: But I think it will be great for the neighborhood as well and will have minimal negative impact and a whole lot of positive impact.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilperson.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Hines. Councilmember Herndon.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. I really appreciate all of my colleagues comments. I believe the criteria has clearly been met, and I just wanted to take a minute to say it's exciting to see a project that's serving so many different levels of the people that live in this city. And I get it. For some people who think it doesn't go far enough, I support. And second councilwoman, can you just comments and I'll just say a little more bluntly, I think people don't understand math and that's the reason why, because you're not going to the the expectation that you're going to build something and intentionally lose money . No one is going to do that. And that's why the levels are not as high as some people would like. And I a second Councilman Canisius having other CS come in to say why they are at the levels that they are, but to say no to this project serves no one. And it actually hurts us more than it helps. And so I want to let's not cut off our nose to spite our face. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good because you think this should be higher, because this will be a great project for this community and we'll do really good things. And I'm excited to support this and hope that a majority of my colleagues do as well. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Herndon, and seen other hands raised. I'll go ahead and chime in here. I do believe that the criteria has been met and it's been nice to see some of the changes and the partnerships that have developed through this process. More so and happy to support it this evening and appreciate all of the comments and the questions by my colleagues. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 83.
Speaker 3: CdeBaca. No. Clark.
Speaker 2: I. Said. I.
Speaker 0: Herndon.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 0: Cashman.
Speaker 5: I.
Speaker 3: Can I.
Speaker 0: Ortega, I.
Speaker 3: Sandoval.
Speaker 1: Hi.
Speaker 7: Sawyer.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 0: Torres, I. Black I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce results.
Speaker 1: One eight 1212.
Speaker 0: I's Council Bill 20 1-0030083 Excuse me Council Bill 20 1-0083 has passed. Councilmember Sandoval. Will you please put Council Bill 20 1-0515 on the floor?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 2650 Arkins Court, 3205 Denargo Street, 3280 Denargo Street, and 2700 Wewatta Way in Five Points.
Approves a map amendment to rezone properties from R-MU-30 with waivers & conditions; I-A UO-2; I-B UO-2; and PUD 605 to C-MX-8 DO-7; C-MX-12 DO-7; C-MX-16 DO-7; C-MX-20 DO-7 (various zonings to urban center, mixed-use with overlays), located at 2650 Arkins Court, 3205 and 3280 Denargo Street, and 2700 Wewatta Way in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 2-2-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_05242021_21-0357
|
Speaker 2: Certainly. Thank you, Madam President. And good evening, Council. This is an official map amendment application for 235 West Evans Avenue requesting to rezone from a of 2 to 8. The subject property is located in Council District seven, represented by Joel and Clark in the open neighborhood. Swimming and a lot closer to the site is at the court, the northwest corner of West Evans Avenue and South Bannock Street. It is just under two acres in size currently used as an industrial warehouse and they are rezoning to see a max eight to allow for residential uses and they believe have a concept plan with development services at the moment. As they stated, the existing zoning on the site is IAU two. That is a white industrial zone district with a built for use overlay. There is plenty of this sign that surrounds the subject property as well as S.R. x eight to the West. You are h two and a half across Evans Avenue in the South and G Avenue three as well. Current land use as industrial is surrounded on both sides by industrial zoning, except for a few single unit residential parcels across Bannock Street to the East. Some office uses scattered throughout and public quasi public uses along Evans. These photos give you a sense of the building performance scale with the subject property. Right now you can see some very significant residential uses across evidence on the top left and then some of those other industrial uses across Phenix Street on the bottom left. So comparing the two districts, you can see that the schematics were introduced at the townhouse and shot from building forms. Now, when we think about height, our industrial districts are controlled by a four area ratio. So in the current zoning, the maximum height is 75 feet, as long as they're within centered 25 feet of the protected district , which they are. The proposed zone district would allow for an increase in heights eight storeys in 110 feet. They would also introduce a bill to ranges and percentages and remove the floor ratio of maximum. There is a proposed affordable housing agreement with this application. It has been reached in principle with hosts, but however, the concept plan has not yet been finalized. Determine the actual count of the units. The terms are 10% of the units will be income restricted, with 90% of those serving 80% AMI and 10% serving 60% AMI. However, out of all the restricted units, one or 50% will be one bedrooms and 50% will be two bedrooms. And those are for a period of 99 years. Speaking to the process information letters were sent last August, revised application received in early, early this year and January. Planning Board was on March 31st where it was voted to move forward nine zero. And we are here today on May 24th. To date, we have received four letters of support, one being from the local R.A., which is the Overland Park Neighbor Association. The applicant has also negotiated a good neighborhood agreement with the R.A. and three additional letter of support from nearby property owners. Moving to the criteria. There are a number of plans impacting the subject property, starting with comprehensive plan 2040. These are the applicable common strategies that staff found consistent with this proposal, ensuring that the residents have safe, convenient and affordable access to basic services, creating a greater mix of housing options, encouraging quality infill and promoting infill info infill development where infrastructure and services are already in place. Moving to Blueprint Denver. This is mapped as part of the urban center neighborhood context, where we see a high mix of uses with good street activation and multi-story buildings with a high degree of flat coverage. The future place type is a community opportunity center. These places offer a mix of office, commercial and residential uses. The building footprints are larger and the heights are generally up to 12 stories. The street types are mostly local, with the exception of West Evans Avenue, the commercial arterial and the South Broadway, serving as a main street arterial. For our growth area strategy. This fits into community centers and corridors where we expect 25% of new housing and 20% of new employment to occur by the year 2040. As this is a rezoning that is going from industrial to a zone that allows for residential. It's important to include our future manufacturing districts map where you can see that this property is located outside of our manufacturing preservation areas. So commercial uses are compatible. Next we have this Evans stationary plan from 2009. This plan sets forth a vision for transit oriented development around the station. Also recommends transforming transformation of the industrial and commercial properties into accurate, active, industry oriented and mixed use communities. The specific land use guidance here is mixed use residential, the primary residence. The primary use is intended to be residential. The office and retail can also be supported and is seeking to have a mixture of housing types and active Graham. Graham for an urban form. We also have a height map in the stationary plan that recommends five stories. However, this is an area that is north of Evans, and the plan says that it is appropriate to develop higher and higher residential intensities for prominent buildings and intersections. Which staff found this intersection being compatible with a higher height, especially thinking about the Good Neighbor agreement they've negotiated with the R.A. and the affordable housing agreements and location . We're really close to the station. Staff found that this extra request is consistent with the height area, but the height map and the station area plan. We also have the Shattuck District Plan, which was adopted in 2000. The vision for this plan was a neighborhood with a mix of housing, employment and services, and it really speaks to putting underutilized commercial and industrial persons and to more productive uses of staff. Found that the proposed zoning district would facilitate a development that has a mix of residential and commercial uses and further the goals in this plan. And lastly, we have somewhat dated over the neighborhood plan from age 93. It mostly groups the neighborhood into sectors for commercial, retail and industrial and speaks to providing adequate transitions between those uses and supporting light rail and improve access to the future light rail station, which has been open since, I believe 2000, and staff found that based on providing a better transition to the residential uses across Evans Avenue, that this would promote greater beautification and clean up the immediate area, which is consistent with the plans in that existing proposal as planned. Moving to the next criteria. This rezoning will result in uniformity of district regulations and for the public health, safety and welfare, facilitating increased housing density in amenities and transit and fostering the creation of mixed use and walkable communities. A third justifying circumstance for this rezoning is change or changing conditions in a particular area. There have been a number of physical changes within close proximity to the site, including new streetscape improvements along South Broadway to prioritize pedestrians, as well as the construction of new multi-unit residential projects within the general vicinity and a future pedestrian bridge across Santa Fe. So we find that these conditions that are mostly largely changing justify this rezoning request. Lastly, we find the rezoning to be consistent with the neighborhood context. This understood purpose and intent statements that are further detailed in the staff report. And with that, CPD recommends approval based on planning. All review criteria have been met. I am joined on this call from a colleague and host. If you have any questions regarding the housing agreements and the application is also available. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Brandon. And tonight, counsel has not received any written testimony on Council Bill 21, Dash 0357. And we have two individuals signed up to speak this evening. And our first speaker is Andrew Davis.
Speaker 7: Yes. Can you hear me?
Speaker 0: Mm hmm. Go ahead, Andrew.
Speaker 7: Okay. Thanks. Council member Bob. Yes, my name is Andrew Davis. I'm the property owner at 235. West Evans and.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 7: Live here in Denver, Colorado. My address is 2372 South Humboldt Street. First of all, thank you for the opportunity to speak this evening. I want to say thanks to Brandon Shaver first. He's been a huge help.
Speaker 4: In this process.
Speaker 7: And I'm not going to reiterate anything that he's mentioned.
Speaker 4: Just.
Speaker 7: For brevity sake. But I think a couple of things that I would highlight in addition to what he mentioned, I think, first of all, was the neighborhood outreach that we went through over the past nine months. And so we worked with your home park neighborhood association. And, you know, before we even got through excuse me, concept design, you know, back in the midst of COVID, met down there with masks on and walked some folks from the Overland Park Neighborhood Association through the site. You know what the vision was, what.
Speaker 4: Our thought.
Speaker 7: Process was, and wanted to incorporate as many of the comments that they had into the project. And so really over the last nine months I've been involved with them. And as Brandon mentioned, we've negotiated a good neighborhood agreement. You know, the high levels on that are, you know, the neighborhood association is going to host their future meetings at the site we're going to work on. You know, there's a dual pedestrian bridge that is being planned, so we're going to work with them on that. There is an Evans Bridge mural right now that is close to our site. And so we're going to take upon the maintenance and responsibilities, making sure that that mural, you know, which has been important for the neighborhood, stays intact. I think the affordable housing, which which again, Brandon mentioned was something that we brought up with the Overland Park Neighborhood Association and.
Speaker 4: Lots the.
Speaker 7: Conversation about it. One of.
Speaker 4: The things.
Speaker 7: That I think actually was was was great that came out of the meetings with the play was the desire to have more two bedroom units. And so initially when we had worked with Andrew Johnson and Brad winding on the host agreement, we had fewer one bedroom excuse me, fewer two bedroom units. But from our discussions with Europeana, they thought of having more two bedroom units would be helpful. So again, incorporating what we saw was good feedback from our neighborhood association into the host agreement. I think last or the last two parts would be local business support. You know, given that this is largely an industrial neighborhood.
Speaker 4: We have gotten neighborhood.
Speaker 7: Support from folks that have been in the business for, you know, greater than 50 years looking for, you know, in support of the project. And lastly, was working with Jody on the parking requirements to be a 2.75 ratio.
Speaker 4: And so we've worked through our concept design.
Speaker 7: Making sure that we meet that requirement, which.
Speaker 4: Was again a big requirement or a big request from the city with regards to.
Speaker 7: That ratio. So that. Thank you again.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Andrew. And our last speaker is Steve Faris. Steve, you're going to have to go ahead and meet yourself. Oh. It looks like we might have lost Steve. Here in the meeting. So we will give it a second for Steve hopefully to get back reconnected with us since we are in our public hearing right now. Well, just. Give it a second here, I'm sure. Steve has since figured out that he got. Cut out of the meeting. So. And Steve, if you are coming back into the meeting, if you could raise your hand so that we can get you into the panelists. All right. Thank you for everybody's patience here. All right, Steve, I believe we have you back. With us. You're going to need to unmute, Steve. All right. Well, it looks like we have lost Steve again here. And I have that he was only to be answering questions. But we will give it a second. All right, Steve, do we have you? Well, give it a second here and see if his audio will reconnect.
Speaker 7: Madam President, he just texted me. Steve Ferris works on our team and he said he was only he's out of technical difficulties and he was only there to answer questions if need be.
Speaker 0: Okay. All right. Sounds good. Well, it looks like we might have gotten him connected to the audio. I don't know, Steve, if you want to try to unmute. One more time. All right. Well, we gave it our best attempt. And if there's any questions, we've got Andrew here to answer those questions. And so that will conclude our speakers this evening. Questions from members of Council on Council Bill 357. All right. Seen no questions by members of council. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 357 Council Member Clark.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. And I just want to say thank you to Andrew and team for really the deep dove with the community on this one. Open A is an R.A. that is very savvy when it comes to rezonings, because there has been a lot of change that they have long advocated for and they've been very involved , even though, as you pointed out, we have a neighborhood plan that hasn't been updated since 1990. We do have two different light rail plans that are much more recent that the neighborhood worked very hard on, on creating a vision for what they want for the community. And they're very savvy on this. And I really appreciate how much time you spent with them working through all of this. And I think a testament to that is not just that the neighborhood association voted to support this, but they voted 16 to 0 unanimously to support this. And I think that that is from the time spent working with them, working through things and not just coming forward and saying, hey, this is what we're going to do, and I'll sit here for nine months and listen to you. But adapting that and working with them to update the plan to reflect their vision. And so I really appreciate that. I think that this clearly meets the criteria for rezoning and it will continue to help deliver on the vision that this community has had around that light rail station and for their neighborhood. And so I will be voting to support that and ask my colleagues to do the same. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Clark and I do agree with you that this rezoning does meet the criteria and happy to support it this evening. So, you know, their hands raised. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 357, please. Clark.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 0: Flynn.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 0: Herndon.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 3: I Cashman.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 3: Can each I. Ortega Sandoval.
Speaker 0: I swear. I saw as I.
Speaker 3: Black.
Speaker 0: I see tobacco. Madam President, I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. 12 Eyes. 12 Eyes Council Bill 20 1-0357 has passed. On Monday, June 21st, Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 20 10498 changing the zoning classification for 1718 North Tamarack Street in East Colfax.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 235 West Evans Avenue in Overland.
Approves a map amendment to rezone property from I-A, UO-2 to C-MX-8 (industrial to urban center, mixed-use), located at 235 West Evans Avenue in Council District 7. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 4-6-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_05172021_21-0517
|
Speaker 8: The project itself really addresses a huge gap in our services in Northeast Denver and the lack of an aquatics facility in this area. This was actually a project funded by the Elevate Denver Bond in 2017, and it had great public support, as we did urban planning and outreach, and we were thrilled that it made it to the final list. And we embarked on the design and outreach process in 2019. You can see the timetable there of the public meetings. We did two public meetings as well as a youth focus group meeting. And then because of COVID and quarantine, we actually ended up doing a final video instead of a final public meeting, which we wouldn't otherwise have done, but really great participation throughout, great feedback from the community and really what the community let us know that they wanted. Most were activities for all ages and interests, lap lanes as well as areas for lessons and classes in the pool. And at the bottom you can see the most important thing was make it fun. They wanted unique things that were not found elsewhere in other pools within our system. They wanted it to be unique and really reflect the community. So that is what we heard through our outreach process. The site itself. Here's an aerial view. You can see the pond in the background, the recreation center to the left and the gymnasium here in the center, the school over to the right, and then the location of the new pool. Surprisingly, it looks like it was designed to fit right there because it actually was when the recreation center was initially designed and built, a pool was intended to be part of it. Due to budget reasons, it wasn't able to be done at that time, but it was designed for the pool to be done in the future. And we are now, thankfully at that point where we can finish the vision that was set up at at the beginning many, many years ago.
Speaker 1: Oops. Sorry. Not the right thing.
Speaker 8: The pull itself and you can see here there's a an aerial view showing the layout of the new pool location, really trying to to capture all of the desires and and wants of the community. There is. See if I can strike this. Sorry. So the existing rec center, the gymnasium, the pool addition itself is about 16,200 square feet. The maximum height of the new building is about 41 and a half feet tall. And the amenities really include a four lane lap pool, a leisure pool with a zero depth entry and aquatic play features for all ages and stages. Really, really took a lot of time thinking about how we can program this pool for swimming lessons, lifeguard training, aqua aerobics, water walking, and, of course, lap swimming. So really wanting this to be a robust natatorium to provide all of the services and amenities and programing that go along with with a facility of this type. So here are some interior views, renderings of what the space will look like in the left image. You can see that we have the the leisure pool in the foreground and then the water slides themselves, the stairs going up to this area where while you're waiting to do one of two different water slides, we have a big bay window with views out to the mountains so that while kids are waiting their turn, they can look out and see the beautiful Colorado landscape really wanting to kind of celebrate and provide that opportunity. Because while you're up there waiting, why not have something great to look at? This other image on the right you can see is from underneath those slides, looking back towards the rec center and you can see the leisure pool in the foreground and the black hole in the background. And some of the aquatic play features over to the left. That will be fun and splashy and hopefully very exciting. From the exterior perspective, one of the main features, the signature features of this facility is this water slide that will go out of the building around a couple of times and back in and is the most unique water slide that we will have in our system. So very excited to be able to bring this to northeast Denver where I know it will be much loved. You can see that window that I referred to here are again, really making a feature out of that and wanting to take advantage of the height to capture those views and just provide a moment for, you know, the children using this to really be able to take in the full front range and the view that is so stunning from out here. And then the vision or I'm sorry, the image on the right shows what this will look like in the evening at night with these transparent windows down below and this translucent panels up above that will have this nice light glow and really wanted to create a landmark and an icon that the community can be proud of and happy to see when they drive by. So the timeline, as you can see, we as part of this process, we notify all the relevant registered neighborhood organizations within a certain radius of the site. So that was done in late April. The LUDIE Committee occurred on May 4th, Mayor Council on May 11th. We are now at May 17th, the first reading and public hearing. There will be a final reading next week on May 24th, and that will be the extent of the council process. And just to summarize, we are formally requesting approval of the Park Building Plan for the indoor pool addition at Green Valley Ranch Recreation Center at Town Center Park. And we look forward to any public comments, questions and any other information we can provide about this very exciting project that we are thrilled to be about to start construction on.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you very much, Michael. And we're going to go ahead and ask you if you would take down the screen sharing there and we'll go ahead and reconvene here. Thank you. Tonight, counsel has not received any written testimony on Council Bill 517, and we have one individual signed up to speak this evening. Jesse Perez is our speaker. And so we'll go ahead and. Get Jesse here into the queue. All right. We're going to go ahead and start out with our public speakers, and we'll start with you, Jesse.
Speaker 6: Yes. Good evening, members of council. Can I be hurt? Yes, I'd be hurt.
Speaker 0: Mm. Go ahead.
Speaker 6: My name is Jesse. Mission Personal Representative for Black Star Action Movie for Self Defense Positive Action Crewmember for Social Change is as well the Unity Party of Colorado and for a long black mold. We are in favor of this rezoning tonight for this water park. Um, I think this would be an added addition, a great addition to the Northeast Denver area. Give the kids something to do. Oh, uh. Oh. We're pretty sure you guys are going to go. We were a favorite. It was only tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Jesse. That concludes our speakers questions from members of Council on Council Bill 517. Give me a minute here. All right. Seeing no questions of counsel. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 517. Not seen any hands raised, though. Go ahead. Censuses in Council District 11, in the district that I present, and this has been decades in the making. Very easily over 20 years we've been waiting in the far northeast for an indoor pool with all the bells and whistles and fun and splashy is an awesome way to describe it , Michael, because this is something that we're very excited about and it brings a lot around fun and family fun, especially for our young people as well, but also our older adults because there were amenities that we included as well for older adults. And this really for the first time, we're going to be able to have comprehensive swimming lessons for members of the community as well. And so I respectfully ask my colleagues to vote in favor of this tonight and not seen any other hands raised for other comments. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 517. We.
Speaker 4: Whack.
Speaker 3: I. Peter Barca. I. Quick.
Speaker 1: All right.
Speaker 4: Flynn.
Speaker 5: I earned it.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 6: I.
Speaker 5: Cashman.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 5: Kenny, I. Sandoval.
Speaker 7: I.
Speaker 5: Sawyer.
Speaker 3: I. Or as I.
Speaker 5: Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announced the results. 12 hours 12 I Council Bill 20 1-0517 has been ordered published. Thank you, Michael. We appreciate you being here this evening.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance approving and accepting the park building plan for the Green Valley Ranch Recreation Center Natatorium Addition pursuant to the provisions of Sections 39-210 and 39-211 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code.
Approves the park building plan for the Green Valley Ranch Recreation Center Natatorium Addition in Council District 11. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 5-4-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_05172021_21-0356
|
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announced the results. 12 hours 12 I Council Bill 20 1-0517 has been ordered published. Thank you, Michael. We appreciate you being here this evening.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Moving on, Councilmember Cashman, would you please put Council Bill 356 on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 2: Yes, council president. I move that council bill 20 1-0356 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and I think I got Councilman Herndon there with that second they're required public hearing for council bill 356 is open. May we please have the staff report?
Speaker 4: Yes. Thank you. Council President. Let me share my screen. Right. Can you see that and hear me?
Speaker 0: Uh huh.
Speaker 4: Go ahead. Okay, great. Thank you. I'm Libby Adams with Community Planning and Development. And I'll be presenting the MAP Amendment for 8120 West Tufts Avenue. This application is located in Council District two in the Marston neighborhood. The applicant is requesting tourism from PD to 52 to S-Max three. This site is located along West Tufts Avenue, just west of Wadsworth Way. It's just it's just under five acres. And it's the site of an existing car dealership. EOD 252 is within the former Chapter 59 zoning code. It allows for the B4 uses but is mostly allowed for an auto park. It has a floor area ratio of 1.14 to 1 for the entire PD and then a floor area ratio of 2 to 1 for each individual site within the pod. It's currently used for commercial and retail. And you can see kind of the western side of Wadsworth Way is mostly commercial retail. And then as you move farther west and then east of Wadsworth Way, it's multi-unit residential. This slide shows the existing building form and scale with the subject site on the bottom right, left hand side of the screen. And you can see there are several other dealerships in this area and some other auto oriented uses. And then there's multi-unit just to the north of across Tufts Avenue. This application was complete at the beginning of January and on January 10th, an informational notice to property owners within 200 feet and registered neighborhood organizations was sent out on or at the end of March, planning board unanimously recommended approval of this item on the consent agenda . And to date, staff has not received any comments from neighboring property owners or registered neighborhood organizations. The Denver zoning code has five review criteria which must be met in order for a rezoning to be approved. The first is consistency with adopted plans, and there are two plans that are applicable to this site. And in a comprehensive plan. This meets several of the strategies, but most notably it will provide by resorting to some x three will provide basic services and a variety of amenities to the area, and it could encourage mixed use communities where residents can live, work and play in their own neighborhoods. And Blueprint. Denver The future neighborhood context is suburban. These areas have a range of uses. The block patterns are regular and streets are curvilinear. The future place type in blueprint. Denver is community corridors. These provide a mix of office, residential, commercial and retail uses. With heights generally up to five stories. And then the future street type of Tufts Avenue is a local street. And these can have a variety of uses, but most notably their residential. The growth area strategy is community centers and corridors. This is where we anticipate to see 20% of new jobs and 25% of new housing by 2040. And then blueprint also includes specific policies. So this one is the Denver land use and built for general policy three strategy, which really encourages the rezoning of properties from the former Chapter 59 Code into the Denver Zoning Code. Staff also finds it meets the next two criteria the reason you will result in uniformity of district regulations and it will further the public health, safety and welfare by rezoning a property from the former Chapter 59 into the Denver Zoning Code, which is in compliance with our adopted plans. Additionally, it won't have a negative impact by rezoning one property out of an existing pad. There won't be a major negative impact on the remainder because there is a maximum floor area ratio for each site within the PD. So that will prevent any shifting of density in the properties that remain. Staff also finds there's a justifying circumstance and that the city adopted the Denver zoning code in this property remains in the former Chapter 59 code. And lastly, this proposed rezoning is consistent with the suburban neighborhood context. The mixed use zone districts purpose and the specific intent of the next three school district. Therefore, staff finds that all five criteria have been met and recommend approval. And that concludes the staff presentation.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Libby. Tonight, council has not received any written testimony on Council Bill 356. And we have two individuals signed up to speak this evening. And our first speaker is Cole Bearer. It looks like. Okay, we're going to start out, I believe, with coal. A bear. If I mispronounce your name, call, please correct me.
Speaker 6: No, no problem. Members of council. Let's call Harbor last year silent.
Speaker 8: It's an old, old German name.
Speaker 6: So, yes.
Speaker 1: I'm.
Speaker 6: I'm the applicant's representative and I'm just really here to ask questions. You think Libby did a great job explaining everything and really stand up job helping us through this process? So that's all I have to say.
Speaker 0: All right. Great. Thank you. Call. Our next speaker is Jesse. Paris and Jesse. Earlier, we were having a little bit of difficulty with your Wi-Fi. So hopefully we've got a good signal here. But if you start breaking up again, we might just ask you to turn your video off. But go ahead and start out this.
Speaker 6: Okay. Good evening. Members of council. My name is Justin Bashar Paris and I'm representing for Black Star to move the first positive action to move for social change as well as the Unity Party of Colorado and for Black Nose. And I'll be the next mayor of Denver in 2023. We're just rezoning tonight. I just wanted to know if there was a traffic study done on this stretch was a very heavily populated stretch of was worth so much to do if there was a traffic study done on the stretch of walls where someone could please answer that question. I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Jesse. And that concludes our speakers this evening. Questions from members of Council on Council Bill 356. All right. Looks like we have a question from council member Flynn.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. I can't find the race hand feature on the iPad here. Nope. Raising my real hand. And, Libby, maybe you could just clarify. My understanding is that this reasoning that there is no actual redevelopment proposal accompanying this, that this is simply to remove a very restrictive piece of the PDF that requires that there be a primary use of new car sales if there is to be used car salesman along with it, that this rezoning will allow the primary use of selling used cars. Is that do I understand it correctly?
Speaker 4: Yes, that is correct.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you, Madam President. That's all we have.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Flynn. Next step, we have Councilmember two for us.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Let me a slightly unrelated question. The neighborhood plans for this area. I noticed the far southwest is not coming up for a neighborhood planning initiative. But you said it's slated to have 20% of Denver's future growth. Is that did I hear that accurate?
Speaker 4: Yeah. So in Blueprint, it's designated the growth area as community centers and corridors. So together all community centers and quarters throughout the city, we anticipate to see the 20% of new jobs and 25% of new housing.
Speaker 3: Okay, got it. You don't have a date, do you, of when the far southwest is coming up for neighborhood planning initiative? I don't know. Okay. Just curious. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Torres. And seeing no other hands raised for questions. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 356 Council Member Flynn.
Speaker 1: Think about.
Speaker 0: The.
Speaker 1: Fact that, yes, all dogs can learn new tricks. I wanted to comment on this. When this Southwest Auto Park was initially zoned after annexation in the 1970s and a bunch of court cases that upheld and and rejected some of Denver's annexations down here in South Jefferson County. I was writing about this at the Rocky Mountain News, and I asked my one of my predecessors, Councilman Ted Hackworth, why on earth you would want to be so restrictive as to set up this entire stretch of Wadsworth, a primary retail order as basically a haven for auto dealers, particularly when it is on the edge of Denver and is surrounded by Lakewood, Jefferson County, little town and places like that where people who buy their cars in Denver nevertheless don't pay their sales taxes in Denver, when you buy a car, you pay your sales taxes to Golden or to a little town, to Arapahoe County or to Jefferson County. And I never understood why my head was so intent on on having auto dealerships here. So I am very, very pleased to be able to be part of the dismantling of a little bit of the very restrictive period requirements that were placed on this to allow the sale of used cars that were certified pre-owned. If you're trying to sell me a three year old car, you're going to certify it's pre-owned. I already know that. But this will allow allow the former Alpine GMC Buick to become a used car dealership on Tufts Avenue. And being in the middle of one of the most dense multifamily residential areas of my district, just about four blocks from where I live, actually, it's that also has the possibility at some point of becoming multifamily housing as well. And as many of the places, Madam President, where we thought there would be auto dealerships, we now actually have some pretty large multifamily apartment complexes. So the best laid plans of the eighties don't always turn out to be appropriate in the 20 teens. And with that, I would ask my colleagues to support to support me and in making this change. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Very good. Thank you, Councilmember Flynn. And I definitely think that this meets all of the criteria, and I'm happy to support it this evening as well. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 356, please.
Speaker 1: When I.
Speaker 5: Herndon.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 6: Hines I.
Speaker 2: Cashman All right.
Speaker 5: Can each right. Sandoval.
Speaker 3: I swear. I was. I. Black. I see the. I.
Speaker 1: All right.
Speaker 5: Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary closed the voting and announced results.
Speaker 5: 12 hours.
Speaker 0: 12 eyes council bill 20 1-0356 has passed. All right. Or on to our third public hearing this evening. Councilmember Cashman, would you please put Council Bill 370 on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 2: Yes, council president. I move the council bill 21, dash three seven to be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: It has moved and I think I got Councilman Herndon or yeah, councilman got one again. So we are opening the required public hearing for Council Bill 370. May we please have the staff report? And welcome back, Val.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam Council. Let me share my screen and I am going to turn off my video because I'm a little glitchy on my end. I don't know if it's the storm that apologies me.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 8120 West Tufts Avenue in Marston.
Approves a map amendment to rezone property from PUD 252 to S-MX-3 (planned development to suburban mixed-use), located at 8120 West Tufts Avenue in Council District 2. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 4-6-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_05172021_21-0370
|
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam Council. Let me share my screen and I am going to turn off my video because I'm a little glitchy on my end. I don't know if it's the storm that apologies me.
Speaker 0: Sounds good.
Speaker 4: Are you able to see full screen Madam Council? Madam President, apologies. Okay. Yep.
Speaker 0: We got it.
Speaker 4: Getting used to it. This is my second one. So here we go. Another your rezoning for you all. Nothing too exciting, but I'll try to go quickly. Good evening. My name is Valerie Arara, associate city planner with CPD and I will be presenting a rezoning case for the subject property located at 3030 North Newton Street. The request is for urban single units C one to allow for a detached accessory dwelling unit or for short adu in the rear of the loft. The subject. Property is within District one under Councilwoman Sandoval and is located within the West Highland neighborhood. The subject property is currently set about 6350 square feet with a zone width of 50 feet. The existing zoning, the subject property and the surrounding properties in all directions. Are you, as you see, which allows for urban houses with a minimum zone, lot of 5500 square feet to the north along west 32nd Avenue is umx2 and ums three and a block to the south is c mpi two zoning. Furthermore us you a makes up most of the eastern portion of residential low and to the north you also have SUV. The site is a single unit residential land use with a mix of two unit and multi-unit existing uses in the neighborhood, as well as some commercial office and public. Quasi public. This property is within the Wolfe Place Historic District. The subject site is within I'm sorry, that has a period of significance spanning from 1883 to 1926, and the property is subject to additional design review through the Landmark Division. The subject property is mid-block with alley access. There is an existing primary single unit structure and a detached, detached garage accessory structure currently on the lot. Nearby properties are shown on the top and bottom of the screen. In terms of process the map. And then it went to planning board on Wednesday, March 31st, where the item was recommended approval on the consent agenda. The rezoning was moved forward to a final hearing of city council by the Land Use Transportation and Infrastructure Committee or Looby on consent and is being heard today. For public outreach staff received a response from the West Highland Neighborhood Association, which states Land Use and Planning Committee of W, H and A remains neutral to proposed minor rezonings for ADU allowance. The entire neighborhood co-op or ANC, also sent an email expressing support of ADU programs and streamlining the process. To date, staff has received three emails from nearby neighbors included in the application stating no objection to the proposed rezoning. As you know, the Denver zoning code has five review criteria. The first is consistency with adopted plan, starting with comprehensive plan 2040. Staff found this rezoning to be consistent with several strategies shown here from the Comprehensive Plan 2040, more specific to equity affordability and inclusivity from the Plan 2040 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 environment and climate, Vision Element staff found that this reasoning is consistent with the goal listed here that encouraged encourages promotion of infill development where infrastructure and services are already available. Blueprint. Denver maps this area as the urban 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.
Speaker 3: Oops.
Speaker 4: Sorry. You must miss. Four criteria. Number two and three staff found that this rezoning is consistent with adopted plans, and the proposed rezoning will result in uniform application of the 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. Staff found that the proposed rezoning is justified through a city adopted plan, which we know is the blueprint. Denver Land Use and Transport Transportation Plan that was updated in 2018. And finally, the context zone, district purpose and intent of U. S, uc1 are all appropriate for this particular location, giving the surrounding area and the adopted plan guidance. Given the finding that all review criteria have been met, Stapp recommends approval of the rezoning. Approval of a rezoning is not approval of a proposed specific development project. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Val. We'll go ahead and have you stop the screen sharing right on this evening. Council has not received any written testimony on Council Bill 370, and we have one individual signed up to speak this evening, and our individual speaker is Jesse Perez. We'll go ahead and get Jesse into the queue. There you go. Go ahead with your comments, please, Jesse.
Speaker 6: Yes. Good evening, counsel. My name is Jesse, listed on Paris. Move for self defense, positive action coming in for social change as well as the Unity Party of Colorado in front frontline black nose. And I'll be the next mayor of Denver in 2023. We're in favor of this rezoning tonight. It meets all five of the criteria. So there's really nothing I can say that's going to change the vote on this. I just wanted to know what the demographics of this occupation are, because we keep having this same issue with this brother named John Johnson, who's trying to get this rezoning in the same district. So if someone could please answer that question, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Jesse. That concludes our speakers questions from members of Council on Council Bill 370. Councilmember Sandoval.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Madam President. One question, Valerie, because this is in a historic district. Does this to 80 years have to go through the design review process and get approved by the Landmarks Preservation Commission?
Speaker 4: Yes, Councilman Sandoval. That is correct. The subject property is subject to additional review by our landmark division.
Speaker 7: Perfect. Thank you. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Sandoval. And seeing no other hands raised for questions. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 370. Councilmember Sandoval.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Madam President. This is within the West Highland Neighborhood Association. And as the letter stated, the R.A., the registered neighborhood organization, did not take a stand for an accessory dwelling unit. But one thing I would like to say, because it is in this vicinity, is my council aide Naomi Judd presented to the West Highland Neighborhood Association . And I think we have our eyes set on rezoning West Highland to allow accessory dwelling units. So more will be coming in from Council District one. We've been reached out to by numerous constituents of minor who are dealing with one off rezoning and it seems like there is a need to be had a more comprehensive approach like I've done in other neighborhoods so that surveys come in. So stay tuned. But for this one, I believe it meets all the criteria and it also does get a little bit more scrutiny and design review because it is within one of the two historic districts with in that neighborhood. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Sandoval. Councilmember Hines.
Speaker 6: EU Council President. Thank you CBD for your amazing report. Good job on your second one. Taking inspiration.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Hines. All right. And looking at the criteria, it does meet all of the criteria for this rezoning. And so happy to support this this evening as well. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 370.
Speaker 3: Sandoval.
Speaker 7: I.
Speaker 3: Sawyer, I. Torres. I. Black I. CdeBaca, I. Clark.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 4: Flynn.
Speaker 1: All right.
Speaker 4: Herndon.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 6: Hi. Hi.
Speaker 5: Cashmere.
Speaker 2: Hi.
Speaker 4: Can I.
Speaker 3: Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. 12 hours, 12 Eyes Council Bill 20 1-0370 has passed. Council Member Cashman Would you please put Council Bill 391 on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 2: Yes, Council President. I move the council bill 20 10391 be placed upon final consideration and. Do pass.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 3030 North Newton Street in West Highland.
Approves a map amendment to rezone property from U-SU-C to U-SU-C1 (allows for an accessory dwelling unit), located at 3030 North Newton Street in Council District 1. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 4-6-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_05102021_21-0473
|
Speaker 0: And council members say of Barca has called out Resolution 0465 for a vote under bills for introduction. No items have been called out and or bills for a final consideration. Council Member Flynn has called out Bill 20 1-0078 for a vote and under pending no items have been called out. The first items up are resolutions 0473 and 047332 excuse me 0477. Council Member Black, will you please put these resolutions on the floor for adoption?
Speaker 3: Yes, Madam President, I move that council resolutions.
Speaker 2: 20 1-0473047404750476 and 0477. Be adopted in a block vegan.
Speaker 0: All right. It has been seconded. Questions or comments by members of council. Council member Sawyer.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. I'm just calling out these contracts, these this evening in a block so I can vote no on them. This is consistent with previous votes I've made regarding on call contracts. I've spoken to the airport about the issue, and they're aware of my concerns, namely that on hold contracts in this case up to $21 million subvert the council process laid out in numbers charter and do not allow for the transparency and accountability that my constituents would like to see. I want to know quickly that Daddy also has uncle contracts coming through this evening, but I've spoken to them and confirmed that those contracts were run through Daddy's new on call framework, which is significantly different and improves transparency and accountability issues around all of these on call contracts. As a result, I won't be calling those out tonight, but just wanted to flag that. So thanks so much, Madam President.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Sawyer. And seeing other hands raised. Madam Secretary, roll call, please.
Speaker 4: Sawyer? No. Or is. I. Black I CdeBaca. No. Clark.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 3: Flynn.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 3: Herndon.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 4: Hines.
Speaker 6: I.
Speaker 3: Cashin. I can teach.
Speaker 2: I will.
Speaker 3: I. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 3: Two nays tonight.
Speaker 0: Ten I's Council Resolutions 20 1-0473474475476 and 477 have been adopted. The next item up is resolution 304. Councilmember Black, will you please vote Resolution 304 on the floor for adoption?
Speaker 2: Yes, Madam President, I move that council resolution 20 1-0304 be adopted.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Questions or comments by members of council will first go to Council Member Hines.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Council President I want to thank everybody for their work in getting responses to my questions that I asked them over the weekend to share the answer to one of the questions I asked, although we raised several concerns about these contracts. These contracts have not been changed to address the concerns we raised in committee or elsewhere. This contract is about is one where multiple values collide. On the one hand, I love that these contracts provide alternatives to cars, just like I believe housing needs a missing middle. I believe bankability micro-mobility could also be an equivalent missing middle for transportation. I believe the government has the responsibility to represent the people. After all, if we don't do it, who will? Private sector for profit companies have a mandate to maximize shareholder value.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed First Amendment between the City and County of Denver and Merchant Aviation, LLC concerning on-call planning services at Denver International Airport.
Amends a contract with Merchant Aviation, LLC by adding $950,000 for a new total of $1,700,000 for on-call planning services related to airport and aviation planning at Denver International Airport. No change to contract duration (202157815). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 5-24-21. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 4-28-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_05102021_21-0305
|
Speaker 0: Eight Ice Council Resolution 20 1-0304 has been adopted. The next item up is Council Resolution 305. Councilmember Black, will you please put Council Resolution 305 on the floor for adoption?
Speaker 2: Yes, I move that council resolution 20 1-0305 be adopted again.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It's been moved and we have it seconded. Questions or comments by members of Council. Council member Hines.
Speaker 6: I thank you, Madam President. I did ask for these individually, so thank you for honoring that. I think the previous conversation is fine enough. Thank you again.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Hines, Councilmember State Abarca. Okay. Thank you. All right. Seeing no hands raised. Madam Secretary, roll call, please.
Speaker 3: Hynes Cashman.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Can I?
Speaker 3: Sandoval. I. Sawyer. I. Torres.
Speaker 0: Now.
Speaker 4: Black I. CDEBACA No. Clark.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 4: Flynn.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 4: Herndon.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 4: Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 3: Three nays. Nine I's.
Speaker 0: Nine I's. Council Resolution 20 1-0305 has been adopted. The next item up is Council Resolution 465. Councilmember Black, will you please put Resolution 465 on the floor for adoption?
Speaker 2: I moved that council resolution 20 10465 be adopted.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed License Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Neutron Holdings, Inc. for operation of a citywide Shared Mobility/Micromobility program for electric bikes and scooters.
Approves a non-financial license agreement with Neutron Holdings, Inc., doing business as Limebike, for five years to operate micromobility services and install associated infrastructure in the public right of way, citywide (202158011). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 5-24-21. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 4-27-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_05102021_21-0465
|
Speaker 0: Thank you. It's been moved and seconded. Questions or comments by members of Council. Councilmember CdeBaca.
Speaker 3: Thank you. This is the core civic.
Speaker 2: Contract that we voted down a couple of years ago, and then it came back to us in a different form and we voted for it, expecting that there would be a complete.
Speaker 3: Phase out of this company in our city. For all of the reasons mentioned in public comment.
Speaker 2: And in our test, in our own commentary during the contracts. We are here in 2021 and have.
Speaker 3: Had ample time to completely divest and no other moment in history would have afforded us a better time to divest, considering the state wide attempts to.
Speaker 2: Depopulate prisons and.
Speaker 3: Jails with COVID. And so if we couldn't do it in this moment in time, I'm really concerned about what will happen after this. I also think that a two year extension.
Speaker 2: Is not something we afford other providers.
Speaker 3: And we should, if we're going to authorize them to continue operating in our city in this capacity, I think it should stick to the one year contract form that they would that they would be basically adhering to if we had allowed them to be in the city. So I'm definitely a no on this, and I hope my colleagues also vote no. What I asked for early on was that this come back as a one year contract. With the baked in, ratchet down plan that we can understand so that we don't expect this to come in front of us again. So please vote no on this contract.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Council members say to Barker. Next up, we have council member Hines.
Speaker 6: Thank you, council president. I kind of talked about this in committee already, so I won't belabor too much of it. I would say there were some reasonable concerns about, say, for example, sex offenders, how who will manage that population. And the only willing manager is is a private for profit company. I did it just as as we mentioned the previous conversation, I did explicitly ask for a one year contract because I want I want our public safety folks to feel the pressure to to ratchet down. And we didn't get that either. So I'll be. No, thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Hines. Councilmember Sawyer.
Speaker 2: Thanks, Madam President. When the deal and course of the contracts came through the first time, we had a lot of conversation around what might happen and how long it would take to shut these programs down. We knew that it would be a few years and that was the for the pandemic hit. So I'm not at all surprised that this is delayed. I'm comfortable extending the contract for another two years with the caveat that if it's possible to end our relationship before that time and the Safety Department knows the council's feelings on getting it done as soon as possible, that should be done. However, the end of that time, I think it's my expectation and I know it was set in committee that it's the expectation of the council that at that point the relationship be severed. So, I mean, yes, tonight. But I think that this is probably the last time.
Speaker 4: Thanks, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Sawyer, Councilmember Pro Tem Torrance.
Speaker 4: I was just going to say the same thing that Councilman Sawyer said. I'm very much in alignment with what was just stated.
Speaker 0: So thank you very much. All right. Thank you, Councilmember Pro-Tem. And not seen in the other hands raised. Madam Secretary, roll call, please.
Speaker 3: CDEBACA No.
Speaker 4: Clark.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 4: Flynn.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 4: Herndon.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 3: Hinds.
Speaker 1: CASHMAN right.
Speaker 3: Can each I. Sandoval. I. Sawyer.
Speaker 4: I saw as I. Black I. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary. Close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 3: Two days. Ten Eyes.
Speaker 0: Ten Eyes. Council Resolution 20 1-20465 has been adopted. The next item up is Council Bill 78. Councilmember Black, will you please put Council Bill 78 on the floor for final consideration?
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Agreement between the City and County of Denver and CoreCivic, Inc. for provides halfway house, residential and non-residential, community corrections services.
Approves a contract with Corecivic for $5,000,000 and through 6-30-23 for residential and non-residential community corrections services (SAFTY-202158407). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 5-24-21. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 4-28-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_05102021_21-0078
|
Speaker 0: Ten Eyes. Council Resolution 20 1-20465 has been adopted. The next item up is Council Bill 78. Councilmember Black, will you please put Council Bill 78 on the floor for final consideration?
Speaker 3: Yes, Madam President.
Speaker 2: I move that council bill 20 1-0078 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It's been moved and seconded. Councilmember Flynn. Your motion to amend.
Speaker 5: And thank you, Madam President. I move that council build 20 1-007 be amended in the following particulars. I will. When I come to the part that is added, I will make note of that on page one. Line 21 insert the following section one that section 20 dash to 76 of the defunct Denver Revised Municipal Code shall be amended by adding the language underlined to read as follows. And I'll point out the underlined section by section 20 dash to 76 internal audits. Paragraph A The auditor shall be provided access in a timely manner to officers, employees, records and property of entities that may be necessary, as may be necessary to conduct an audit or perform audit duties as provided in Section 20, Dash two seven. Five of the DRC contractors with the city that have a contractual obligation to provide information shall provide access in a timely manner to the contractors, officers, employees, records and property of entities as may be necessary to conduct an audit or perform audit duties. Here is a section that is added the sentence that is added to the end of that paragraph the custodian of confidential and or proprietary records or parts of records sought under this 20 dash 276 may provide the auditor timely and reasonable access to inspect such records on site in lieu of providing copies for offsite use. Remember internal bill sections as section two through Section eight accordingly.
Speaker 6: Okay.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Council Member Flynn and thank you for the second by Councilmember Hines questions or comments by members of Council on this amendment. Council Member Flynn.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam President. This bill has been in committee I think three times now, and it's been very contentious and a matter of a matter of dispute and conflict among the parties that we're being audited and the auditor and it's hard for us to sit here and know exactly what what all the facts have been. And and maybe with this amendment, that's not entirely necessary for us to sort out. It's just not comfortable to legislate in the dark. And so what this amendment does, it carves out a very narrow point. That proprietary and confidential information that is that is subject to an audit is entirely open to the auditor when there's a performance audit or a financial audit or an internal audit, entirely open to the auditor, but not the entity being audited does not have to make a physical or a digital copy and release it out the door. It would be inspected, subject to inspection onsite as audits have traditionally been done for decades. The the events this week with the East Coast having 45% of its. Energy resources through the Colonial Pipeline being shut down by by hackers demonstrates nationally the need for vigilance on cybersecurity. And in fact, the auditor's office here in Denver earlier this year released an audit that was critical of the city's own audit employee training practices. And so what this does is it allows the entity being audited to protect the proprietary and confidential information from being released offsite to a third party. But it also gives the auditor the access that is required under the charter and under the code. With that narrow point, that's all the amendment does. That does not touch the auditor's other responsibilities for which he's seeking subpoena power and for rent, which I'm in full agreement, and that is enforcement of prevailing wage for our workers under city contract and for enforcement of minimum wage, which we have just acted on in the last several years. So it does not touch that at all. It's only this narrow this narrow point to provide security to confidential information. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Flynn, Councilmember Canete.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council President I recognize that these conversations are iterative, and our goal of trying to discuss everything at committee is not always realistic or possible. But this is an example where this is a very big change. I would disagree with the characterization of it as narrow. It doesn't just involve a situation where there is a dispute between the parties. It restricts the auditor from taking anything considered confidential or proprietary off site, ever much broader than where there's a dispute or where there's a subpoena involved. And I will just say that, you know, for decades upon decades, the auditor has had access to confidential and proprietary information. And so to suddenly change the entire access practice based on a concern about subpoena power, where there's a narrow dispute to me without will give examples of the questions I would have needed to investigate to get comfortable with this. And I'm not going to ask anyone to answer these questions tonight because I'm just going to vote no on the amendment. But examples of what we didn't explore is what are the general accounting principles in regard to analyzing information offsite? What are the cost implications of sending a multidisciplinary team on site versus being able to examine materials? What are the practices over decades that have been successful in terms of offsite materials and have not caused disputes and would now be terminated or prohibited under this amendment? So I feel concerned that businesses have basically taken a conversation about subpoenas and used it to try to blunt the auditing tool. And frankly, these are the contracts where the auditing tool is most important to us because we as council members don't get to see those kinds of books. We can see most of the city's books directly, but we don't get to see the books of contractors that do involve proprietary information. And it is only the auditor who's kind of the eyes of the people on that. We can't serve that role. So to blunt that tool without analysis of what states and cities that have similar powers are doing with regard to this, to me really potentially undermines our ability to protect the taxpayers interests and make sure that those audits are done well. And so without that type of deep analysis and discussion, I just am not comfortable with this change tonight. And I would urge folks to vote no or to limit any amendments simply to situations where there's a dispute resulting in a subpoena, if that's an issue, versus blunting this power for all audits from this point forward. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember H. Councilmember Clark.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. You know, I had a lot of the very same concerns that Councilman Flynn raised when he was talking about this as this came through and kind of this back and forth between what, you know, what the issue was and, hey, this was we gave this access. We we didn't get this access and being put in the middle of that in the in the midst of this discussion about subpoena power and I think some very important stuff that's in this proposal. I appreciate that this amendment keeps the preservation of the powers on the wage issues. I think that it's a very fair amendment that makes me feel much more comfortable with the overall bill. I think that, you know, I think the councilman for keeping this narrow in its scope and really tackling, I think, the issue that was the most contentious and the one where we were getting differing information from from different folks . So I just want to say thank you to Councilman Flynn for taking the lead on this and finding a pathway to what I feel is a very fair amendment that preserves the overall intent of this, but also, you know, provides a little bit more clarity specifically in that vein, where they feel like there was just a lot of confusion and a lot of back and forth and and still preserves the the the integrity of the audit while providing a little bit of, you know, protection, especially. You know, I think, as Councilman Flynn talked about, with cybersecurity being increasingly, you know, an issue of concern, I was recently working with some folks from the city of Baltimore where their entire city system was hacked and they were all having to sort of Gmail accounts. And so.
Speaker 6: I think.
Speaker 1: That it's not an unreasonable request for some of these more sensitive proprietary information to be audited with full access, but in a way that works for these entities. And I think the Best Amendment captures that in the narrowest way possible that preserves the powers.
Speaker 6: But addresses that.
Speaker 1: Concern and that issue. And so I am very supportive of this amendment and will be voting yes. And I just want to say again, thank you to Councilman Flynn for taking the lead on navigating and finding a way, I think, to take the edge off of those concerns while preserving the overall intent. So thank you. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Clark. Councilmember Black.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. And I agree with everything that Councilman Clarke just said. I chaired the three Finance and Governance Committee meetings where we discussed this bill. And really, I really pushed us to move it out of committee because we were.
Speaker 4: We weren't going to resolve.
Speaker 2: All of the angst that we had over it. And I think the bill deserved.
Speaker 3: To come to full.
Speaker 2: Council for discussion. But it really, I think, was at risk of failing. And so I think, Councilman Flynn, for coming up with this as a compromise so that the auditor will get his subpoena power. But this is.
Speaker 4: Just one.
Speaker 2: Guardrail. We all received a ton of feedback from a lot of different groups who felt like there needed to be some kind of guardrail. And I think that.
Speaker 3: This this addresses that.
Speaker 2: In a minor way, but still grants.
Speaker 3: The authority to the auditor.
Speaker 2: So I will be supporting it. So thank.
Speaker 3: You.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Black. And in the cue we have Councilmember Hines and then Councilmember Flynn. We'll get you back in.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Council President. Question for I guess, our attorneys. Councilmember Can each is amendment to the amendment? Is that possible for us to do?
Speaker 1: Or is it really.
Speaker 6: I don't I don't know. I don't know if we can do amendments to amendments. I'm kind of filling time while Miss Crawford is promoted.
Speaker 0: We'll get it right there.
Speaker 2: Good evening, Council members. Kirsten Crawford Legislative Council. If there is proposed language.
Speaker 4: It it could happen logistically.
Speaker 2: Yes, we might need to take a break and makhija.
Speaker 3: Our council secretary might have some concerns or.
Speaker 2: Solutions, but I do think.
Speaker 3: It's possible. Yes.
Speaker 6: And this is a bill we can use our council member discretion to push a week. Right? This is right. Okay. Just make it sure. So may I ask Councilmember, will you repeat your proposal? It's something like if a subpoenas actually issued, then then onsite can be requested.
Speaker 2: Madam President.
Speaker 0: Go ahead.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council President. Thank you, Councilman Hinds, for your question. This is my. This is not the amendment as drafted is not a guardrail on the subpoena power. I just want to be really clear. Councilman Flynn, I shared my feedback with him. It is a limit for all audits forever. For all time can only be conducted on site period. That's what this is I want. This is not a guardrail on the subpoena. It prohibits the auditor ever taking anything considered confidential or proprietary off site ever again. That's why I consider this is a humongous change in practice. My suggestion to Councilman Flynn, which he did respectfully he considered and did not take, was that the language could be limited to say, you know, the process in the bill right now is about a subpoena where item has been requested and the party does not provide it . Then there is a notice and then if there's failure to comply, the subpoena shall issue. You could write in the guardrail at that point where and the court shall decide whether or not. So if the Court is deciding whether or not you get the information, the court can also decide whether or not a guardrail is needed for the review of the materials. That was my suggestion. It is a guardrail on the subpoena where there is a dispute. That is a guardrail on the subpoena. That is not how it was drafted. So, you know, and I will just say, this is first reading tonight, correct? Yes. I believe no is the second. Okay. Sorry. Thank you. Losing track. Well, all right. So so anyway. Yes, thank you. I hope that answers your question.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Councilmember Teenage boy. So I'll defer. I think Councilmember Flynn maybe has some comments, maybe he can address. Councilmember, can you just concern and I would like to understand that the difference here, so I'll just leave it at that for now. Thank you. Council President.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Hines. Councilmember Flynn, do you would you like to clarify? Because I know that there were some statements made and then Councilmember Herndon will get you right in. But I don't want to get too far out without some clarification from Councilmember Flynn.
Speaker 5: Sure. Thank you, Madam President. I thank you. Councilwoman Nature, respectfully, I disagree with with your characterization of the amendment does not mean that never again with the auditor be able to take information off site, even if the third party deems it confidential or proprietary. It just says the third party may, in lieu of ask that it be done on site. They can still provide copies if they choose if there is an agreement of some sort. Subpoena power, as the auditor said in committee, would probably be used extremely sparingly in the first place. If there is a dispute over whether the the auditor wants that information and doesn't believe it's confidential or proprietary, then they can always go to court under this new subpoena power that we're establishing. That's always been true. So the auditor will have the ability to get information off site if there is an agreement or if he takes the subpoena to court and the judge says, no, this is not I don't deem this confidential. You can have this you can have it offsite. So that's why I'm saying that it is very narrow. So I do disagree with your characterization. I understand your I understand your argument for. But I just disagree. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Councilmember Flynn, Councilmember Herndon.
Speaker 1: Amen. President. This bill bothers me for four reasons I'm not going to get into now. I think that my colleagues did a really good job of having these conversations at committee, but I appreciate an attempt to try to remedy some of the concerns that multiple members of council have, though not the perfect amendment. I hear what Councilman King need to say. I don't I don't believe that will occur. And this is something that I would like to I will be voting yes, but my colleagues will as well. And then we can see whether the bill as as amended hopefully get the vote, because I still have issues with it, but I appreciate attempts to try to make it better. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Herndon. Councilmember Hines, are you. Good. Do you want us to take a recess to look at an amendment? Or may we vote on the amendment on the floor?
Speaker 6: So thank you. Council President So we have a disagreement between two different council members trying to figure out how do we how do we get a tiebreaker.
Speaker 1: Or get.
Speaker 0: Called a.
Speaker 4: Vote?
Speaker 6: Well, I mean, I want to understand that there's a disagreement with the interpretation of the amendment. So, yes, of course, we could vote on it. I guess. Ms.. Crawford. If you are willing to to to weigh in and if we have to take a recess for you to feel comfortable weighing in, I'm okay with that. But I think that the the interpretation are you. So I guess, Mr. Bradford, are you aware that the difference in interpretation by council members can each influence? And if so, do you have a sense for how you interpret the amendment?
Speaker 2: Kirsten Crawford Legislative Counsel Again.
Speaker 4: So I think that.
Speaker 3: They're interpreting the language.
Speaker 2: In the bill the same. In other words.
Speaker 4: That we're changing the scope in a different provision, not the subpoena provision, but the internal audit provision.
Speaker 2: So I don't hear anything.
Speaker 4: About a different interpretation.
Speaker 2: There. I did hear only sorry, but I did hear some legal concerns raised. And I just want to say, if we want to hear from Mitch there.
Speaker 4: He has probably dug in a little bit deeper than me and the auditor standard auditing provisions.
Speaker 2: But as far as this process, I think you are see some acacia about voting down the amendment that's currently on the floor and.
Speaker 4: Then discussing something else.
Speaker 6: Okay. Thank you, Ms.. Crawford. Um. Thank you, council president.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. Councilmember Hines. Councilmember Herndon.
Speaker 1: Thank you, ma'am. I was just chiming in, too, to beg us not to do a recess. I mean, we have differences on language and amendments every Monday. So let's I appreciate. I think council members can each and planned have been succinct and I think we should vote. I just wanted to hopefully we're going to take a break from present.
Speaker 0: Great. Thank you, Councilmember Herndon. And this is something that I've definitely dug in to as well, because I do share Councilmember Herndon's concerns as to this bill as well. But I'll go ahead and pause there and hear from my colleague, council member each, and then hopefully we can do a roll call on this amendment and see where we go next. Councilmember Cami.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council President I just for the record, wanted to note that the Council received a communication from the auditor indicating potential legal challenges with this amendment in terms of the charter language and the interpretation of powers related to audit standards. And so, you know, I understand that the votes may be there to pass this, but I just want to note that council has been advised that the city council has been advised that that we could face a legal challenge, that this potentially conflicts with the charter provisions. And so I just wanted that to be noted for the public who may not be aware that that concern was raised before we vote. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Kimmich. And this has been a long time coming with three times that committee and our conversation here tonight. And so, Madam Secretary, roll call, please. On the amendment.
Speaker 4: Flynn.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 4: Herndon.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Hines.
Speaker 6: I.
Speaker 3: Cashman.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Can each. No.
Speaker 3: Sandoval. All right.
Speaker 4: Sawyer. I. Torres. I. Black. I see tobacco. No. Clark.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 4: Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 2: Two names. Ten Eyes.
Speaker 0: Ten Eyes. The amendment to Council Bill 20 1-007 has passed. Councilmember Black, we need a motion to now pass as amended, please.
Speaker 2: I move that council bill 20 1-0078 be placed upon final consideration and do pass as amended.
Speaker 0: Thank you. We have the motion and we have a second by Councilmember Hines. Council Bill 20 1-007a is on the floor for final passage. Questions by members of Council on Council four Bill 78. All right, scene. Oh, here we go. Councilmember Herndon.
Speaker 1: They remember I don't know how much conversation was had on this last week as I was out, I was just going to say I will be a no on the bill as amended. I think the when you're trying to list reasons for a change and those reasons continue to be questioned by organizations that you audited, just gave me so much pause that I did not think that this bill was fully baked. And I by no means I appreciate all my colleagues, multiple committee meetings doing their very best. I'm still not comfortable voting yes to allow this, and I'll be a no today.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Herndon, Councilmember CdeBaca.
Speaker 3: It's. Possible. Of the zero four office speak to how the amendment changes.
Speaker 2: Their bill and.
Speaker 3: If it to them.
Speaker 0: Sure. We've got Kirsten Crawford on the line here and your audio broke up a little bit. Councilmember CdeBaca So hopefully Kirsten got your full question.
Speaker 2: It's actually for the Auditors city attorney.
Speaker 4: If they could speak to whether or not they support the bill with this amendment.
Speaker 0: Okay. We'll go ahead and get them promoted up into the queue. All right, Mitch. Go ahead. There was a question posed to you. You're on mute.
Speaker 1: Yes. Hello, council members. I believe the effect of the amendment has been accurately discussed in your conversations and the auditor has expressed his position on that and will support the position and have not looked into that yet as to the challenge that's been described. But we will look into that for the order as requested.
Speaker 2: Is the auditor able to speak to whether or not he.
Speaker 3: Would rather see.
Speaker 2: This bill die or.
Speaker 3: Passed with the amendment?
Speaker 1: Another position to speak for the auditor on that question.
Speaker 3: Is the auditor available to promote?
Speaker 0: I'm looking right now. I'm not. Seen him in the queue unless. Auditor O'Brien If you're there, if you would, please raise your hand so we can promote you into the panelists. I am not seeing the auditor in the attendees council woman. He's not on the call. He's not living.
Speaker 2: Is it possible to take a recess.
Speaker 4: So somebody could get him on.
Speaker 2: The call? I think it's pretty important.
Speaker 0: I believe that if this is his bill and he felt strongly about it, that he would be here tonight. And so I would prefer that we go ahead and vote. If he's not here, I don't believe it's to any of our benefit to wait for him to tell us that he doesn't like this bill as it is
Speaker 2: . I agree with you that if he was here.
Speaker 3: That that would you would expect.
Speaker 2: Him to be here.
Speaker 3: But we all know how technology works. And I just want to make sure that he's not having technical difficulties because it doesn't seem like he would miss this meeting.
Speaker 0: I. We can go ahead. Let me see if he. He's not here, so it's his bill. I am very surprised that he wouldn't be here and. As we've been talking about this, if he was monitoring it, I believe that he would come into the queue and basically he's going to tell us that he doesn't like it. And so are you making a motion to take a recess or are. I see. Councilmember or Buckhead Councilmember?
Speaker 2: No, go ahead.
Speaker 0: I believe that we should vote on this. This has been belabored beyond. I have never seen anything belabored more than this. And so I would ask that we don't take up anybody else's time on this. We're doing our council work. I don't think it's appropriate that we wait to have the auditor join us. And so I would like us to go ahead and vote on this. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 20 1-0078, please.
Speaker 4: Black. I see tobacco. As. Clark.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 3: Flynn.
Speaker 1: Hi.
Speaker 4: Herndon?
Speaker 1: No.
Speaker 3: Hines.
Speaker 6: I.
Speaker 3: Cashman. I can each. I. Sandoval No.
Speaker 4: Sawyer. I. Torres. I. CdeBaca. I. Madam President.
Speaker 0: Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 3: Three days. Nine eyes.
Speaker 0: Nine Eyes Counsel Build 20 1-0078 has passed as amended. 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. Councilmember Black, will you please put the resolutions for adoption and the bills for final consideration for final passage on the floor?
Speaker 2: 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. 21 04720478047904620463046704880493049403710372037303740375037603770378038003810382003830384038504280429043004310432043304340435048104820177045504606046804690470049104250442. And last but not least, 0427.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It's been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 4: Black. I see tobacco. I quite.
Speaker 1: Like.
Speaker 3: Flint.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 3: Herndon.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 3: Hines.
Speaker 6: I.
Speaker 3: Cashman. I can eat. Right. Sandoval. I. Sawyer. I. Torres.
Speaker 4: Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced results.
Speaker 4: 12 eyes.
Speaker 0: 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 21, dash 0308 changing the zoning classification for 2000 West Virginia Avenue in Ashmore Park. A combined required public hearing on Council Bill 21, Dash 20333 Changing the zoning classification for 3001 South Federal Boulevard in Harvey Park, South and Council Bill 21, Dash 0352 approving a proposed Loreto Heights rezoning and impede development agreement between the City and County of Denver and ACM.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance reorganizing and amending Chapter 20, Article XI of the Denver Revised Municipal Code regarding Auditor subpoena power in connection with performance of internal audits and investigations and enforcement of prevailing and minimum wage.
Amends Article XI, Chapter 20 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code regarding Auditor subpoena power in connection with performance of internal audits, and subpoena power related to investigations and enforcement of prevailing and minimum wage. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 4-20-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_05102021_21-0308
|
Speaker 2: I move that.
Speaker 3: Council Bill 20 10308.
Speaker 2: Be.
Speaker 3: Placed upon final consideration and do.
Speaker 4: Pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved and we have the second the required public hearing for council bill 308 is open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 3: Afternoon.
Speaker 4: Afternoon. Can you hear me? Hi, Fran. Hi. Okay.
Speaker 0: All right. There you go.
Speaker 4: Good afternoon. Members of city council. Madam President, my name is Fran Beneficial, and I'm an associate city planner with planning services. And today I am going to send you an overview of the MAP Amendment for 2000 West Virginia Avenue. Subject property is located in Council District seven with Councilman John Clark. In the upmarket park neighborhood. The property owner is proposing to rezone to a district that allows for accessory dwelling units. If approved, all forms and standards would remain the same. The property is currently in the urban single unit zoned district, which allows for a minimum zone, lot size 6000 square feet. And as you can see on the map, the property is surrounded by other properties that I also saw SUV X to the east, south and west and to the north. It's actually up to 50 9r1 where there is a school. The Green Lane use of the site is single unit residential and is surrounded by mostly other single unit residential of course, public, quasi public to the north where the school is located. This slide shows the existing area where the site of the proposed rezoning on the bottom right. And some images that show the character of the neighborhood. Speaking of the process, information on notice of the application was sent on December 21st, 2020. Planning Board recommended approval on March 17 and.
Speaker 1: Beside the application in the middle of the match.
Speaker 0: Let me see.
Speaker 1: The level of the incident manual.
Speaker 0: Meanwhile, we're hearing you in the main part of the meeting.
Speaker 1: My apologies. I thought the interpretation was on. They must have gotten turned off during the recess. I'd have to ask the facilitator.
Speaker 0: Okay, great. Thank you. We'll go ahead and go through that process again.
Speaker 1: But my apologies.
Speaker 0: No worries. I'd rather you catch it now.
Speaker 4: It's not working again, so I will make I try. I added Indira. She came into the meeting. I'll have to make him a host again. Okay. Should I continue or wait or.
Speaker 3: Let me.
Speaker 0: Get confirmation here. Just a moment. Okay, Manuel, we have you as the host now.
Speaker 1: Okay. I'm turning on the interpretation now. Just give me a minute, please.
Speaker 0: Okay. Okay. I believe we're all set. Go ahead, please, Fran.
Speaker 4: No worries. So back to the process. The information on notice of the application was sent on December 21st, 2021, and Planning Board recommended approval on March 17. Date We have not received any letters of support or opposition from the public or from any of the emails. Denver zoning code has five preview criteria, which I will go over. The first one is consistency with the plants. There's three plants applicable to his rezoning comprehensive plan 2040 Blueprint. Denver The Park Neighborhood Perimeter Plan was 2000. The rezoning is consistent with several of the tragedies of comprehensive plan 2040. For example, 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 Denver, the subject property is mapped as part of the urban edge neighborhood context. The future place map designates the subject property as low residential place type. This place type have predominantly single and two unit uses, and accessory dwelling units are appropriate while Virginia and is designated as a local street, which is mostly characterized by residential uses. The street is designated as a residential collector street. The growth area improve in Denver is all other areas of the city. These areas are anticipated to see a 10% employment growth and 20% housing growth by 2040. Blueprint also includes specific policy recommendation housing policy. Ford focuses on diversify diversifying housing choice through the expansion of accessory dwelling units throughout all residential areas. The Akamai Park neighborhood perimeter plan was adopted in 2000 and is applicable to his site property. The plan is silent on residential rezoning specifically. However, the proposed rezoning is consistent with action. Agenda item number five Implementation Strategy Maintain existing residential are one or two zoning in the neighborhood except for sites that run on Federal Boulevard and with on the West Alameda Avenue and which do not extend beyond mid-block into residential zone areas and also to continue to monitor zoning change variance three to all evacuation and conditional use requests to ensure the continued opportunity and character of the neighborhood. In some districts, the properties rezone to allow for the Dutch accessory dwelling unit. The subject site, the residential character of the park will be maintained. SAP also finds that the requested zoning meets the next two criteria. The rezoning will result in uniformity of district regulations that will further the public health, safety and welfare, primarily through the implementation of the Department's. Justified circumstance for this rezoning is a city adopted decline since the approval of the existing ESU DCS on the street, the city has adopted a comprehensive plan 2040 and blueprint. Denver stated throughout this presentation, the proposed rezoning to ESU units meets the intent of these plans. And lastly, they proposed Sony is consistent with their Vonage neighborhood context residential district and the as you do an excellent district. Staff does recommend approval based on finding or review criteria has been met.
Speaker 0: All right. Well, thank you, Fran. And this evening, counsel has not received any written testimony on Council Bill 21, Dash 0308, and we have two individuals signed up to speak this evening. The first speaker is Jesse Paris. So we'll go ahead and get. Jesse into the queue here. All right. Jesse, please go ahead with your comments on Council Bill 308, please.
Speaker 6: Yes. It's good in November. The council cannot be hurt.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Yes. Good evening.
Speaker 6: Members of council. Can I be heard?
Speaker 0: Yes, go ahead, Jesse.
Speaker 6: Okay. Okay, great. So that's Tom Harris number presenting for. I'm positive. Mexican-American social change as mayor of Denver in 20. Anything? I'm in favor of this rezoning tonight. Five is why Sean Johnson, a black man, is traveling so much issue, getting an.
Speaker 1: 82.
Speaker 6: Pass for his disabled aging mother who wants to age in place. My question is, what is the.
Speaker 1: Racial.
Speaker 6: Demographics of your comment and the question. I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Jesse. Our next speaker is Tess Dougherty.
Speaker 3: Hi. This is test. And I.
Speaker 2: I echo Jess's question about what the. It seems like there's a need for us to include the racial demographic on these on these presentations from the, from the planning board. And I'm just to make sure that we're remaining equitable, since it seems like the head of the planning department.
Speaker 3: Doesn't.
Speaker 2: See a concern or or want to, you know, address the gross negligence and and the discrimination that's happening based on Shawn Johnson's application. So maybe. Yeah, I would like to know the same as Jesse and to see if maybe we could start including some demographic information on these reports. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Tess. That concludes the speakers this evening. Questions from members of Council on Council Bill 308. So give it a moment here. All right. I'm seeing no questions. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 308 Council member Clark.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. And thank you to Ryan and staff for putting all the work into this. I think this clearly meets the criteria and I'll be supporting it tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Councilmember Clark, I share that same opinion that it meets all of the criteria that it needed to meet and we'll be supporting it as well. Madam Secretary, roll call, please. On Council Bill 308.
Speaker 4: Clark.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 3: Flynn.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 4: Herndon.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 4: Hi.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 3: Cashman. I can. I. Sandoval. I. Sawyer. I.
Speaker 4: Torres, I. Black I. CdeBaca. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 2000 West Virginia Avenue in Athmar Park.
Approves a map amendment to rezone property from E-SU-Dx to E-SU-D1x (allows for an accessory dwelling unit), located at 2000 West Virginia Avenue in Council District 7. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 3-30-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_05102021_21-0333
|
Speaker 3: 11 Eyes.
Speaker 0: 11 Eyes. Counsel Bill 20 1-0308 has passed. Moving along to our second hearing. Councilmember Black, would you please put council bill three, three, three on the floor?
Speaker 4: Yes I moved that council.
Speaker 3: Bill 20.
Speaker 2: 1-0333 be placed upon.
Speaker 3: Final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: All right, thank you. We have our motion and our circuit. The combined public hearing on council Bill three, three, three and council bill 352 is open. Speakers may offer comments on either or both items. After the conclusion of the public hearing, council will vote separately on each. But first, May we have the staff report, please.
Speaker 6: Great. Thank you. Council President Joe Moore and good evening. Members of Council Jason Morrison, senior city planner with Community Planning and Development. I'm here to present the rezoning application at 3001 South Federal Boulevard, or the property more commonly known as Loretto Heights. The request is from MPI too, which is a campus zone district to customize zoning of potentially 24 Fields 25 and Annex three with waivers. So before I begin, I do want to provide a little background on how we got here this evening. In 2018 at TCU University sold the former Loreto Heights campus, which presented a unique opportunity to build on the site's legacy through a sensitive redevelopment that incorporates the vision of the surrounding community. For over a year, CPD worked with neighborhood residents and stakeholders to capture the community vision for this area. The community driven public process builds on previous work done by local leaders and neighborhood groups who have been eager to put a plan in place for many years. This planning process included a significant outreach component, which consisted of ten steering committee meetings, four public meetings, including an all Spanish language meeting. Two online surveys, which yielded 2300 individual comments and the distribution of over 25,000 fliers. Some of the key land use recommendations that came out of the plan include preserve and reuse historic structures and features, encourage affordable housing development, promote a diverse mix of uses, and allow for a variety of building heights and intensities. There are also a number of mobility, connectivity and open space recommendations found throughout the Lorelei Heights area plan. This plan was adopted in September of 2019 and ensures that decisions such as this rezoning are done with current policy guidance in place that reflects the community's vision. 70 acre subject site is in Council District two, which is Councilman Kevin Flynn's district in southwest Denver. The site is in the Harvey Park South Statistical neighborhood. And as I mentioned, the existing zoning is CPI to which is intended to be applied to smaller to medium scale educational campus sites adjacent to lower density residential districts. Maximum building heights are 150 feet, maximum and 75 feet maximum, when within 175 feet of a protected district. Surrounding zoning includes single unit, multi-unit and mixed use districts of varying heights and intensities. The Ruby Hill part you claim covers the eastern half of the subject site, and maximum height restrictions range from 55 feet to 204 feet, depending on the topography. The proposed maximum allowable building heights that would result from this rezoning range from 35 feet to 110 feet. Silverado Heights Lawyer Plan provides additional guidance on maximum allowable building heights, which I will cover shortly. As previously mentioned, this is a former educational campus. Existing land uses include public and quasi public and mixed use. Surrounding land uses include single unit, multi-unit and commercial and retail. Additionally, the subject site is adjacent to Loreto Heights Park. The next two slides. So the existing context within and around the subject site, and these are some of the iconic buildings on the former campus. From left to right, we have Chris, a hall in the quadrangle. The administration building in the May Bond filled Stanton Library Theater. And these images are representative of some of the existing context surrounding the subject site. Examples include single unit and multi-unit structures, commercial uses and the Denver School of Science and Technology immediately south of the subject site. As part of one application, the applicant requests three zones a DG 24 and DG 25 for Denver Zoning Code Section 961 as well as your MCs three with a waiver to five storeys at a high level Pdg 24 would apply to the historic core of the Heights campus is based on the Denver Zoning Code District. Copyright two and addresses the preservation, adaptive reuse of the historic buildings and open spaces, along with new residential and commercial development in a campus setting. The proposed Pdg 25 allows for low scale residential development oriented toward a network of new streets and open spaces to the north and west of the historic campus. For this, Pudi has four sub areas based on a s RH 2.5 and you are x three zone districts. He proposed the Denver Zoning Code District of U.N. x three, which is urban. Mixed use for up to three stories, is intended for use in the urban neighborhood context, which is characterized by small scale, multi-unit, residential and commercial areas embedded in single unit and two unit residential areas where a building scale of three stories or 45 feet is desired. The applicant is requesting a mixed three zone district with a waiver to allow for up to five stories. And I will get into details of that request here in just a moment. In responding to the unique attributes of the subject site, new DG 24 contained several special provisions that address the design of buildings that may front open spaces or public streets. The protection and treatment of historic buildings prior to any local historic designation. The adaptive reuse of historic buildings and open spaces that may not be designated as local historic landmarks. Flexible design allowances for exterior alterations, additions, and reconstruction of these buildings. And finally, the height of buildings within a unique topography. Similarly, Dee, 25, contains several special provisions, including addressing buildings up front, open spaces and public streets, implementing land use recommendations that do not match the existing zoned district that came out of the Loreto Heights small area plan. For example three storey maximum height for rowhouse districts and a suburban neighborhood context, as well as side street standards for South Irving Street and South Julien Streets. And finally, addressing height with a unique topography, including a height incentive which rewards development meeting Denver's green building objectives. Finally, the applicant is requesting the UN through his zone district with a waiver to allow for up to five stories. This zone district is a mixed use zone district, which allows for a variety of residential, commercial and office uses. It allows the townhouse general and shopfront building forms up to three stories or 35 feet, except for the Townhouse Building Forum, which allows up to 38. The applicant is proposing a waiver and maximum building heights, which would allow it to five storeys or 70 feet. You'll find that this waiver request is consistent with the height guidance in the Loreto Heights small area plan inconsistent with CPD policy of using waivers as a bridge to future text amendments to the Denver zoning code. The CPD has identified a need for a future use by some district. In addition to this rezoning, the Loreto Heights Large Development Review Framework outlines specific regulatory steps required for implementation of the development, including completion of an infrastructure master plan, mobility study and subdivision. In addition, the framework identified potential topics for a future development agreement, including affordable housing, off site street improvements, historic preservation requirements outside of the community and open space maintenance and track. Concurrent with this MAP amendment, the applicant is proposing to record a development agreement that would ensure a number of important provisions. The development of affordable housing units on the subject site, protection of historic buildings and campus character through local historic designations and demolition prohibition. Inclusion of publicly accessible open space and enhancements to Loreto Heights Park. Compliance with the Denver Green Code for residential structures within the residential PV or G 25 that require additional maximum building height. And finally, a number of off site improvements along Irving Street and Julian Street. Due to the applicant's request of extended vesting rights beyond what is allowed by the zoning code at the development agreement is also before Council this evening under a separate action item. The Mountain Limit application was unanimously recommended for approval by a planning board back on March seven and moved forward by committee last month. All notification requirements have been met since the staff report was published. We've received 16 letters in support of the proposed rezoning and two letters of opposition. That said, I do know that additional letters have been sent to council, including three letters of support from those in the area. As you know, there are five review criteria when analyzing the appropriateness of the request. Additionally in Denver, zoning code section 12, four, ten, nine, there are specific review criteria for the approval of all planned unit development zoned districts, and I'll walk through these shortly. But first, we'll start with the general review criteria, which is consistency with adoption plans. As you can see, there are three adopted plans applicable to this site Comprehensive Plan 2040 Blueprint Denver as well as a little rental height. Small area plan. The proposed MAP amendment is consistent with several strategies from Conference 2040, including a number of strategies in the equitable, affordable and inclusive vision element, as well as the environmentally, environmentally resilient vision element listed here and also detailed in the staff report. Looking at Blueprint Denver Blueprint Denver identifies three future neighborhood contexts for the subject site, suburban, special District and Urban. The western portion of the property proposed to be rezoning the G 25 is predominantly within the suburban neighborhood context. The proposed pad is based on the S, s, u, s, r, h and your three zone districts and the respective suburb boundaries are mapped consistent with the neighborhood context. The proposed Pdg 25 would allow compatible low scale residential uses and some residential mixed use in appropriate building form embedded in the neighborhood. Consistent with Blueprint's description of the suburban and urban neighborhood context. The central portion of the subject property proposed to be resolved to PG 24 is identified as a special districts context. These areas offer a diverse range of amenities. The proposed PDE is based on the campus zoned district and the respective sub area boundaries are consistent with the neighborhood context map. Although the former Loreto Heights campus will no longer serve a specifically designed purpose, the application notes that the preservation of existing buildings, the integration of open space and thoughtfully design infill development will help maintain and further promote the vision for unique campus feel. Finally, the eastern portion of the state is designated as the urban neighborhood context and blueprint. Denver and the proposed um x three with waivers map for this portion of the site adjacent to Federal Boulevard is not consistent with the urban neighborhood context map and would allow for compatible residential and commercial development in an appropriate building for and facilitate the activation of a walkable public realm. The Future Places MAP identifies several place types for the subject site. The northern and western areas identified as high, medium residential, low, medium, residential and residential low. The PDS 25 boundary encompasses all of the high, medium, residential, low, medium, residential and residential low to high guidance and allowable building forms built into the Crescent Zone District is intended to respond to the existing single unit structures to the West in the North and provide a variety of residential uses that competitively transition to higher intensity uses the closer you get to the campus core. The future places map shows the central portion of the subject property as part of the campus area within the district's context. Pudi 24 boundary encompasses the campus feature place type custom zoned district will offer a variety of sensitive infill development, including retail, residential and office uses, which will serve the surrounding neighborhood consistent with the blueprint. Denver Place Type Description. Finally the northwest corner of the subject properties identified as a corridor feature place type and most of the eastern portion of the proposed rezoning along Federal Boulevard is identified as the community center place type. The proposed U.N. x three with waivers boundary encompasses the Community Center and Community Corridor feature Peyton Place type. The general purpose of this Zone district is provide a mix of residential, commercial and office uses that promote a safe, active and pedestrian scaled street edge. The Zone District is intended for corridors, embedded neighborhood business areas and larger sites. Staff finds that the proposed math amendment is consistent with the future place mapped in this area. Looking at Blueprint's growth strategy, the western portion of the subject property is located within the all other areas of the city growth area where 10% employment growth and 20% housing growth is anticipated by 2040. Blueprint Denver identifies the eastern portion of the property along Federal Boulevard as a community centers and corridors growth area. These areas are expected to see 20% of new employment growth and 25% of new housing growth by 2040. The proposed MAP amendment is consistent with the growth strategy map for this area. The proposal allows for a variety of residential infill development that will support housing growth, as well as an appropriate level of mixed uses that will enable the growth of employment opportunities. An equity analysis was done for this property and the subject site is in an area with below average access to opportunity. The proposed rezoning from the Campus Zone District will enable a greater mix of residential, retail, commercial and pedestrian oriented uses within close proximity to the surrounding community. The anticipated development that will result from this rezoning has the potential to bring additional services and amenities, including publicly accessible open space that draws residents and visitors into the site from the surrounding community. Improvements to infrastructure, streetscape and existing network of local and regional trails will further improve multimodal connectivity and greater accessibility in the community. Staff finds that this rezoning application will have a positive impact on improving access to opportunity in the area. The subject's site is in an area that is more vulnerable to displacement. The proposed rezoning from the Campus Zone District will enable greater access to jobs and a diversity of residential opportunities, including both for sale and for rent in units. The rezoning will allow for a variety of residential building forms, including middle density housing. Additionally, an affordable housing agreement has been finalized concurrent with this rezoning, and this agreement will ensure the provision of for rent and for sale affordable housing units on the subject site. These affordable units will be available to households of diverse income levels, dispersed equitably throughout the site size to accommodate a variety of households and of similar type to market rate housing units and redevelopment staff. Stop of this rezoning application will have a positive impact on this measurement and has the potential to greatly improve the vulnerable displacement score for this area over time. Subject site is in an area that has above average housing diversity. This area is considered not diverse for one of the indicators, and that's percent of middle density housing, and that's anywhere from 2 to 19 units. Is anticipated that the proposed rezoning from the Campus Zone District will further increase the diversity of housing options in the area, including single unit duplex. It will small scale and large scale multi-unit options such as townhomes, rowhouses.
Speaker 1: And apartment building forms.
Speaker 6: Subject site has a job mix that is similar to the city's overall mix of job types. The proposed zone districts will continue to allow various commercial office and retail jobs in the area consistent with the citywide average. Staff finds that on balance, this rezoning application will continue to have a positive impact on the area's jobs diversity. We print Denver provides additional recommendations when it comes to rezonings such as this one that include a historic preservation component as well as a customized zoning approach. The proposed G 24 would promote the preservation and adaptive reuse of the historic resources on the former Loreto Heights campus and would facilitate its continued use consistent with the recommendations we find in Blueprint Denver. Additionally, due to the many unique attributes of the property, including the challenging topography and the variety of remaining historic resources located in the center of the site, there is no standard zoned district that can address the site's unique and extraordinary circumstances. Similarly, the Pwds and Next Three District with waivers will assist in implementing the land use recommendations from the Loreto Heights small area plan that do not match an existing zoning district. Therefore, the use of a puti and a standard district with waivers is consistent with the recommendations we find a blueprint.
Speaker 1: Denver.
Speaker 6: Next we're looking at the Loreto Heights small area plan, the neighborhood context and future place. Maps created in this plan provide detailed guidance for use in rezonings and other policy decisions. In 2019, these maps updated the same blueprint Denver Maps. As a result, you'll find consistency in staff's analysis in this section with the future place and context maps previously discussed. Consistent with the blueprint Denver Mapping and analysis, there are three different future neighborhood contexts for the subject property and that suburban special district and urban. The proposed PD 25 would allow complex compatible residential uses and some residential mixed use in an appropriate building form embedded in the neighborhood consistent with the lower Hyde smaller airplane. Description of the suburban and urban neighborhood context. Similarly, the proposed Pdg 24 is appropriate and consistent with the Special District's context plan direction, as it will allow for the preservation and adaptive reuse of historic buildings and new residential and commercial development in a campus setting. Finally, the proposed U.N. actually with waivers, would allow for compatible residential and commercial development in an appropriate building for the facilitate activation of a walkable public realm, which is consistent with the urban context description. Consistent with the blueprint. Denver Mapping and analysis. The Future Places map identifies several place types for the subject site. Pdg 25 allows for low scale and medium scale residential development oriented toward a network of new streets and open spaces. Pdg 24 addresses the historic core of the former rights campus with the preservation and adaptive reuse of historic buildings and the customized zoned district will allow for a variety of sensitive infill development, including commercial, residential and office uses, which will serve the surrounding neighborhood consistent with a low rate small area plan. Place. Type. Description. The proposed U.N. makes three waivers, provides a mix of residential, commercial and office, uses that promote a safe, active and pedestrian skilled street edge. The Zone District is intended for corridors like Federal Boulevard, embedded better neighborhood business areas and larger sites like the former Loreto Heights campus. The carefully calibrated high guidance in the P g 25, which allows for a maximum of two and a half to three stories in allowable building forms into the Customs Zone. District is intended to respond to the existing single unit structures to the north and the west of the site and provide a variety of residential uses that competitively transitions to higher intensity uses the closer you get to the campus core. The proposed maximum allowable building height 5 to 8 storeys and the ADG 24 in the mass and scale of building varies as appropriate when considering the historic status of the site. Du G, 24, contains massing footprint and spacing requirements and restricts the number of placement of any building over five storeys on the site to a single location. Finally, the Loreto Heights area plan recommends a five storey maximum height on the eastern portion of the site in the unmixed three zone district. The waiver to five stories helps to improve the transition between commercial development and adjacent residential neighborhoods like the College View Neighborhood to the east. The proposed rezoning will result in uniform application of zoned district building form, use and design regulations. It will also further the public health, safety and welfare by implementing adopted plans, as well as providing enhanced design standards, a broader mix of uses and mobility improvements as well as much needed affordable housing. And the application identifies change or changing conditions as justifying circumstance with the newly adopted plan guidance in the recently adopted the red light small area plan. The requested Pdg 24, pdg 25 and you three with waivers is consistent with the neighborhood context, description, zoned district purpose and intent, which I won't get into right now. In addition to the general review criteria, Denver's zoning code Section 12 four nine contains additional review criteria for the approval of all planned unit development zone districts. Staff finds that the proposed districts are intended to respond to unique and extraordinary circumstances where more flexible zoning than what is achieved through a standard zone district is desirable on and multiple variances, waivers and conditions to be avoided. One example of a unique and extraordinary circumstance to preview 25 is where a development site has specific, special physical characteristics, including lots with significant topography. There is a significant amount of topography on the western portion of the redevelopment site, and the site cannot be redeveloped under the existing zoning or any standard zoned district without significant waivers and conditions, while also addressing buildings that front desired open spaces. Specifically, there is approximately 133 feet of fall on the western portion of PGE 25, which equates to about a 9% average grade. And there are areas within the party where the grade is upwards of 11%. Additionally, within the western portion of the site, there are a number of unique existing conditions, including a 100 foot wide Denver water easement, an existing irrigation ditch to be preserved, and a cemetery also to be preserved to the northwest of the site. As previously stated, Pdg 25 will further implement land use recommendations that do not match an existing Denver zoning code zone district. Similarly, one example of unique and extraordinary circumstance applicable to PD 24 is where a customized zoning approach is necessary to protect and preserve the character of a historic structure or historic district. Pdg 24 will enable standards to protect historic buildings prior to any local historic designation and by supporting the adaptive reuse of historic buildings in open spaces that are not expected to be formally designated. With flexible design allowances for exterior alterations, additions and new construction. According to section 9.6.1.1. D in the Denver zoning code. In return for the flexibility in site design, a district should provide significant public benefit. Staff finds that the districts are compatible with the goals and objectives of current plan for providing significant public benefits, including the provision of a diverse range of affordable housing options, including different price points types, and a mix of rental and for sale units. Provision of publicly accessible open space and valuable connections to the adjacent Liberto Heights Park and Regional Trail Network, including the Platte River Trail, development patterns compatible in character and design with surrounding neighborhoods while preserving the historic structures and character of the former Loreto Heights campus. Expanded allowed uses on the former campus while providing a storage structure is more flexibility to adapt to new uses over time. And finally, investments in public infrastructure, including public roads which improve East-West vehicular and pedestrian connections throughout the subject site. The remaining criteria are listed here on your screen. The first criteria is that the districts comply with all applicable standards and criteria. As stated in Division 9.6, staff finds the proposed districts comply with the standards and criteria stated in Division 9.6 next that the development proposed on a subject property is not feasible under any other zone districts and will require a reasonable number of variances, waivers and conditions. As previously described, the site would require several variances or waivers to the standard. As you are age, you are X and copy two zone districts to accommodate the development, most notably the location, side streets, standards, height and scale of the allowed development in Pdg 25 and the flexible building standards needed to preserve and maintain existing buildings, including G 24. There is no other zoned district which would accommodate the development without variances or waivers. Next, the district establishes permitted uses that are compatible with existing land uses adjacent to the subject property. Stock lines of the district proposes uses consistent with those allowed in the SS. You are age, you are X and C empty zone districts with additions and modifications described previously. These uses are appropriate to apply to a site currently used for public and quasi public uses in a suburban neighborhood and are surrounded by varying residential intensities and commercial areas. Finally, the beauty district establishes permitted building forms that are compatible with adjacent existing building forms, or which are made compatible through appropriate transitions at the boundaries of the districts. Staff finds that the districts allow building heights and building forms that are compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods, and the setback and building form restrictions ensure appropriate relationships to adjacent properties and the character of the campus core as well as the surrounding community. With the finding that all general review criteria have been met in Denver's zoning code, section 12, four, ten, seven and 12, four, ten, eight, as well as the additional criteria. And Denver Zoning Code Section 12 for ten nine staff recommends approval of application 2019 00165. And thank you. And we are available to answer any questions you may have.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you for the presentation, Jason. And we'll go ahead and ask you. Thank you for taking your screen sharing down tonight. Council has received four written comments on Council Bill three, three, three and there are four submitted comments in favor of the application and no submitted comments in opposition of the application. Council has also received nine written comments on Council Bill 352. There are seven submitted comments in favor of the application and two submitted comments in opposition of the application. All members of Council that are present have certified that they have read each of the submitted written comments. Do any members need more time in order to read all of the written testimony that was submitted? All right, scene one council secretary. Let the record reflect that all written testimony both in favor and in opposition of Council Bill three, three, three and Council Bill 352 have been read by each member of Council and all written testimony will be submitted to the official record of the hearing this evening for this combined public hearing. Four, three, three, three and three, five, two. We have 27 individuals signed up to speak and we will go ahead and get started. And our first speaker is Chris Shears.
Speaker 1: Yes. Good evening. My name is Chris Years.
Speaker 6: 1550 Wynkoop.
Speaker 1: And I'm a consultant to the applicant and I'm available for questions.
Speaker 6: Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Chris. Our next speaker this evening is Daniel Craig.
Speaker 6: Evening. Thanks for your time. Council and resided. Daniel Craig resided at 3111 West 36th Avenue. Denver, Colorado. I don't own one and I'm available for questions as well.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Daniel. Our next speaker is Marcus Harkness. All right, Marcus. And you will have to go ahead and unmute yourself.
Speaker 1: City Council members and Marcus Faulkner. I am here for questions as well. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Our next speaker is Nash Noel. And now you're going to have to go ahead and a new and so it star six on your phone.
Speaker 1: You hear me now? Mm hmm.
Speaker 0: Go ahead.
Speaker 6: Union council members.
Speaker 1: Yep. My name is Nash Noel. I'm a consultant for the applicant as well. And here for any questions you guys may have.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Nash. Our next speaker is Annie Bensky.
Speaker 2: Hi, I'm Annie Levinsky, executive director of historic Denver at 1420 Ogden Street. We participated in the Small Area Plan Steering Committee and have remained.
Speaker 4: Engaged in the project.
Speaker 2: Planning and committee discussions over the last few years. And throughout the process, both the community meetings and the steering committee meetings.
Speaker 4: Participants and stakeholders have.
Speaker 2: Emphasized to prioritize the preservation of the unique assets and qualities of the campus. And certainly Loretto Heights is the most significant historic site in southwest Denver. And it's notable not just for its architecture, for its special cultural and historical associations, including its.
Speaker 4: Association with women's.
Speaker 2: History, something that we think is.
Speaker 4: Particularly special.
Speaker 2: As an organization. We've remained committed to the role that we can play in the preservation of the site as a partner. And we appreciate the care that has been placed in the on the rezoning and the use of the zoning that recognizes the unique attributes in this place. The specific role historic Denver agreed to play back in 2019. And what I'm happy to answer questions about this evening is to hold a perpetual preservation easement on the main administration building and chapel. This was conveyed as part of the small area plan adoption and included in the development agreement. A preservation easements are a long established tool that protect buildings through legal agreement according to preservation values. We have been in a qualified is not holder for nearly 50 years helping to protect 69 iconic properties across the metro area. Using this particular tool, we have been working to negotiate this easements and have experienced some delays during the pandemic and as West Side worked out other aspects of the development plans, it has been our understanding and goal that the easement agreement would be.
Speaker 4: Executed.
Speaker 2: Along with the development agreement. However, we have not fully resolved all the aspects of the easement agreement. Despite numerous conversations and some drafts. Even up to this afternoon. It's important that the easement provide the level of protection worthy of this building and this property and promise to the community and be an agreement that's consistent with the standards
Speaker 4: . Of our organization.
Speaker 2: And best easement practices. So we remain fully committed to getting the agreement done, and we'll continue to work on it in good faith. And I'm available to answer questions about that if needed. Thank you.
Speaker 3: All right.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Eric Browning.
Speaker 1: Good evening, Eric Browning. I'm the acting building official for Community Planning and Development, and I'm here to answer questions.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Our next speaker is Sochi guy Tom. And you might need to hear me. Oh, there you go. Yeah, go ahead, please.
Speaker 3: Yes. Hi. So Itchy Gaitan, a.
Speaker 2: 19 year homeowner in Harvey Park, the first woman of color president of the Harvey Park Community Organization.
Speaker 3: Also known as Hip Girl.
Speaker 2: I'm no longer president. I'm now co-chair of the Colorado Latino Forum.
Speaker 3: I spoke to you.
Speaker 2: About two years ago, the typical president to share.
Speaker 3: That my board had voted to oppose the lowering.
Speaker 2: Of Heights area plan and the metro district plan. Also to share with you then several concerns that had come out of our research and conversations. So I speak to you today to ask you to vote no on the zoning change request. The Denver City Council. As you all continue with your renewed commitment to racial and social justice, I ask that you help our bipoc communities in Southwest Denver by helping to stave off some of the major gentrification sweeps that are taking place now, which will also be the outcome by approving this zoning change request. And in your commitment to racial and social justice, it only makes sense.
Speaker 3: To work.
Speaker 2: Towards dismantling racist, social, structural systems such as these types of zoning requests from major developer developers like West Side Investment.
Speaker 3: Partners. I also ask you to question the consequences of approving this zoning change request.
Speaker 2: I support smart growth and.
Speaker 3: Development when.
Speaker 2: It's done via the lens.
Speaker 4: Of equity.
Speaker 2: And social justice, which is very.
Speaker 3: Different than overdevelopment. And so.
Speaker 2: What I've seen and experienced.
Speaker 3: And is a proven fact now that under the current mayor's administration.
Speaker 2: The city of Denver is the second.
Speaker 3: Most gentrified city in the nation.
Speaker 2: Displacing vulnerable communities such as my bipoc community, also low.
Speaker 3: Income white families.
Speaker 2: And what is proven fact is how much dark.
Speaker 3: Money has been.
Speaker 2: Poured into campaigns of current politicians.
Speaker 3: By many developers.
Speaker 2: That do the work in this city, including West.
Speaker 3: Side. Another fact is that West Side sits on the board of over 17 metro districts holding power and complete control over the districts.
Speaker 2: And the property.
Speaker 3: Taxes of the homes and.
Speaker 2: Businesses within the boundaries. And they reinvest the bonds from their benefit for their benefit.
Speaker 3: And on the backs of working families.
Speaker 2: So as you approve this request, it opens the floodgates.
Speaker 3: And to.
Speaker 2: A wide range of liberties. And so I ask you to think about.
Speaker 3: The following one. It gives them legally enforceable.
Speaker 2: Agreement with a guarantee for the developer site plan.
Speaker 3: That does not include community.
Speaker 2: Concerns to total 20 years of vesting rights for the.
Speaker 3: Developer as opposed to a.
Speaker 2: Typical five years. Three. No guarantees that the developer will address traffic concerns in and around the campus.
Speaker 0: Thank you for your public comment this evening. Our next speaker is Donna Rapp.
Speaker 2: Good evening. I'm Donna Reed. 4830 West Colorado Avenue. I'm a representative of the South Mali, at which you're in Park Reno. And I served as my neighborhood's backup on the official Loretta Hyde steering committee. My neighborhood unanimously voted.
Speaker 3: To approve the.
Speaker 2: Small area plan, which was developed in partnership with the community. And we continue to support this project. I can't stress enough how much from then to now this developer.
Speaker 3: Has involved the community in the visionary process.
Speaker 2: It's undeniable that Loreto Heights is a gem, truly a landmark. So when the sale of the 72 acres happened, it created a sense of doubt.
Speaker 3: In the community about what would happen next.
Speaker 2: At the time of the sale, the current zoning allowed for heights of up to 15 storeys. So the creation of an inclusive steering.
Speaker 3: Committee meant that any future development would have to wait.
Speaker 2: At the very least a whole year until the community could properly weigh in. So that was encouraging news to the community because the pause button was pushed by none other than the developer. In sure. West Side.
Speaker 3: Listen to the community.
Speaker 2: This is actually a down zone in each. R.A. appointed their own representatives to serve their neighborhoods on the committee and in the end to gather. We came up with an area plan reflective of that year long, inclusive process. Communication flowed freely to and from West Side, Denver staff and the community. And the process has always been one in which the developer actively created a space for the community to weigh in. I've never been allowed to wander freely onto Loretto Heights because it's been private property. So for the first time ever, Loreto Heights will be accessible to all people to enjoy. Remember, the vision of the steering committee has always been for Loreto Heights to have a village like feel keeping the wonderful spirit of Loreto in its character. We asked for affordable housing with a mix of other price points available. Very little traffic pedestrian and cyclist friendly. A sustainable place that fosters inclusion. This is what the community wants and is asking for. So when the developer announced that Pan Croatia Hall would be used for affordable housing. I thought, he gets it. It was a perfect first move based on the community driven process. My neighborhood association is in full support of this proposed.
Speaker 4: Rezoning.
Speaker 2: And personally I support it too. Please approve the rezoning request. So the legacy of Loreto Heights can continue to impact the Southwest Denver community in positive ways. Loreto Heights needs new life and love breathed back into this wonderful place. Thanks so much for your time and consideration and I'll stick around in case you have any other quick questions for me. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Donna. Our next speaker is Tess Dougherty.
Speaker 3: Hi there. I want to once again. Go ahead. Okay. Okay. I just wanted to you ask that when.
Speaker 2: Decisions like this are being made, that the city council is is keeping in mind equity is keeping in mind that this that the. But decisions have not always been made, and I would argue maybe in most cases have not been made with with the with the culture of the neighborhood and and people who are most marginalized in life. And so I just, you know, I feel like a lot of these zoning decisions that I sit through and that we here are just not centering the people who have been silenced for the longest. And so I also I don't think that depending on Arnaud's as the only voice in the city for public input is is appropriate. We know that Arnaud's do not represent equitably the neighborhoods. They just don't. So I just would ask that you keep that in mind because there are so many decisions that are being made that are not centering people, people of color, low income people. They're not centering people who, you know, with disabilities. So I just it's I, I just am kind of really frustrated by some of the conversations that are not asking the right people the right questions. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Tess. Our next speaker is Brad Billingsley.
Speaker 1: I may. Can you hear me?
Speaker 0: Mm hmm. Go ahead.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Brad Billingsley. 3940. East Wesley Avenue. Denver. 802. No. And I just want to speak to the character of West Side Development as a leader in our community. I volunteer with Food for Thought, which is a local nonprofit that addresses childhood food insecurity. We were started by local businessman Bob Bell nine years ago when he realized that many kids in Denver public schools don't have food to eat from Friday, hot lunch told the following Monday morning free breakfast at school. So back then, we started attacking stacks of foods for every student in two schools. Today we're delivering to 75 schools that are 90% or better free and reduced lunch. Many of those are in the immediate area around Loretto Heights, including College View, August Gottesman and Schmitt Elementaries. Our organization approached West Side Development two years ago with a need to create a new food packing site. We asked if we could use one of the buildings that's on Loreto Heights once they learned about what we do. They said not only yes and gave us a place to operate out of, but they also volunteered to pack food and even went so far as to buy us a forklift to help move the many pallets of food so we could feed even more kids and expand the program. Websites been critical to our ability to serve 8500 families around Denver every week, many in the Laredo Heights neighborhood. They've just demonstrated their commitment to our community quietly and consistently. They're an organization built of character that is walking the walk to help give Loreto Heights a future we can all be proud of. We've reviewed what they're asking for in terms of this development. Encourage City Council to approve the rezoning of this campus. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker this evening is Mark. With kids. With kids. I'm sorry, Mark. I'm going to let you go ahead and pronounce your last name. Go ahead.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Madam President, members of the City Council. My name is Mark White Cabbage. I am speaking as the applicant tonight. Here I am, a principal at West Side Investment Partners. Our address is 4100 East Mississippi Avenue, Glendale 80246. Our goal, Loreto Heights, was to seek to understand together as a community. As a community, we have come together to plan the next great chapter at Loretta Heights. We are very proud as to what we have accomplished together. Preservation, housing of all types. Open spaces. Community spaces, significant down zoning at the community's request. Just to name a few. We look forward to the next great chapter of Loretta Heights. And we thank you. And I'm happy to answer any questions, which I'll begin with one tonight that I heard earlier to address the comments from historic Denver . We are fully committed to finalizing the negotiations of the easement, as we have promised before. For further clarity, the property is protected. Even without the easement, it's not to say that we won't have a final easement, but the property is protected with an existing covenant for non demolition. There is very specific language with the side of the Peabody and there's also the development agreement. We do understand the importance of the conservation easement that the community and historic Denver has asked for and we are a stone's throw away from having that finalized. Again, I appreciate your time tonight, and I am here to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Mark. Our next speaker this evening is David Hagan. Go ahead, David. All right. Well, we'll see if we can get David to unmute here. All right. We'll go ahead and move to our next speaker and try to get him back in the queue. Claire Harris. Go ahead, please. You're going to have to go ahead and unmute yourself.
Speaker 4: All right. Here you go. Can you hear me now?
Speaker 0: Mm hmm.
Speaker 4: Go ahead and hear me now.
Speaker 0: So if you have a second device.
Speaker 4: All of you.
Speaker 0: Turn it down.
Speaker 4: I'm Claire here, so I live it. How do I look? You hear me? Hello?
Speaker 0: Mm hmm. Go ahead.
Speaker 4: Can you hear me? Yeah. Okay. I live.
Speaker 2: At 2695 West Dartmouth Avenue.
Speaker 4: In college view. And partly because of my location.
Speaker 2: I'm very invested in this project.
Speaker 4: I live about two or three blocks to the east of. Of Lorena Heights and.
Speaker 3: Students who went.
Speaker 4: To heights when it became a Japanese university. So I've watched it for many years, since 1970s. I've lived in the.
Speaker 2: All the good work at West Side is.
Speaker 4: Done with the neighborhoods. I've especially appreciated that the West Side has worked with all the neighborhoods and as Donna said in much detail. They've addressed our concerns. They planned to neighborhood meetings. They talked about maintaining the buildings. It's in the neighborhood, especially college views. Since it's actually part of our name, we're very invested in the continuation of some kind of youth. Have also.
Speaker 2: Been.
Speaker 4: One of the earlier speakers mentioned affordable.
Speaker 2: Housing and in my neighborhood college.
Speaker 4: You that's what it is affordable housing. Although I have to say that gentrification is a big issue all over town because even College View is now has million dollar homes. Another issue that they've addressed is the traffic on Dartmouth Avenue. Even Dartmouth matters to me.
Speaker 2: Personally as well as.
Speaker 4: Being part of the neighborhood. So I have to say that that west west side has been listened to. Concerns from the neighborhood addressed things that they could work very.
Speaker 2: Well in trying.
Speaker 4: To maintain what they. After that of the surrounding areas.
Speaker 2: And we appreciate that greatly in college.
Speaker 4: You. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Jim Gibson. I'm going to get Jim Gibson up into the queue here. All right. Go ahead, please.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Jim Gibson. I live at two seven, eight, seven South Stuart Street, board member of the Hardy Park Community Organization, otherwise known as hip hop. My involvement with the redevelopment of the Arts campus began in 2016. I led an effort to conduct a series of community conversations in 2017 that resulted in the document community recommendations, which were shared with West Side Investment Partners shortly after it was announced the company had bought the property. I also served on the steering committee of the city sponsored Laredo Heights area plan and as a result, the Hip Hop Board asked me to serve as chair of the Liberal Arts Subcommittee and represent hip cause position this evening. The Harvey Park Community Organization and the community we represent are largely in favor of the rezoning of the liberal arts campus. We will support the rezoning of this project with the commitment of the City and Western investment partners to address the following two major concerns over the course of the project. We look forward to working with the city and the developer on these items. Major concern. Number one, we're concerned about the effects of gentrification and displacement in our community. We recommend that the city and all developers take into consideration anti displacement measures such as rent subsidies, a city living wage, utilizing a localized area, median income and increased services and supports. For example, we recognize that the aim for affordable housing units is set at the regional rate of $100,000 for a family of four. Our concern is that the amount immediately surrounding the Loreto Heights campus is roughly $63,000. Therefore, we recommend to the city and county of Denver and the West Side investment partners that the AMA should be based on a more localized geographic area rather than the Denver metro area in this development and in all future developments. Major concern. Number two, a community services center should be formally included on the campus to provide essential community services to the local area related and unrelated to the redevelopment. Some additional concerns. The redevelopment should have a maximum five storey building height net zero carbon emission goals should be put in place for the redevelopment. An ordinance and or a new provision in the development agreement should be approved by Denver City Council to ensure that Dartmouth Avenue remains closed and roadways should have four way stops. At a date certain. A raised federal boulevard meeting in front of the campus should be constructed to maximize pedestrian safety, and a three legged car should be covered by the developer. The Federal Boulevard traffic signal should stay in Amherst, not move to Bates. If the signal is moved, the developer should pay the cost. City Council should require that adequate time be provided for community review of the finalized traffic impact study before the rezoning request is approved. And we also finally, we recommend that the city's process for community involvement in future developments undergo rigorous capacity building around diversity, equity, justice and inclusion. Thank you for your time and I'm available.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker, we're going to go back to David Hagan and see if we can get him in the queue.
Speaker 6: Hello? You hear me?
Speaker 0: Go ahead, David.
Speaker 1: Sorry, my phone died and I'm not at anymore.
Speaker 6: I really appreciate the gentleman that just spoke. Unfortunately, I don't think our city work that way. If we let them pass this right now, none of your concerns will be met and need to be changed. The lady that spoke earlier about her fellow bipoc folks I think is pretty much spot on.
Speaker 1: When I hear the city talk about. Affordable housing or mixed income housing. It really scares me when they don't start telling me how many. What is it? What does affordable housing mean? Because from.
Speaker 6: What I can understand or what I gather in the city of 80% AMI is.
Speaker 1: Affordable housing.
Speaker 6: Well, 80% AMI $100,000. I mean, it doesn't get any done. No, that doesn't just look like if you read that book. I mean, there's people that are going to folks that are going to need 20 and 30%. Amy, we're not going to displace people. And I don't know why, but the city continues never, ever provide that or when they do it, very limited. Um, I think that we need that just in general. There needs to be a little bit more transparency. Well, I mean, a lot more transparency of what the city's got going on when it comes to stuff like this
Speaker 1: . Um, just telling us that affordable housing doesn't really.
Speaker 6: It basically.
Speaker 1: Means there's not any affordable housing because if.
Speaker 6: You are going to have affordable housing, it's bragging about how good a job you doing. So when zoning comes in is that that we know they're pushing it and they need to take it back to the drawing board and come back, give us something and.
Speaker 0: Refrain from any profane language.
Speaker 1: David Oh, I'm sorry. The city's been firing me up lately.
Speaker 6: And for you to. Not out of anything but passion. So I wish some of the people on this council cared about as much about the city as I do. That's all I got. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Martha Kirkpatrick. Go ahead, Martha. You're going to have to admit. There you go.
Speaker 3: Go ahead. Sorry. Thank you, counsel. My name is Martha Newland Kirkpatrick. I'm a 1982 graduate.
Speaker 4: Of Lawrence Heights College, where I received my Bachelor of Arts degree. I grew up in southwest Denver.
Speaker 2: The Harvey Park in the Bear Valley.
Speaker 3: Neighborhoods, and I currently live in Inglewood. So Lorena Heights has been part of my life for my entire life. Through community and alumni groups.
Speaker 4: Particularly, that were at a high community initiative.
Speaker 2: I became very involved about what the future health.
Speaker 4: Of his property.
Speaker 3: When Westside purchased the property in July 2018, West Side welcome the small area plan process and also took to heart the.
Speaker 2: LHC EIS recommendations to help inform and dove deeply into what the community wanted and needed.
Speaker 3: Through community meetings held on the campus.
Speaker 2: Property. Dozens of meetings.
Speaker 3: With R.A. groups from the surrounding neighborhoods.
Speaker 4: A year's worth of meetings through the small area plan process.
Speaker 3: The development team has joined hands with.
Speaker 2: All of us to craft a vision for the future of Arad.
Speaker 4: Heights. While most of us understand that not.
Speaker 3: Everyone will get everything that they want, most of us will get something that we do. And what the.
Speaker 4: Larger community wants.
Speaker 3: Is a gathering place somewhere to.
Speaker 4: Find respite and a good meal, a street.
Speaker 2: Fair, lush greenspace, an outdoor concert or a.
Speaker 4: Comfortable home. The words that come to mind, come to mind our respect.
Speaker 3: Reverence, reuse, reclaim, and the other key word that many don't wish to utter redevelopment. However, this redevelopment is being done in a different way.
Speaker 4: By respecting the wishes of the community that they will be using.
Speaker 3: And living nearby by revering the past.
Speaker 2: And letting it inform the future, by reusing.
Speaker 3: And reclaiming what was once grand and bringing it.
Speaker 4: Back to a full, colorful.
Speaker 3: And vibrant life. There are some that.
Speaker 2: Would have you believe that more time or a different plan or another developer.
Speaker 4: Might be the best strategy. But the campus has become a ghost and a shell.
Speaker 3: Quietly crumbling and fading away. It will never be what it once was. That time has passed. Let it be rewarded for waiting. Let it be rewarded with voices and laughter, life and a new legacy. Dedication to the processes and the requests for a rezoning.
Speaker 2: Exemplified by.
Speaker 3: A significant down zoning from approximately a 12 million square foot allowance to approximately a 2 million square foot development shows.
Speaker 2: That West Side Investment Partners has a vision for the future with the desires of the Southwest Denver community.
Speaker 4: Firmly in mind. I completely support West Side Investment Partners and the request for rezoning of the Loreto Heights campus property. Thank you, Counsel. I appreciate your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Martha. Our next speaker this evening is Sister Mary Nell Gage. Oh, there you go.
Speaker 3: Good evening.
Speaker 4: Thank you. My name is Mary Nell Gage. I am a 1966 graduate of Loretto Heights College, and I am a sister of Loreto for over 50 years. I endorse, I affirm the.
Speaker 3: Application for.
Speaker 4: Rezoning.
Speaker 3: Of the.
Speaker 4: Loreto Heights campus. I have been blessed during the last four years with engaging with neighbors and residents of Southwest Denver alumni and civic stakeholders, historical preservationists.
Speaker 3: Denver city officials.
Speaker 4: And West Side investment partners in.
Speaker 3: Discussions and.
Speaker 4: Conversations.
Speaker 3: Regarding the redevelopment.
Speaker 4: Of Loreto Heights. It has been both instructional and inspirational to be involved in such a process. I applaud the encouragement extended to those most affected by the redevelopment. To be involved in the process. I am.
Speaker 3: Grateful for that experience.
Speaker 4: Going forward. I know we will ensure both historical preservation as well as creating what.
Speaker 3: Will be needed for the benefit of our city. Honoring what has been created.
Speaker 4: By man and woman on the campus has been.
Speaker 3: One of the ideals in the respectful redevelopment.
Speaker 4: Plans.
Speaker 2: Equally important.
Speaker 3: Is enhancing the environment so that God's beautiful creation may continue to.
Speaker 4: Inspire all who are seeking.
Speaker 3: Home opportunities. To work. To learn. To play.
Speaker 4: To pray. That which has characterized Loretta Hyde since 1888.
Speaker 3: The cemetery.
Speaker 4: Where 62.
Speaker 3: Pioneer Sisters are buried.
Speaker 4: Is on the grounds. And we.
Speaker 3: Will continue to be in conversation.
Speaker 4: With Westside.
Speaker 3: Regarding the insurance.
Speaker 4: That that.
Speaker 3: Space will always be held sacred. I am confident that the motto engraved in stone.
Speaker 4: Above the academy.
Speaker 3: Building three days mores cultura will be promoted so that all who come.
Speaker 4: Will.
Speaker 3: Share the ideals of faith.
Speaker 4: Morals and culture. May the light from the.
Speaker 3: Tower.
Speaker 4: Give guidance to all who come. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker this evening is Guadalupe Floyd.
Speaker 4: Hi. Hi. Go ahead. Good evening. City council members. And hello. My name is Guadalupe Lloyd. I live at 3260. West Amherst. Denver 80236. And I share the northwest backyard with the Loretto Heights campus right behind me here. I am a native of Chicago, but have been visiting this campus and neighborhood for over 30 years. Since 1988, when my sister and her husband moved to their home on the west side of the campus on Irving Street. My mom and dad followed in 2000. And this is where I now live. My family was the primary reason that I. I first started coming to Denver, Colorado Heights campus and the neighborhood have made me living here. My home. Sorry, I have to read this. I don't remember everything. I have invested countless hours and energy to make sure that this campus both reflects and honors our neighborhoods, our neighborhood. Along with spending the last three years working on the redevelopment of the former.
Speaker 1: The Retro Heights campus.
Speaker 4: I am impressed with the collaboration that has taken place between the neighbors, the city and the developer. As a neighbor who will continue to share a fence with the proposed development, these rezoning applications have my full support. Since the beginning of this small area plan, I have been an active stakeholder throughout the entire process. I have been to most of the community meal meetings held on a monthly basis.
Speaker 0: As well as.
Speaker 4: Meetings in my R.A.. I understand the vision of the campus, the rezonings that will bring it to life, and the concept plans for Redevelop for Development. I love this neighborhood and my ranch house right next door here on the north side of the campus. And I am sure there are parts of me that wanted the campus to remain. But these changes are wonderful and will bring community amenities along with housing for all, and will honor the tradition of the Sisters of Loreto and the campus. Please join me in supporting the proposed rezoning rezoning applications. Finally, I believe that great collaboration has been shown by all parties. We as a community are proposing a medium density village like development that will be a treasure for our neighborhood and all southwest Denver. I thank you for your consideration. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Mark Upshaw.
Speaker 1: Can you.
Speaker 0: Hear me? Yes, go ahead, please.
Speaker 1: Madam President and members of city council. My name is Mark Upshaw. I live about 400 feet west of the campus on West Dartmouth Avenue. I live in the Dartmouth Heights neighborhood, a homeowners association of 72 homes. We share the western boundary of a lot of heights defined by South Irving Street and South Julien Way. I am co-chair of the Dartmouth High School Liaison Committee for Loreto Heights Campus Development. Tonight, I am speaking on behalf of the Dartmouth Heights neighborhood. We support the plan and urge City Council to adopt this on request. Our comments tonight are a brief summary of our position statement dated May six, 2021. It is in your information packet. The Zombies for you are a rational and natural outgrowth of the Florida Heights area plan. The small area plan was a public process managed by the Denver Community Planning Development Office. It was adopted with widespread community support by City Council in the fall of 2019. West Side Development Partners on their own initiative and under the leadership of Marc Rich, principal and project manager, has continued community engagement by holding regularly scheduled community meetings via Zoom during the infrastructure masterplan process. West Side has listened to our concerns, sought to fully understand them and incorporate them as appropriate into the development designs throughout the process . We are also.
Speaker 4: Pleased.
Speaker 1: That they have.
Speaker 6: Donated 300,000.
Speaker 1: To the city for improvements to the right of heights. Or out of Hyde Park, that is Loretta Hyde Park is located immediately north of our neighborhood. However, we continue to be concerned about the traffic impacts to our neighborhood, especially the real possibility of cuts through traffic that would use our neighborhood streets as conduits. For this reason, we strongly encourage the incorporation of calming devices on the campus to slow and discourage cut through traffic. We solicit your cooperation in expressing this concern to the Department of Transportation and Infrastructure, the mayor's office, and other appropriate city agencies. Also, we solicit cooperation from city and elected officials that there be an ongoing monitoring of traffic volumes in our neighborhood in appropriate intervals. As the campus construction progresses, such moderating will determine your traffic calming and management features are needed around the new development, and particularly in our neighborhood. We thank you for listening to our comments. We have hopes for a truly livable community that will make Southwest, Denver and the city at large proud. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker this evening is Lydia Pena. Go ahead, please. Oh, let me see. You've got to get you to unmute again. There you go.
Speaker 4: Thank you very much. City Council Members. I'm Lydia Pena, a sister of Loreto. Loreto Heights College was my home for 27 years, four years as a student and 23 years as the sister of Laredo faculty member on the campus. Matchup of Hall was opened with the first Christmas banquet in 1951 when I was a freshman. The view of the mountains from that dining room nurtured my soul for many years. The plan, put forth by West Side remodels match for use by the community that will be created on those grounds. It lends to the exceptional beauty of the property itself. Mark the cabbage. From West Side investment has been so respectful of the values brought to that land. My sister in Croatia, Boniface, and the first sisters of Loreto in 1888 when they purchased the property.
Speaker 3: For some three years.
Speaker 4: Mark and his team have invited the wider community of interested persons to meetings where they listened to a variety of individuals. Because of those meetings, they generated an amazing, sustainable plan with open space and affordable housing with reduced density. The Great Land will have helped bring the community together. Mark and Justine spoke. And I saw evidence of the values of those sisters who began living and working there 130 years ago. We human beings all have impressions, opinions, and it is easy to assume that what I think is fact. I have accumulated many years and as I've done that, I learned the importance of checking the evidence, the truths, the facts with. I listened to opinions and in my opinion, check what they heard the wider community saying and embedded and into a plan that respects the values of us. Sisters of Loreto. And I, as a student and sister of Loreto, wholeheartedly support.
Speaker 3: So I end by saying for all what has been thanks.
Speaker 4: And to all that will be. Yes. Thank you very much for your time and your skills.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker this evening is Jean Myers.
Speaker 1: Hello.
Speaker 6: Good evening, counsel, and thank you.
Speaker 1: For hearing us today. It's been an amazing journey to work on this project with West Side. I'm the CEO of Thrive Home Builders. We're one of the builders in the project. We're located at 1875 Ward Street in Denver. The collaboration has been with West Side, our neighbors, the Sisters of Loreto and your staff, and a special thanks to Councilman Kevin Flynn for his tireless advocacy on behalf of the people district. To Thrive has three legs to this brand of efficient, healthy and local. We're based in downtown and homegrown. We understand Denver home buyers and what they want. For example, we build our homes with Colorado Beetle Kill Lumber. When we drive to the mountains, it's alarming to see the dead forests and anything good from that could come from that. Well, yes, we can build our homes with trees that have already died, reducing wildfire fuels and helping restore watersheds our customers love there. We specialize in healthy homes by building to the standards of EPA's Indoor Air Plus program. When we started in 2013, not many people connected the dots between health and the home. But in the last year, our customers have seen start clarity that home is where the health is. In 2019, we were indoor air plus builder of the Year nationally, and in 2020 we received EPA's Leader Award. We have homes in Central Park with full house separate filtration that can filter out the coronavirus. And and that provide real time indoor air quality monitoring. Finally, we build very energy efficient homes. In fact, based on evaluations of about.
Speaker 6: 300,000.
Speaker 1: Energy efficient homes built in 2024, I was recently named the most energy efficient builder in America. In addition, the US and Canada have a friendly rivalry each year and in 2023 have also won the cross-border challenge making thrive the most energy efficient builder on the North American continent. Also in 2020.
Speaker 6: We closed our last affordable townhomes that we constructed.
Speaker 1: Under the old Stapleton Affordable Housing Program. In this last project, we built homes for 271 families at 80% of AMI or less. I'm bringing all this up to let you know that you're bringing all of these attributes and all of our expertize to Loreto Heights, West Side, New that the city of Denver and.
Speaker 6: Loreto Heights deserve the best homes in America. And that's what.
Speaker 1: We are committed to building. We will build a wide range of price points in Loreto Heights for each and every home, regardless of price will be designed, built and field tested to ensure compliance with EPA, indoor air plus EOG Zero, Energy Ready and LEED certified. We ask that you give us the opportunity.
Speaker 0: To thank you team.
Speaker 6: By improving the.
Speaker 0: Time you have this evening. Our next speaker is Ali Laubach.
Speaker 2: Hi. Good evening and thank you, council members.
Speaker 4: My name is.
Speaker 2: Ellie Lowe back and I am speaking tonight on behalf of Grand Peak's.
Speaker 4: Properties.
Speaker 2: Grand Peaks Properties is also a homegrown company.
Speaker 3: We are based in Denver and our.
Speaker 2: Founders have been building here in Colorado for over 70 years. I have personally been working with Mark Djokovic and the West Side development team for over two years on the planning and zoning efforts.
Speaker 3: Here at Loreto Heights.
Speaker 4: And our organization would be the one responsible for the creation of for rent housing. And this evening, I would like to encourage you to support this rezoning request for the following reasons. First.
Speaker 2: The entire team has ensured that any of the.
Speaker 4: Zoning proposals that we've put together are consistent with the.
Speaker 2: Approved small area.
Speaker 4: Plan as the basis of community design. Furthermore, the.
Speaker 2: Applicant.
Speaker 4: Website development has done an extraordinary.
Speaker 2: Amount of community outreach and public engagement. We've been meeting with the neighborhood now for over 18.
Speaker 3: Months.
Speaker 2: And working closely with.
Speaker 3: The Sisters of Loretto as.
Speaker 4: Well throughout this process. The rezoning proposed reflects the input and lessons that we've learned from the community throughout those years.
Speaker 2: We've also engaged a comprehensive team of experts in planning and design to thoroughly understand the entire campus and the surroundings.
Speaker 4: And advise on where appropriate density should be developed. The rezoning proposal creates certainty around outcomes. It's sensitive to and.
Speaker 2: Respects the adjacent communities and the neighborhood.
Speaker 4: Context.
Speaker 2: Surrounding it. I fully believe that the rezoning that we are proposing would enable the renovation and re-use of the just.
Speaker 4: The designated historic structures on the campus.
Speaker 2: While also creating the opportunity for new neighborhood.
Speaker 3: Centered.
Speaker 4: Uses. The mix of uses and housing.
Speaker 2: Types that we are proposing would.
Speaker 3: Establish a desirable.
Speaker 4: Balance for a fully.
Speaker 2: Supported neighborhood, and that would carry into the future. So for all of the above, these are the reasons I would.
Speaker 4: Advise that Denver City Council approves a rezoning request.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much for your time tonight.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Megan Beecher.
Speaker 3: Good evening. I'm Megan Becker. I'm with McGinty Becker in Denver. I represent the Loretto Heights Metropolitan Districts Mass General Counsel, and I'm here tonight to answer any questions that may arise.
Speaker 0: All right. Wonderful. Thank you. Next up is J.J. Newman. Go ahead, please.
Speaker 1: Hello? Can you hear me okay? Mm hmm.
Speaker 0: Mm hmm.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 6: Awesome.
Speaker 1: Hi, everybody. My name is John Joseph Nieman, 2786 South Wall Street, Denver, Colorado. 802 36 A good agreement is one that stands the test of time, and I would say that we now need to add that a good agreement stands the test of code with the the community involvement and outreach efforts for this property. It was comprehensive for the Lauretta Heights small area plan creation. It contained input from neighbors that belong to many affected neighborhoods around the campus. It contained experts and novice members of our community. This down zoning is good for the community and for meeting the intention of the small area plan. Meeting I. The meetings I attended showed that this developer is taking an inclusive and deliberate approach that will maximize the value of the Denver gains through its redevelopment. There are many community and government inputs that have made this plan better, and we should never let the desire of perfection be the enemy of doing good. But this plan is good and the process that has been undertaken is great. I think having multiple zoning districts allows for residential representation in your district is the correct district for the reasons mentioned earlier. Also, the New Plains will be maintained for the surrounding area with the New Zone District six, which I think is important. It also allows for the save our theater effort for the Avon Boundaries Center to continue and still be possible, which is a really big positive for the neighborhood and for the development. Yeah, certainly this plan is not perfect. Certainly we're going to see more stipulations maybe around energy efficiency and improvements of water quality, but that may just be a discussion for another time that we can address some of the more detailed pieces. I think for myself, like so many people who live in southwest Denver, I've been working on a full time job trying to keep my family safe from COVID over the last year. And so maybe we all haven't been as active as we used to be, but the training, the effort that we invested in, we wanted to see that small area plan come to fruition. I think I like so many of my other neighbors, we just know that this needs proper zoning and a well-structured funding source to make the Loretta Heights vision a reality like active, alive and functional space that many neighbors can enjoy. So with that, I would just like to say the possibilities for this redevelopment become possible because of this down zoning. So I ask for your support.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Jim Hartman.
Speaker 1: Hello, counsel. My name is Jim Hartman. 2120 BlueBell Avenue in Boulder. And I'm speaking tonight in support of the application. Thank you very much for giving us the opportunity. As background and a common owner of many of the investments for as an architect and as a redevelopment specialist over the last 40 years. I'm also speaking tonight as a member and a manager of Pan Christian Hall Partners. We have a very large team that is currently redeveloping and increasing the hall, Eldorado Heights, creating 74 affordable homes for families. And I'd like to stress that the families are going to have large, unique units. Over 50% of our homes. There will be two, three and four bedroom apartments. Not the small ones, not the efficiencies in the one bedroom that you often see. And it will offer deep affordability. 30% Army units, 60%, as well as 80%. We have a very large team. PNC Bank is our major investor grant vantage of proximity. Green is our other development partner, and the city's affordable housing office host has generously provided some essential funding to our efforts. I'd like to say a little bit how we got involved in the red lights. That was over four years ago when City Councilwoman Sally Daigle from Sheridan inviting invited us to attend a community meeting. And we've listened to the community speak for four years now, and it's been really rewarding to hear how much the liberal arts community cares about this campus and these historic buildings and open spaces. I'd also like to echo Jean Myers's comments about Councilman Flynn. He truly cares. And Denver is very fortunate to have his effort at the advocacy level that he's taken to make this campus a beautiful place. I'm really impressed by the land plan. I've been involved in design review committees at Lowry Air Force Base and other places in Denver, and the design standards that have been promoted and will be adhered to and the needs of our community are outstanding. These buildings change buildings. I've seen some preliminary versions and they're good. It's going to be very nicely done. Buildings. They complement our pancreas, the hall and some of the other buildings there, maintaining the views, integrating walkable communities and pedestrian oriented features. All of that is really commendable. It's really about our heights. So my conclusion from all of this is that city council, I really hope that you support and vote yes tonight of heights is going to be a better place for Denver. If you approve this rezoning. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Jim. Our next speaker is Preston Dial. And see. I had seen Preston in the queue here. I don't know if we. Lost Preston, but we'll go ahead and try to get Preston back up into the queue. And in the meantime, we'll go ahead and go to Jesse Paris. Go ahead, Jesse, please.
Speaker 6: Yes. Good evening. Members of council, those watching at home. My name is just Michelle Paris and I'm represented for Denver homicide or formula for Denver homeless so low currently for Black Star and for self defense positive actually work for social change as well as the Unity Party of Colorado and Frontline Black knows that I'll be the next mayor of Denver in 2023. I am torn with this redevelopment to me because on one side they try to make it seem like it's a good thing. And then the people from the community, the Bipoc community, are saying it's a bad thing and I have to go with the Bipoc community on this because. This is not affordable. Houses affordable. Uh, I heard something recently. About 30%. And my. How many units out of all the underserved calls for the site are going to actually be at 30%? At my level, even that's not affordable. We need housing that is below the 30% across the board. But every last one of these rezonings, every last one of these proposals, there needs.
Speaker 1: To be.
Speaker 6: Uh, 0 to 30%. Ami across the board, whenever you're talking about any kind of redevelopment with housing involved, if you're really trying to solve this housing crisis that we've had for at least the past four years and. This notion that the community was outreach was sufficient enough. That is not good enough there. At previous hearings on the same campus, about the same campus. We heard numerous speakers say that they were not outreach to. So somebody is not telling the truth here. And I'm not going to sit up here and try to decipher who is not or not, who is or who isn't. The fact remains that 30% A-minus was needed, not 60%. Am I not 80% am I? So I would like the ACC or West Side Development to answer the question how many units are actually going to be at 30%? Am I. If this traffic study has been completely done and. Will be implemented. And also who is benefiting? It's definitely not benefiting black. Indigenous people of color. It is a it is benefiting whites, affluent developers and residents. And the people that I spoke with tonight, majority of which have been white, affluent, rich developers and the residents of this area that have been in favor of this have no idea of the unintended consequences that are going to come from this rezoning. So we asked you. To not pass this tonight. If you pass it tonight, the voters will know that developers run this town and have the money and the time.
Speaker 0: We have a lot of this evening. Our last speaker this evening is Preston Dial.
Speaker 1: Hi. Good evening, counsel. Thank you for having me. I know it's been a long night, so I'll try to be brief. My name is Preston Down, the vice president of acquisitions for Getty Realty, a commercial real estate development company based in Nashville, Tennessee. First, I'm here in favor as a potential partner of the applicant. I represent my client, which is an organic grocer. Two quick things. One, I wanted to commend the applicant and the representatives of the community for preserving the soul of this pretty sweet place. To hear the non-speaking, to hear excuse me, the sister speak and other people, it was it's very special to potentially be a part of this. You know, the big thing that several people have said is the due diligence at West Side is done. I'm here to echo that. There's two things that continued to show up and research. One was affordable housing. We've heard a lot about that. The other was basically this community is a food desert. This place is starving for fresh food, for options with food, for affordable food, for food. I'm here and hopes to partner with West Side in my client, which is a national organic grocer, and hopes to solve that. Here at the Loretta Heights Development. I'll stay on for any questions. Thank you guys very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Preston. That concludes our speakers questions from members of Council on Council Bill three, three, three and or 352. Oh, right. Okay. There we go. I knew I needed to pause for a second. Council member can each. But I believe your muted.
Speaker 2: Sorry. Changing headphones. Thank you. So what an amazing testimony, but just a couple questions. So the first one is for either host or Jean Myers. So if we can promote them. And then the other one is for Nate Lucero or whoever the attorney is representing community planning and development. So let me switch views so I can.
Speaker 3: See who's joined. All right.
Speaker 0: We've got Gene up here.
Speaker 2: Gene, I might have missed this. Sorry I had to eat a bite of food. We have a long night. I am so excited about the 99 year affordability as I read it. It applies to the for sale as well, is that correct?
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 2: So I am again so excited. Now, in my experience, I've only ever seen 99 year affordability on for sale in the land trust environment. So I just wanted to check on, you know, the the agreement doesn't have a lot of details on the mechanism, but I understand that when you get to that long of affordability in a land trust, sometimes the land trust has to kind of infuse a little cash to keep the price within the ambit limits while still allowing families to build a little equity over time. Not like spikes in equity like we have in this boom market right now, but just a little bit of equity over time for them to build wealth. I just wondered how you'd be handling that issue in this particular approach. You know, if you're going to be continuing to anyway, I don't think you have a land trust here. So why don't you figure out correct credibility with without one?
Speaker 6: Well, as you know, we have quite a bit of experience with the deed.
Speaker 1: Restriction and we understand when it fails and when it succeeds. And we've had a good track record in our work in Central Park, not having lost a single unit, just by properly setting it up with the title company at the beginning. And so that's our plan.
Speaker 2: Got it. Can I just clarify, you don't have any concern about the price going up a little bit for owners and then going to high to stay within the 80% of EMI. At the point of transfer, you don't feel like you need any infusion of capital or reset to to do that. Like 50, 70 years out.
Speaker 1: Well, it's our our plan to just use the the city's structure for ensuring that 80% of EMI remains in place.
Speaker 2: Okay. Got it. I mean, follow up offline on the mechanism. That's great. I just wanted to ask then for Brad. We had a few speakers and I know I cannot see the slide deck through the the website, the council portal. So I don't know if the public has it either. But can you just refresh folks on the 30% of AMA and 60% of AMA housing that this is not this site is not just 80% of I said it, 80% of your median income. Can you just clarify those other affordability levels real quick?
Speaker 1: Yes. Happy to thank you, Councilwoman Kinney, so that the agreement with the West Side and all of their developer partners is to incorporate 12% of all the units that created on site as affordable writ large. Among that level, 14 for sale units will be built at a minimum, half of them affordable at 80%, and my half of them are affordable 100% my on the rental side. 40% of the units that are that to create on the rental side have to be affordable at or below 60% of AMI and 30% of those need to be restricted at or below 30% of a BMI. And so I say these things in percentages because it's based on the total number of units that are that are to be developed. The last number that I'm familiar with is roughly 1200 across all various phases, which results in 144 total affordable units. All of those percentages applied thereunder. And in addition to that, I should add that Mr. Harvey made this point within his development. But a good chunk of the units have to be two plus bedroom units as well, trying to make sure that we have larger format, family style units to support lower income families as well.
Speaker 2: Thanks. And just one quick follow up question on that. Can you describe a little bit sometimes people like to focus just on that percentage of units that are affordable. Can you just describe, in your opinion, how there might be tradeoffs between some of the things you just described and the overall percentage?
Speaker 1: I'm not sure I understand the question, but I think what you're asking is, is why maybe the overall affordability percentage of the total product product development isn't higher, and that is because it does take more resources, more capital, more support and or, you know, more difficult economic modeling to ensure that larger units are created. That lower AMI 30 even 6% units are difficult to to create and given the costs and sort of development materials, labor, etc., land. And so, you know, it takes a little bit off of the overall economics of the entire property to be able to to accommodate identified needs lower down at my spectrum into larger units. Is that what you were asking?
Speaker 2: Yeah. So there are some tradeoffs here. If you might have had 20% of units at 80% of I and said we have 12% of units, including much lower median incomes for families and more family units. So those are all negotiated. Great. My last question for the attorney, who might that be?
Speaker 0: We have Nate Lucero. He's in the queue here.
Speaker 2: Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. I just couldn't see him on my screen. We're on two screens now. Sorry. Thank you. So neat. I wanted to ask about the requirement to have a historic easement not being completed while council tonight is voting on the development agreement. And can you just walk us through what it means to execute the city's agreement and to make sure that we're in compliance with that piece that requires that to be that that separate agreement. It sounds like they're working on, but they're not quite done with yet. I just want to want to clarify that, please.
Speaker 4: Thank you so much. Nate Lucero, assistant city attorney.
Speaker 1: Good evening, members of council. So I'm just going to try to walk you through the process practically how it would work. So if council approves the bill this evening. Then the bill will need to be or the it will need to be published. And that usually occurs on Friday. So once once that's taken care of, then the city attorney's office will begin circulating the contract for signatures. And that process usually takes about two weeks. And it's not until all city's signatures are obtained that.
Speaker 4: That the contract is considered fully executed.
Speaker 1: So it's possible that the easement gets negotiated.
Speaker 4: And signed between now and then. I guess.
Speaker 1: Alternatively, there's a possibility where the city could sort of slow their signature process to kind of see if the easement catches up or if the development agreement is fully executed and there is no easement then. We could consider using the.
Speaker 4: Default provisions that are provided in the development agreement.
Speaker 2: Thank you for that answer. And I don't know if this is for you or for this CPD staffer who who negotiated the agreement. But I just want to hear from from from someone who represents the city that if the if this party does not execute any easement for this property, that either we will not be signing or we will be proceeding to some other mechanism that there is no scenario by which they don't get this easement and everything else goes forward. This is the last bite at the apple for the council, but the city has another bite at the apple. And we won't take it unless we we have an executed easement. I want that assurance, please.
Speaker 6: Jason Morrison That is correct. I also have a Jenni button work available if you have any more specific questions about what went into that agreement.
Speaker 2: I'm going to do council pencil and manage. The easement provision was placed in there for two reasons one, to provide short term protection to the Administrative Administration Building and Chapel prior to its designation as a Denver landmark, but also because easements are held in perpetuity. So they actually provide a higher level of protection for a building or buildings, even more so than local designation, which could unlikely but could in the future actually be changed to remove protections from a building. So we do find that this is a very important provision to keep within the day, and we would support it being included and being a part of this signing process moving forward. Got it. Thank you very much. Thanks. Council president.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Canete. Up next, we have council member Sandoval.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Council President. I just have one question for you, Jason. How how did you come to the conclusion that you wanted to based the PWDS on C MP, the campus and district growth?
Speaker 6: I appreciate the question, Councilman Sandoval. You know, again, a lot of this came out of the small area plan process. And, you know, we we learned very often that while this this campus is a very special place, it no longer serve that purpose. And so that being said, a nod to kind of the past of the previous life of the campus and the community wanted to see over swaths of open space, remained on plazas, trails integrated within the redevelopment, and staff felt that the most appropriate bases of district would to be to keep the zone district available and then of course add some modifications to allow for different uses to allow for the protections of those buildings as well.
Speaker 3: Thank you. And then in the period 24 and 25, they have different citing security or setbacks. And you know me, I'm totally looking at your first me application. So they have different side interior setbacks like the PD, I think 25 have 0 to 10 and then the other one has zero. So is that based on the topography and what you wanted to see an open space with with the book plane inside? That's how you got from the based on district to the waivers or down to the PD.
Speaker 6: And just to clarify you, I just pulled up my staff bracelet to make sure I was answering your question correctly. You're speaking to the G 25, is that correct?
Speaker 3: So they can be pretty G 24 has a ten side that intercept that great and then PD G 25 had 0 to 5. So they're not the same. So PD 24 and PD 25 have different side interiors effects and different type of other just building coverages and maxes. So I just was wondering how those comparison charts were created, where they created based on the topography and what this small area plan recommended, recommended. Does that make sense?
Speaker 6: It does, yes. So thank you for clarifying. So it actually has less to do with the topography and more of kind of the feel of the area. So it's a big reason why we have superfoods in the campus study, which is pretty g 24 is is more of kind of a, you know, a quieter kind of, you know, residential office type type setting and versus kind of some of those mixed use contexts as well. And so a lot of it is a nod to kind of the the open space in the area. And so the residential pretty does have setbacks and the campus community doesn't have setbacks. So it is kind of that that, you know, distinguishing between the two kind of like fields of the buildings and kind of what the community wanted to see between the two different areas of the site.
Speaker 3: Perfect. Thank you, Jason. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Sandoval. All right. Giving it one last moment here. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 333. Council Member Flynn.
Speaker 5: Oh, thank you. Thank you, Madam President. You're hearing Sister Mary. Inspired me to open my remarks with something very special about this place. This is a this has been a four year journey that's been instrumental in reconnecting the Sisters of Loreto and the Loreto community to this sacred and beautiful space. They have been gone from the ownership and management of Loreto Heights for 30 years since they completed To Regis. And then. And we won't go into the. The Jesuits will leave the Jesuits at peace for right now, sister. They flipped it over to the Tokyo group out of Japan who ran taking on Loreto Heights for the next 30 years. And so the Loreto, the sisters and the Loreto community really have been connected to the campus for those 30 years and is one of the most beautiful things about this process, Madam President, is the fact that they are now once again an integral part of the fabric of the hides. And maybe if I could just take one moment. To disclose a thing that something that just happened today and that is the Department of Transportation and Infrastructure has agreed with our request, my request from my office and the Sisters of Loreto to use legacy naming for some of the streets that are contained entirely within the campus, rather than having them have the names from the surrounding grid to which they don't connect anywhere. We were faced. Some of you I mentioned, as we were faced with a prospect, if we followed the grid that this former Catholic Women's College would have a street on it named Hooker Street. And I have to commend Sister Mary now for a nun. She's got a great sense of humor. She said, well, if we have to have a hooker street, there has to be a street intersecting with that that's named Mary Magdalene. And I just thought that was a great, great sense of humor, sister. I really appreciate the broad support that the community, including the City of Sheridan, by the way, which closely borders a campus, as well as ten southwest Denver registered neighborhood organizations that supported the area plan two years ago and the seven that support this rezoning, one of them conditionally. I want to mention especially for thanks Jason Morrison, who was the lead is from Tennessee and the rest of the CBD team Jenny Button board from the Landmarking Office, Deirdre Oates who came in to to work with us tirelessly on this as well as the department heads, primarily Laura Andretti. Julia's likely from Dottie, a lawyer from CBD, Abbey Hanes from Parks and Recreation. But I think the most thanks goes to our neighborhood leaders and our residents who spent years hard hours hammering out a consensus that, while not unanimous, represents the top of the curve of what the community wants. Thanks, Sister Mary. Now in particular for constant involvement due to Annie Levinsky in historic Denver, our neighborhood leaders. Claire Harris. Tara Durham. Cassandra Cornelius. Donna Rip. Aaron Manhart. Richard Sides. Adriana Pena. Tony Hernandez. Others I'm sure to mystify. If I kept going, I'd leave some folks out. Madam President and colleagues, this site in Southwest Denver presents us in our part of town with our first major development project in a quarter century, which was Grant Ranch back in the nineties. This presents us with the opportunity to create the kind of community we've always said we want diverse in population, in household incomes, to combat displacement and gentrification, income, restricted, affordable rental and for sale housing, including, as you heard, required deep affordability levels of 60% and below and 30% and below multi bedroom units because we are a family neighborhood. Dedication of another parcel for and another affordable housing a project still to be selected. In fact, this is the approach to combating displacement and gentrification. Embedding permanently affordable income restricted units, along with Gene Myers could have mentioned this. I didn't hear it specifically, but some of the market affordable units that thrive will be building will be priced for less than some of the housing, some of the homes already in the existing neighborhood. So double the amount of open space that's required a revitalizing and landmarking the iconic destroyed buildings. This is the first housing development to use the Denver Green Code preservation of key view corridors both to and from the site height restriction so no building can ever overwhelm that beautiful Frank Ed Brooke, 1890 Loreto Academy Building Preservation of the cemetery where 62 sisters of Loreto have their eternal rest. Vision zero centered street design that places people first. One of the key things to know and that I quickly learned about this, Madam President, college going into a complicated and diverse issues such as the future of Loreto Heights, is that with so many competing needs and desires coming to the table, no one. Going gets everything they want, but everyone gets something they need. It takes a lot of intentional work for every party to this site to see how their specialized interests necessarily intersect with impact and affect the other parties. And that takes a lot of coordination and really, really wasn't easy. This was the first LDR project to go to. That first project, you go through that LDR process. My Southwest Denver community has been engaged with the potential changes on this campus since shortly after the college announced more than four years ago that it was closing and selling the land. Excuse me. Now, I hope that's not my time running out. That's my clock at the top of the hour. Long before the current owner came on the scene, we learned a lot about what the stakeholder group said, what they want to see, but more importantly, what they don't want to happen on the campus, too. With the first potential buyer that came along was a California developer who didn't even want a zoning change at all. He simply wanted to use the existing campus environments to match out nothing but residential. The campus zoning would have allowed around 10 million square feet of residential in buildings, up to 12 storeys, covering up to 60% of the land area compared to what could have been. What we have in front of us now is a clear path to a truly diverse, multi income, multi housing form, integrated community parks and trails, historic landmark preservation, deeply affordable housing. It will give my district four new landmark buildings. Joining are Fort Logan Field Officers quarters as the only Denver landmark buildings in Denver, west of the Platte and south of Sixth Avenue, a situation that I hope we work intentionally to change as time goes on. This hasn't been easy. The community came together to create the first specific neighborhood small area plan. In my district, the participation by the public was extraordinary 1300 unique participants over nearly a year. My office led the effort to increase that involvement by repeating the initial public meeting as a monolingual Spanish meeting that attracted 30 participants canvasing the Latinos serving businesses in the neighborhood. My office paid to leaflet for each meeting hanging fliers on one at one one occasion up to 13,000 doors throughout the Southwest and into Sheridan. The overwhelming community consensus was for a unique place that preserves the feel of the campus far into the future. As a result, many of the housing units, if you look at the residential building, many of those units face onto parts, puzzles or open spaces, as you might find on a campus in the summer of 2019, West Side allowed one of the RINO's to hold their summer picnic in the quadrangle. And as my wife and I sat there watching 5060 people enjoying a barbecue, the Denver Municipal Band Brass Quintet playing some yard games and whatnot. That place really came alive again, and if you had been there, you would have seen what the future of this special place can be when you come to Loreto Heights to live, work , play or hopefully attend a show in the revitalized May Montes Stanton Theater, you will know that you've entered a community where all are welcome. So building on the great respect for the past, to fulfill the spirit of Loreto that Mother Pan Croatia bought brought to this hilltop in 1918 88. Pardon me? I ask for the support of my colleagues for both the development agreement and the rezoning. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Flynn. Up next, we have council member Clarke.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. Well, the land here is in Councilman Flynn's district. You know, college view, the neighborhood that is in my district. And in addition to being very important to a lot of my constituents, also a very important place for my family because we're out of heights is what brought my mom out to Denver. And so I won't go in and repeat. I know the hours late and we still have more work to do. I just want to echo all the things that Councilman Flynn already gave. And he he said it better than I could anyway. But I just want to add a thanks to Councilman Flynn for his just continued being plugged into every little piece of this all along the way with the community, with the developers, with the city staff all the way to the, you know, the the push to get these streets renamed in there and just really a service to the community that I represent and and to my family. And so I just want to say thank you, Councilman Flynn. And I'm very excited to support this tonight. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Clark. Councilmember can each.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council President My kudos to this community for coming together to hear a lot of testimony where there's consensus. Sometimes it's about convincing the council, but other times you can tell it's about the community celebrating what they've been through. I understand it might not have been universal, but it was overwhelming. And I just want to acknowledge that and just say how great it was. My kudos to Councilman Flynn and to the staff. My staff probably Kyle monitored much of this process and participated for my office and helped us answer questions and respond. But, you know, several times these negotiations over this development agreement hit impasse. And I just have to say to the developer team for stretching and staying at the table and hearing the feedback and understanding how important this was. Even the price differences between when you started negotiating this agreement and what they are today is is notable. And I hopefully, hopefully you feel like you understand more why the city pushed as hard as it did and to the city for continuing to advocate for for these high standards. Anyway, there were a lot of staff involved in this, and you are typically the unsung heroes. But I just want to sing you for a minute. This this was kind of a test project for a lot of things. And we had a developer who hadn't done a ton of affordable housing before. And so, you know, bringing in the partners and etc.. So, so to everybody who had to stretch to get to these outcomes. Thank you. And just stay at the table and get that easement done. All right. Thanks. The historic easement, that is. All right. Thank you, everyone, and congratulations. Thank you. I'll be supporting it tonight.
Speaker 4: He's right.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember. Coming up next, we have Councilmember Sandoval.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. Similar to Councilman Park, Colorado Heights is what my from my mom, from Minnesota to Denver. She graduated from greater heights and is a co member of Laredo Heights and retired, but now is working part time for the Sisters of Loretto. So I have heard all about this development from my mom and the numerous sisters that she works with, and they have had nothing but positive feedback to say. And as I was thinking about what to say, I'll just take a quote from their website. It says The Laredo community works for justice and peace as it educates the young and or serves the poor and marginalized, protects the environment and advocates for the voiceless. And I really believe that that's what this project does, and I really believe that's what this process has been. And so thank you. Councilman Flynn, I know we don't have very many rezonings in District two, so congratulations on a job well done. And me, I love the zoning code. And as I was digging through the application and seeing all of the details, it was really beautiful to see. You have requirements that I would like to see in school and tourist in my district where you don't have open, can you have back doors to the open space? You have front doors to the open space and you have requirements in these parties that I'll probably piece apart and make into another overlay in my council district. So thank you for leading that because that's exciting. That's something I've been saying I would like to do along the Platte River, along Lakewood Gulch and all the gotchas. So thank you for being a leader in that and creating new tools. And with that, I'll be supporting it.
Speaker 0: Very good. Thank you, Councilmember Sandoval. And not seen any other hands raised. I'll go ahead and make my comments here as we vote on Council Bill three, three, three, reminding folks that we also need to vote on 352 as well. But congratulations, Councilman Flynn, way back in 2019. I remember seeing Jason in our satellite space at the city and county building, and I kept asking, I'm like, What? What is this guy doing? Why is he always sitting back here in our satellite space? What the heck? And it was. You were doing your thing, Councilman Flynn. You were big and down into the details. You were making sure that this would be a development, that you could be proud of, that the community could be proud of. And I think the amount of speakers that spoke tonight in support shows that, and especially Sister Mary, Miss Guadalupe, a miss Lydia. They are the folks that in the speakers, this space and this sacred ground means so much to them. And change is not easy. It's never easy. And when you have folks that have deep ties to this site saying that they're supportive and that they believe in this process. You've done your work and you've done it well. And so I want to congratulate you, Councilman Flynn, and I am happy to support this this evening as well. And we will go ahead. Madam Secretary, roll call, please, on council Bill. Three, three, three. Flynn.
Speaker 1: I. Herndon i.
Speaker 2: Hinds.
Speaker 6: II.
Speaker 3: Cashman.
Speaker 4: I can each.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 3: Sandoval. I.
Speaker 4: Sawyer. I. Torres. I.
Speaker 3: Black. I see tobacco.
Speaker 4: Clark.
Speaker 6: I.
Speaker 4: Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 3001 South Federal Boulevard in Harvey Park South.
Approves a map amendment to rezone property from CMP-EI2 to PUD-G 24, PUD-G 25 and U-MX-3 with waivers (rezoning of Loretto Heights campus), located at 3001 South Federal Boulevard in Council District 2. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 3-30-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_05102021_21-0352
|
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 4: 11 Eyes.
Speaker 0: 11 Eyes Council Bill 20 1-0333 has passed. Council Member Black, will you please put Council Bill 20 1-0352 on the floor.
Speaker 2: Yes, I moved that council bill 20 1035 to be placed.
Speaker 3: Upon final consideration and do.
Speaker 4: Pass.
Speaker 0: Thank think it's been moved and we have the second comments by members of Council on Council Bill 352. Council Member Flynn.
Speaker 5: Hey, Madam President, just briefly, I want to I want to say to you, if you go through that development agreement, you'll see that it is one of the most involved, complicated and integrated, multi-disciplinary development agreements you will see during their time on the Council precisely because of the affordable housing, because of the landmarking and historic preservation. It even details what can and cannot be done with the buildings that aren't being landmarked. It details the open space, the contribution to the city's park across the street at Loreto, at Loreto Heights Park. And so it's a it was a ton of work to get there. And I want to thank particularly staff member Deidre, those who who helped to push that across the finish line. Well, thank you, Deirdre. It's all Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Flynn. All right. See no other hands raised. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 352, please.
Speaker 1: When I.
Speaker 4: Herndon.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 6: Hines, I.
Speaker 3: Cashman. I can. I. Sandoval. Hi. Sawyer.
Speaker 4: I. Torres, I. Black I. Clark.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 3: Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced results. 1111 nine Counsel Bill 352 has passed. Congratulations, Councilman Flynn. All right. Now we are on the homestretch here. Councilmember Black, would you please put Council Bill 437 on the floor for final passage?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance approving a proposed Loretto Heights Rezoning and IMP Development Agreement between the City and County of Denver and ACM Loretto VI, LLC, Loretto Heights Metropolitan District No. 1, Loretto Heights Metropolitan District No. 2, Loretto Heights Metropolitan District No. 3, Loretto Heights Metropolitan District No. 4, Loretto Heights Metropolitan District No. 5, Loretto Heights Programming Metropolitan District and, Pancratia Hall Partners, LLC for the development of 70 acres bounded by Federal Boulevard, South Irving Street and Dartmouth Avenue.
Approves a development agreement with ACM Loretto VI, LLC their successors and assigns, obligating the developer to certain requirements for development of approximately 70 acres bounded by Federal Boulevard to the east, South Irving Street to the west, and Dartmouth Avenue to the south in Council District 2. The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 5-24-21. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 3-30-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_05102021_21-0437
|
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced results. 1111 nine Counsel Bill 352 has passed. Congratulations, Councilman Flynn. All right. Now we are on the homestretch here. Councilmember Black, would you please put Council Bill 437 on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 2: I move that.
Speaker 3: Council bill 20.
Speaker 2: 10437 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved and we've got a second there. The required public hearing for Council Bill 437 is open. May we please have the staff report?
Speaker 3: Good evening. Let me show you my screen real quickly. I hope you all can see that.
Speaker 0: Mm hmm. Go ahead.
Speaker 3: Okay. We are here for the landmark designation application of 123 year boulevard. Which is located in Council District ten in the Sphere neighborhood. It's at the confluence of Sphere Lincoln and East Seventh Avenue. The current zoning is the Annex 12, and this is our post designation. The owner scripts media is opposed to the designation application. This came forward through a Certificate of Demolition eligibility review. There was a facilitated stakeholder meetings and unfortunately no compromise could be reached. And so three applicants submitted a designation application. And here is an overview of this site. And you can see that the neighborhood area and then I wanted to show you also here is the proposed Lima foundry, which is on the western half of the block. As you are aware, in order for a property to be designated, it must meet the criteria established in the landmark audits. It must maintain its integrity. The structure must be 30 years of age or older, or be of exceptional significance. It needs to meet at least three of the ten criteria and the LPC needed to consider the historic context when reviewing the property. LPC and staff consider the designation application very narrowly. We look at it under just this criteria. However, council can look more broadly and consider the recommendation of the Commission. The written views of the owner. And any other comments received at the public hearing. Designation application I put forward that there were six criteria that were met and the Preservation Commission concurred. So we'll go through all of these. The first is the direct association with the historical development of the city. This property is significant for its association, the historical development of the telecommunications industry in Denver, the KLC Communication Center, or Denver Channel seven, as it's known now embodies the history of the development of television as the food source. Through the second half of the 20th century, pre-war pre-World War Two music entertainment was primarily consumed through print radio. The FCC only printed for TV licenses in Denver in 1953, which was a little later. And once those licenses were printed, it revolutionized the consumption of news nationwide and in Denver. By the late 1960s, multiple network television stations throughout the country, we're seeing unprecedented growth. And as that was happening, the broadcasters began to expand or expand their studios and their offices. Here in Denver at this particular site. I can tell the work initially out of a repurposed Parker and Studebaker showroom and building that they converted into a studio in 1969, and they built a purpose built communication center, which is what we see here at the corner sphere. And so that was part of a nationwide trend that you were seeing throughout the country and new stations building purpose built studios. And this particular one serves as a physical representation of the television industry's explosive growth here in Denver and a representation of what was happening nationwide. The property is also significant for its direct and substantial association with a recognized person with influence on society. Cube Terry was the president and GM of Kiehl's. He was initially a part owner of Kiehl's radio and then helped it transition from radio to television. The Rocky Mountain News said that he was so impressive in his pursuit of the FCC licenses that he was characterized as Mr. Denver, and it was largely due to his strenuous efforts. The county was granted a license to broadcast television. The station. He oversaw the station from 1953 when it first began televising a through 1974 when he retired. During that time, he oversaw the transition to the new building and he was instrumental in a variety of different. Ways for the television industry. He worked not only as president of KLC, but also was promoted to the Western region. While his time working as filming it was limited to only a few years in duration of the association is important factor in determining significance. The original warehouse was converted was converted to the TV station is no longer standing. So this makes this building the best remaining structure associated with the influential work of Hugh Terry and his productive life at KLC. The building is also significant as it embodies the distinctive physical characteristics of an architectural style, and that would be the brutalist style, which is actually French for concrete that is raw or unfinished. It came into the usage in the 1950s and it celebrated raw materials. The shape that this decorations and presented honest architectural expressions, which basically means that its structural and mechanical components were often open to view. Architectural historian and clinical marathon man said that there were three things that really defined brutalist style memorability as an image clear exhibition of structure and valuation of materials as found. Here in this building, you can see more multiple areas of brutalist style. So brutalist style typically has monumental steel exposed concrete structure, a cantilevered mass or a monumental first floor, geometric forms and windows that are insets or slits in the walls. And you can see from the intentional siting here on the corner of Sphere that it had a very monumental setting, that it is cantilevered on the first floor. There is the octagon tower and then the square buildings behind at the rear of the tower. But it has a combination of cast in place and pre-formed concrete with contrasting gray with with the Colorado aggregate and then deeply recessed windows. And so it has the defining characteristics of the brutalist style. The application also put forward that it was that the building is a significant example of the work of a recognized architect. It was designed by a former and Bowers designed communication buildings nationwide for smaller markets and virtual markets. And they designed, as most architects do, for the purpose of meeting their clients using the architectural styles that were popular at the time. They showed a mastery of pushing modern design styles in a variety of their communication centers, internationalism through formalism and in the brutalist structure here in Denver. This building was one of the last television studios that they designed. It is one of the only brutalist styles, and it's the only example in Colorado. So it is a significant example of the work of a recognized architect. The designation application also stated that it is a significant as an example of a master builder. It was built by Energy Tea Tree Construction Company. While the application demonstrated the scope of their work. Both staff and the Landmark Preservation Commission found that additional contextual information and a comparative analysis was needed to really study modern, large scale construction companies and whether those qualify as master builders. So the LPC found that it was significant for former employers, but not for the construction company. The property also represents an established and familiar feature of the contemporary city. Due to its prominent location or physical characteristics. So this is a distinctive octagonal building. It was sited on a prominent corner at the confluence of Sphere Lincoln and seventh with visibility from Broadway. And six, the architects intentionally considering the site. And that, coupled with the building's arresting design, has created an iconic building that has been well known and prominent along Speer Boulevard for over 50 years. And finally, the building promotes an understanding and appreciation of the urban environment by means of rarity. It is one of only two older historic buildings that are associated with Denver television stations or Denver's oldest stations are located within about a mile of each other along Lincoln Street and Speer Boulevard. And this is one of only two in all the historic buildings. And then also it is a rare example of brutalist architecture in Denver. There are approximately 160,000 primary structures in Denver, and this is one of only a small handful of buildings that are in the brutalist style. Here are a few examples of some of the previous buildings in Denver. The two buildings on the outer edge of the site are both a combination of custom placed and pre-formed concrete. And then the complex, the jail complex in the middle, well, it has brutalist forms, is actually made entirely of brick. And so brutalism can look it can be made up of different materials. But these are some of one of the few highlights of brutalist buildings in Denver. And so this property because there are you know, only a handful is significant for its rarity. And then finally, the landmark ordinance requires that a property retain its integrity, which is basically if the property looked like what it used to look like. And in this instance, there are minimum alterations there. Screens and satellites that were recently added would be considered non contributing to the building so they could be changed over time if needed if it's designated. There were also smaller changes to the rear garage doors and your alter, but overall the property maintains all aspects of integrity. And so the LPC considered the historic context and the period of significance for this property, that it reflects the history of the development of television, that it was developed under President MGM and Terry , that it was designed by a well-known firm with extensive experience designing purpose built television stations. And it was designed, this style of style popular at the time, the historic context and the designation application adds significant detail to all of those areas. The period of significance extends from construction. In 1969 to 1972, when the station was sold in the call, letters were changed to Cam g. H. This is the public comment that we have received at CPD. By May six that 11 a.m. we had received 23 comments in support and 92 in opposition. And then in the LPC public hearing there were two members of the community who spoke in support and one in opposition. And all of that was forwarded to you in your packets. So in my view, the Preservation Commission in CPD staff found that it met the criteria. It is over 30 years of age. The application that at least three out of the ten criteria the building retains integrity and the OPC considered the historic context. I was watching him once and I will answer any questions.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you very much for the presentation. And tonight, counsel has received 51 written comments on Council Bill 437. There are five submitted comments in favor of the application and there are 46 submitted comments in opposition of the application. All members of Council that are present have certified that they have read each of the submitted written comments. Do any members need more time in order to read all of the written testimony that was submitted? All right, scene one. Council secretary, let the record reflect that all written testimony, both in favor and in opposition of Council Bill 437 have been read by each member of council and all written testimony will be submitted to the official record of the hearing. We have 40 individuals signed up to speak this evening. And just a quick reminder to folks. Everybody has 3 minutes available. And if all 40 of you took all 3 minutes, we will be here for 2 hours and we're up and we're getting close to 930. And so if you have repetitive comments or can make your comments a bit more succinct, we would greatly appreciate that this evening. And so we are going to go ahead and start out with our first speaker and we have Dean Littleton.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Council President. Good evening, council members. My name's Steve Littleton. I'm the general manager of Denver7. We are located at one, two, three Steer Boulevard. Thank you for the opportunity to make comments. In addition to what we've already submitted, you have in front of you an incredibly important decision that will forever impact the future of our
Speaker 6: . Business and.
Speaker 1: Nearly 200 employees. This all started more than two years ago because.
Speaker 6: The staff that.
Speaker 1: I have the honor of serving just needed a better place to work. I'm so proud of what our team.
Speaker 6: Has.
Speaker 1: Accomplished.
Speaker 6: At.
Speaker 1: A time when all we hear about are stories of local newsrooms shutting down or furloughing staff. We've been able to protect our employees and their livelihoods at a time of need while actually adding quality jobs. Journalism. It's our journalism that has driven our staff growth of 30% over the past few years. And all that growth has been squeezed into this purpose built structure for a 1970s TV news operation. That's what led to our staff driven initiative to improve our workspace by reinvesting in Denver. We disagree with the advocates position that our building is exceptionally historic or that the architecture rises to the level of permanent landmark designation over the wishes of the staff that work here and the owners, the community overwhelmingly agrees with us. Between the public comments submitted to landmark preservation staff and those delivered to the City Council, by our count, more than 122 Denver residents and business owners have taken the time to indicate their opposition to designation. But now with this application, we feel like we've been pushed into a corner. If our building is designated, it severely impacts or prevents us from moving and reinvesting in the more modern facility our team needs. If we stay, we're tied to a purpose built building that no longer serves the purpose for which it was built. The situation we're in right now, I'm delivering this message to you tonight was never the outcome that I saw it. From the first meeting with the applicants, I was hopeful we could find a compromise. We've had numerous conversations with the applicants, the city and the neighbors over the.
Speaker 6: Last five.
Speaker 1: Months. The conversation with city council members that the Rudy committee was helpful to. We were challenged in that meeting to go back and look harder for compromises. We did. We dug deeper into adaptive reuse and rezoning options for the site, and today none of those ideas is proven to be feasible. The team doing this analysis is the same team behind 17th and Pearl and many other landmark and adaptive reuse projects in Denver. I trust their guidance. While we're why we were looking harder for compromise or purchase or PMG was able to work out an email u with the adjacent R.A. that keeps. Sorry. Here we go. But that keeps important issues and options on the table for future collaboration. So that brings us to tonight. What started as a simple idea to relocate and reinvest in better work environment for our employees has led to this. I'm asking for your understanding. Please give me the opportunity to finish what we've started. Give our 200 local journalists and staff the facility they need to better serve the people of Denver. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Andy Rockmore.
Speaker 1: Good evening, Mandy Rock Moore of 50 and 50 Wynkoop Street. I'm also a resident in Denver and a principal at Sures Adkins Rockmore Architects. We've been working with both KMG and PMG on this important issue. As architects, we share a responsibility to shape our city and each site appropriately so that they can be places of interaction and equity and connection. Our challenge, all of us together, regardless of the outcome tonight, is how to make this important gateway site a community connector for the Capitol Hill neighborhood and our city. Our firm has been privileged to work on some of the city's most prominent adaptive reuse projects. The Tavern at 17th and Pearl a few years ago, and currently at Colfax and Franklin. Interestingly, these projects were accomplished without there being landmark. The challenges at one, two or three Speer, however, are significantly more complex. Adapting a building is no simple task. Adaptively reusing a building with brutalist characteristics, an assemblage of imposing austere and opaque elements which does not connect with the neighborhood is a far greater challenge. Nonetheless, from the moment we heard that there were plans to apply for landmark status. We set about understanding this possibility in all respects. We spoke with numerous developers and architects who have extensive experience in adaptive reuse. We reached surged through brutalist buildings, both nationally and internationally. And not surprisingly, an overwhelming number of them are municipal, institutional, government and school buildings, and they therefore have no intention of changing their use. But we learned more about the brutalist style than we ever would have. So after countless hours of research and debate, we had a significant number of our peers in the architectural community, many of whom have written letters to you and staff, believe that 123 Speer is not a building of true historic significance, and it doesn't meet the high standard for preservation. Regardless, DMG asked that we search for a way to keep and reuse all or a portion of 1 to 3 Speer in the development. We did a thorough assessment of the existing building and we identified the need to completely overhaul all of its internal systems. The stairs and elevators don't meet current codes. Its life safety, mechanical and utilities systems are antiquated, and its exterior envelope, with its single glazed windows throughout, is extremely under-performing. Even so, before the threat back in February 10th, all the way up through last week, we've explored many, many options for adaptive reuse and I'm happy to provide more detail on the question and answer period. In conclusion, this building does not need to be landmarked, but our team remains deeply committed to working with CPD staff and the neighborhood to continue to sincerely and professionally explore all options for a successful outcome. The chances of doing so are part of the.
Speaker 0: Plan we have allocated for each speaker. Thank you. Next up, we have Brian Conley.
Speaker 1: Evening. Thank you, Madam President. Brian Connolly with the law firm of art and Johnson Robinson, Neff and Reagan. Nettie. I had the privilege of being here representing the landowner team on this application. And I'll just note, I'll be very brief in my comments. I'll just note that our firm submitted a number of things for your packet this evening, including a memo on your approval criteria, a summary of public outreach that's been done, and some written responses to some of the questions that we received at the committee hearing. So hopefully you've had an opportunity to review those. I'm here to answer your question. To the extent you have any about.
Speaker 6: The materials that.
Speaker 1: We submitted or quite frankly, anything else and look forward to doing so, I will preemptively answer one question because I know Councilman Flynn at.
Speaker 6: The first reading asked us to address.
Speaker 1: First Amendment issues associated with this designation. We had not really had the.
Speaker 6: Opportunity to have any consideration or.
Speaker 1: Discussion of First Amendment issues before Councilman Flynn raised that. But we've now had an opportunity to look into it.
Speaker 6: I will say.
Speaker 1: That one of the bases of the application.
Speaker 6: Is obviously the fact that this building has been used.
Speaker 1: By a journalistic organization and its history associated with journalism. So clearly, it's our position that Channel Seven would be penalized.
Speaker 6: By the.
Speaker 1: Designation of this.
Speaker 6: Property. And obviously that.
Speaker 1: Penalty is related in part to the fact that it has been engaged in journalism. And, of course, the First Amendment protects the freedom of the press. I'm happy to go into more legal detail to the extent anyone has any questions about that. I will say from a big picture perspective, I think we can probably all agree that good local journalism is a public good. And certainly the designation of this property would require Channel Seven to devote a lot of its resources to maintaining the existing building and would limit Channel Seven's ability to grow its staff. Whereas allowing Channel Seven.
Speaker 6: To sell this property and have this property.
Speaker 1: Redeveloped would give it the.
Speaker 6: Resources to expand and.
Speaker 1: Relocate and continue to serve the community with good local journalism, which again we think is consistent both with First Amendment principles and with the public good. So we do respectfully request that you deny this application tonight. And again, I'd be.
Speaker 6: Happy to answer any questions you have.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Brian. Our next speaker is Evan SHAPIRO.
Speaker 1: Hi.
Speaker 6: Good evening.
Speaker 1: Evan SHAPIRO from PMG. I am here to answer any questions. I think that.
Speaker 6: Dean, Andy.
Speaker 1: And Bryan.
Speaker 6: Spoke directly and to the point. And so in the interest of.
Speaker 1: Time, I will just make myself available to any questions.
Speaker 6: And thank you for.
Speaker 1: Your time and considering this tonight.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Next up, we have Mike Epstein.
Speaker 1: Crimean Council member Thor. I am Mike Epstein from 312 Walnut in.
Speaker 6: Cincinnati, Ohio.
Speaker 1: Here in opposition to the application and available to answer any questions as an ownership representative from MGM, Jane Littleton Kim JH is general manager is here is our primary representative as the.
Speaker 6: Owner of that business. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mike. Next up, we have Amy Unger.
Speaker 3: Hi. Good evening, council members. My name is younger and I live in Colorado and the principal and owner of Pine Street Preservation, a preservation consulting firm specializing in the preparation of local, state and National Register nominations and attributes of survey. I was hired by the applicants to assist in preparing a local landmark application for this town for the building. My professional qualifications include a master's degree in architecture with an emphasis in our sexual history and graduate certificate in subdivision from the University of Texas at San Antonio. And I'm also a former preservation planner for the city of San Antonio and Park County, Colorado. Prior to starting my current consulting business in 2021, I was a national state registered historian with History Colorado and a five year resident of Denver. With your neighborhood, I've authored numerous successful state and local landmark nominations in my career. I'm here on behalf of the applicants, and I'm available to answer any questions I have about the historical background, information and arguments for significance included in the application. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Amy. Next up, we have Annie Levinsky.
Speaker 2: Good evening again, counsel. I'm Annie Levinsky. I'm the executive director of Historic Denver. We're a nonprofit located at 1420 Ogden Street. I'm here on behalf of our Board of Trustees and our organization. For those who aren't familiar, it's our mission that generates, can actively experience and thoughtfully maintain our city's historic places now and long into the future . We are an advocate and a resource for preserving Denver's significant historic fabric, its distinctive architecture, and.
Speaker 4: Its cultural landscapes. And we do this.
Speaker 2: Because embracing existing buildings and looking at the possibilities of adaptive reuse, borrowing materials and natural resources, and blending the historic context of a place with new investment are.
Speaker 4: Powerful ways to respect the community's value of place and the stories that made the city what it is as it grows and evolves.
Speaker 2: Historic Denver did not initiate this designation effort, but we were invited to engage in two of the early dialog sessions with the property owner and the involved community members who want to historically designate the building. In these instances, we seek to bring options to the table. If the parties are working together and exploring outcomes that may.
Speaker 4: Assist, may need assistance or creative tools to support a historic resource.
Speaker 2: This is the value of the consideration process and in many cases.
Speaker 4: A successful outcome did not.
Speaker 2: Involve.
Speaker 4: Demolition or historic designation. But getting to that outcome requires respectful dialog, creativity, a sense of civic duty and stewardship, as well as a commitment to the city as a more than a blank slate.
Speaker 2: But a place with many layers of fabric. We've seen parties come together around these values before, but in the case of one, two, three sphere, the mediated discussions did not provide a clear path forward. So at this point we just want to urge script's PMG and the community members to strongly consider and voluntarily.
Speaker 4: Pursue all reasonable options presented throughout the process regardless of tonight's outcome.
Speaker 2: As a city, we must be stewards of the place we call Denver.
Speaker 4: And expect and seek to support.
Speaker 2: High quality development that recognizes where we came from and.
Speaker 4: Reflects that Denver is Denver with all of its unique attributes.
Speaker 2: In closing, I just want to note that the location of this property is pivotal and its direct proximity to the historic Stewart Speer Boulevard Parkway and the Cherry Creek, which are both key cultural landscapes that define central Denver. The site is worthy of careful attention.
Speaker 4: And a thoughtful, authentic approach for these reasons alone. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Evan Clark.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. And council people. My name is Evan Clark. I I'm with a campaign team. I am available to answer questions, obviously opposing the application and can be available for any.
Speaker 6: Information you need afterwards. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Caroline Sharp.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Perhaps more than most ladies and gentlemen of the Council, I feel qualified to comment about 123 spear for two stints in the seventies and eighties. I was Channel seven writer, producer, documentary producer, executive producer, reporter, anchor, and Assistant News Director. For a time, I had an amazing view of the mountains from my office on the west side of the structure. I grew up not far away on Seventh Avenue and often walked by the old Kelsey building. I even was on Fred and Faye to celebrate my birthday. The building was a definite improvement on that old one.
Speaker 3: I read in detail both CPD's.
Speaker 4: Assessment of the building's landmark potential and the Heritage Group's rebuttal. As a good journalist, would I look hard at the documentation provided in each? The heritage groups or bubble comes up.
Speaker 2: Very short where CPD.
Speaker 4: Provided research and examples. Heritage offered arguments with little to back them up but opinion no references or authoritative resources. Disagreement is not proof. I'm not sure how much Scripps paid heritage for their rebuttal. I suspect it was the lot and I believe that they got cheated. The building is a unique expression of brutalism tailored to its site. Heritage quotes William Wolf.
Speaker 0: Who joined Fullmer and Bowers after.
Speaker 4: This building was built. Quote, We don't give a hoot about the consistency of our style, but we do care about is the appropriate of the appropriateness of each building's character to its user and site, close quote. Isn't that precisely the point? The building was designed and built for that purpose at that location with materials locally available and earned an award for it. A Rocky Mountain News headline on June 22nd, 1969, said that, quote, The new KLC building inspires superlatives. Close quote. No, it's not on the National Register. Many local landmarks, including what has become known as the Shop Mansion at Seventh and Clarkson, for which I wrote the Denver Landmark Application, are not. I worked inside 123 Spirit with people considered local media icons Bob Palmer, Starr, Yellen, Warren Chandler and later Bertha Lynne and Andrew Hill. I find it laughable that Scripps argues that landmarking this building will interfere with Channel Seven's ability to cover the news. The original plan called for building another structure on the property to allow room for growth. That's still possible. So is adaptive reuse of the building, which the Scripps people rejected out of hand in mediation with the applicants?
Speaker 2: Their desire, it seems to me, is.
Speaker 4: Simply to walk away with a pile of money and leave us in the neighborhood with yet another massive. And based on what we've seen so far in the Governors Park neighborhood, undistinguished luxury apartment house. Thank you very much for your time. I appreciate.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker this evening is Lauren Hanson. Go ahead, Lauren. We'll just have to have you unmute. There you go.
Speaker 1: Out of there. My name is Lauren Hanson. I live 1915 Sherman Street. And I would like to voice my opposition to this landmark preservation. I am a very constant user of the Cherry Creek Trail. As someone that writes Bike, I often use the 83 and 83 hour bus to get down by this area. And for me, the building has a very small significance to someone that was once interviewed by Denver7. However, I am very understanding as someone that's lived in Denver for a.
Speaker 6: Time about the need for.
Speaker 1: Things such as new housing. And for me, I'll just keep it brief. I stand with Denver7 and local community leaders in opposing.
Speaker 6: This landmark designation.
Speaker 1: Thank you for your time, Council, and I hope we're having a warm evening.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Bradley Cameron. We'll have to have you unmute, Bradley.
Speaker 1: Be all.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 1: Go. Sorry. My name is Brad Cameron. I'm a district Ken Denver resident, and I am one of the applicants for this landmark application. I entered into this endeavor because I feel strongly that the Channel seven building is an important part of Denver's urban fabric and history. It would be a shame for it to be demolished and erased from our collective experience as a city. It has been categorized as belonging to the architectural style of brutalism. But regardless of what category the building is in, there is no denying its extreme modernism. Back in 1969, Hugh Terry and Raymond Bowers both wanted to make a statement with the monumental building, and they succeeded. But while its modernism is what attracts many of us, that is also what seems to repel others. Critics tell us things like, I don't like brutalism. It's ugly. It's cold. The last one cold surprises me the most with its beautiful red color, especially in Colorado's sunshine. It is anything but cold, gray, concrete. It is not. People's reaction to it is much like reactions to modern art. Some like it, some don't. But our society would be much less diverse and stimulating without it. Now, from the very beginning with scripts, we said we were open to compromise. We made clear that land not marketing, was not the only way to accomplish the goal of preservation. Adaptive reuse has always been our mantra and not necessarily within the context of the Landmark Preservation Ordinance. Win win was the goal. As mentioned before, for about a six week period back in January and February, we zoomed in numerous times with the Scripps team, an attempt to find common ground. We asked, could something be done similar to what was successful up at 17th Avenue and Pearl Street, where for a little bit of additional density and no additional height weight was found to save the Uptown Tower. Their answer to that was no. We asked, why did the tower have to be converted to residential? Couldn't it be reused as office space its current use? Again, the answer was no. We talked about various available tracks, tax credits. Could any of those be used to bridge the financial gap? Again, no, those wouldn't work. The message was very clear 100% demolition. So when it came time, we took a deep breath. And we filed our application hoping that some type of win win would emerge. We were hopeful when CBD came up with Andrew Webb's discussions, but it didn't bear fruit. So here we are tonight. Please designate the Channel seven building as a Denver landmark. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Steven Benishek.
Speaker 6: Hi. My name is Steven Benishek. I live in just six, specifically University Park, and I'm speaking to ACOs. So this council and everyone here who's speaking are well aware of Denver's housing shortage and the homelessness crisis. That's cause in the city, the council has appropriated millions of dollars and the people have approved the new sales tax in November specifically to deal with this problem. And this tells me that when the council talks about taking action against homelessness, those are empty words. And that's something they very much care about. Well, the thing is, you can only put so many Band-Aids over bullet holes. And at the end of the day, the city has to address its housing shortage. I. Creating more housing. The council has a chance to do that. They can send a message that Denver is open to everyone and they can tell people that a business being successful enough to outgrow its building moved to another one, something to be celebrated and incentivized. And they shouldn't be punished for that success. They can show that they share the concerns of those who can't be here tonight because they're working their second or third job. And they still have to spend 50, 60, 70% of their monthly income on rent. But at the same time, they can do the opposite. They can send a message about the whims of a privileged few with little connection to this building are more important than the needs of people in the city for housing. Designation, quite frankly, is meritless and hostile. Serves no legitimate purpose. What will become of this building if it's landmarked? It's in too much of a state of disrepair to be used for really anything. So it's just going to continue to stand there as an eyesore. And we'll have this monument to just how much we do not want to build new housing. Allowing this demolition will allow new housing to be built near transit, helping the city fix this housing shortage, meet its vision zero goals and cut down on air pollution through fewer car trips. All of this, not to mention allowing Channel Seven to do what they want with what's their property. Quite frankly, are the reasons why I am. Please implore you.
Speaker 1: Stand up.
Speaker 6: For the people being forced onto the streets by the cost of living in the city. And please vote. No. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Carla McConnell.
Speaker 4: Evening and thank you for listening to my comments. I'm a Denver resident and I urge tonight that you vote in favor of landmark designation for the Channel seven structures. Unlike the Landmark Preservation Commission, Council has the ability to consider other community goals in your deliberation. And I'd like to focus on two of those other goals. Neighborhood Goals. The draft Golden Triangle Neighborhood Plan references how the district's eclectic character is enhanced through having a diversity of architecture, historic and contemporary. This site can allow for the historic and contemporary development to occur on this important gateway location. The Golden Triangle neighborhood has long as a strong association with arts and culture. Surely a tower that was purpose built for television could continue to serve creative businesses needing production space. Sustainability Goals. The Denver Office of Climate Action states that 40% of waste heading to a landfill is generated by construction. The National Trust for Historic Preservation states that it can take up to 60 years for new energy efficient buildings to overcome the climate impacts of demolition and associated new construction. Adaptive reuse of existing structures is a sustainable strategy. Any new development will require parking. Why not use the existing parking structure? The tower, in addition to being a tangible symbol of our history, can continue to serve new companies for many decades. While working as an urban design architect in Denver's planning office. Serving two terms on the Landmarks Commission and serving on historic Denver's board, I have seen how development teams can rise to the challenge of meeting community goals instead of insisting on a vacant site. The resulting projects are always more interesting and often much more profitable. I listened with interest to the discussion about Loreto Heights and heard how many times the inclusion of preservation was going to enrich that whole project. Landmark designation of Channel seven structures will result in a win win for both gender and the development team. There is no downside. These structures meet landmark designation requirements. Designation brings benefits for the developer, and Denver will be a richer community with these structures continuing to serve for many decades. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Karla. Our next speaker is Travis Leiker.
Speaker 6: Greetings. Denver City Council. Travis Leiker, president and chief executive director of Capitol Hill Neighborhoods. And we are one of Denver's largest and oldest registered neighborhood organizations. And 1 to 3 sphere is located within our boundaries. Capitol Hill United Neighborhoods has been monitoring the conversation and the debate concerning the landmark application of one, two, three year boulevard. And while the organization has not taken a formal position on the matter, we have been concerned with the discourse and we share Councilwoman Sandoval's perspectives as expressed that the recent land use Transportation Infrastructure Committee, that compromise is essential. With an estimated eight large scale development projects underway for the government park neighborhood. Working together will be important for the future of the immediate surrounding neighborhood and good for the city over the long term. And to that end, Tron was approached early on by both KMG and PMG just to engage our organization in a conversation. And just last week, Capitol Hill United Neighborhoods entered into an MSU Memorandum of Understanding to better guide the future of the property, ranging from assembling a neighborhood working group to actively exploring the myriad opportunities for this area. And some of the elements of the milieu include conceptualizing opportunities for PMG to incorporate public art and amenities. Pocket Park to the final project. DMG will provide a transportation demand, management and multimodal transportation plan that prioritizes bike, pedestrians, transit opportunities and access. We're actually going to explore historically sensitive design possibilities that recognize the importance of TMG and pay homage to the history of the site. And we're going to tackle our colleagues at Historic Denver consider opportunities for adaptive reuse and preservation for the existing structures.
Speaker 1: And we're going to engage in affordable.
Speaker 6: Housing advocates and pursue partnership opportunities for attainable and affordable housing. And in addition to this, we'll be looking at conducting a traffic and mobility study prior to the site development plan. Absent another approach, as we have called for in previous communications with council and city leadership of something like a neighborhood design review committee or something similar, we need to refrain from absolutes and we need to establish a framework that could be a better standard for city planning and development and site specific collaboration. This is a unique and unprecedented approach from our perspective. It's one of the few times that we've been able to proactively engage in a memorandum of understanding and an agreement with the developer to custom craft opportunities for the neighborhood. So we remain committed to working with the neighborhood to get the city moving forward and and to collaborate further with Denver residents to shape the future of this site in a thoughtful and constructive way. And when Denver neighborhoods work together, we all will.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Kathleen Wells. Go ahead, Kathleen.
Speaker 4: I thank you. Good evening. Council president and council members. I'm Kathleen Wells. I'm a Denver resident and I live in District ten. I'm here to support the designation of the Channel seven building. I'm a Denver native. The building is a prominent part of the cityscape. It's widely recognized by the public, and it has been for over 50 years. It should be preserved as part of Denver's commitment to preserving its past. The building should also be designated due to its historical link to figures in Denver who should be honored, especially Hugh Cherry, the President and general manager of KLC. Mr. Terry referred to as Mr. Denver, due to his commitment to Denver, assembled a first rate news staff, one National Awards, and was considered one of the most respected broadcasting executives of his generation. But most importantly to me, he believed broadcasting was a public trust and an instrument that must be responsive to the needs of the community , the values he cherished and worked for. The importance of facts, objectivity, honesty and balance in journalism are ones we must continue to honor in our community. A fitting tribute to Mr. Terry's devotion to Denver journalism. And the common good would be to designate the Channel Seven building, where he built and maintained a fine newsroom of which the city was proud. Thank you for your consideration.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Kevin MATTHEWS.
Speaker 1: The evening. My name's Ken MATTHEWS. I live at 1020.
Speaker 4: Madison Street, and I'm.
Speaker 1: With you in Denver. First off, I need to correct something.
Speaker 4: I'm a master's student in.
Speaker 1: Environmental policy and sustainability. The thing about this building being sustainable and having a 60 year payback.
Speaker 4: That is a concept known as embodied carbon.
Speaker 1: And that is.
Speaker 4: Very unusual especially and it's location dependent. And in this location where it's near transit, near bike lanes.
Speaker 1: That payback period.
Speaker 4: Probably not more than ten. That being said, what I really want to talk about tonight was basically about, you know, we we still hear a lot about how new market rate building is causing rents to go up, especially considering all the academic literature that points in the opposite direction. But as Emily Hamilton, who's a senior fellow at the Brookings Center, has written.
Speaker 1: There are a couple of.
Speaker 4: Urban land uses that have been shown to increase land values and lead to economic displacement. The first is you should all by now. Now know by now is having lots of land dedicated to single unit detached buildings. And the other, as we've seen in cities in New York.
Speaker 1: Chicago, Baltimore, San Francisco.
Speaker 4: Are historic districts or places where historic designations have been made remarkably easy. Now, that doesn't mean that all historic designation is bad, but it comes with trade offs. A study in the Journal of Urban Economics found that properties near newly designated historic districts and buildings see price increases. It also found that a disproportionate use of historic designations by high income residents is especially concerning as high income is correlated to greater political resistance. And I'll just quote this part directly. Political resistance is defined as the amount of community organization or feedback against a change in zoning when new historic designations effectively halt any zoning changes or new development in a wealthy neighborhood with political influence. And this affects less wealthy or politically connected areas or less politically connected areas outside the historic district that are impacted. So I ask, is this building worth the tradeoff? And I think that should answer itself. We're still trying to solve the housing crisis, a single building and a single rezoning at a time. And that's not going to work. I just want to finish off by saying.
Speaker 1: That we've.
Speaker 4: Created a non resilient and non adaptable housing system in an era where adaptability and resilience should be traits that we should be pursuing.
Speaker 1: There was a.
Speaker 4: Thing in the L.A. Times about the drought in California, noting.
Speaker 1: That's really not a drought. And they point out that the years.
Speaker 4: Of steady and predictable water flows are over and there is no sign of them coming back in our lifetimes. This is it. We have to build, thank heaven.
Speaker 0: That's the time allotted we have. Thank you. Our next speaker is Greg Hulme.
Speaker 1: Thank you. My name is Greg home. I live in the West Force Park neighborhood. And I'm speaking in opposition to the proposed hostile landmark designation 123 Speer Boulevard. The starting point for any land use decision made by city council should be the impact of their decision on the people of Denver. People are more important than buildings after food and water. Housing is humanity's most pressing need. Denver is in a major housing crisis. Housing is inaccessible and unaffordable. Homelessness is exploding, as is displacement of residents in low income communities. Use proposed for 123 Speer Boulevard is attainable multifamily housing, which should have a much higher priority than preserving preserving a building. Dubious significance. 123 Speer is neither historic or architecturally important. It is a squat, ugly, special purpose building constructed as a television studio, an associated office building made of concrete which is expensive and difficult to modify. The authors of the staff report, as well as the applicants and supporters in their letters, practically stand on their heads in their attempt to conflate this unremarkable building with an architectural masterpiece. Any ordinary observer reading the descriptions and looking at the building would be challenged to reconcile the descriptions with reality. The construction type for pint sized lack of windows and other factors make 123 Speer terrible candidate for adaptive reuse. Denver deserves better from its built environment. Pursuit of landmark designations are too often used by a privileged elite as an anti-development tool to stop construction of housing. This is an abuse of the landmark designation process, which is not in the best interests of the city or its residents. Blueprint Denver helps us aspire towards a city that is equitable, affordable and inclusive. This aspiration cannot be realized unless we build more units of multifamily housing in our neighborhoods. The benefits of density extend beyond supporting more affordable living to include everything from lowered greenhouse gas emissions to support for transit, local businesses and more walkable neighborhoods. City Council should vote unanimously to deny this ill advised attempt by privileged elites to use the landmark designation process to stop or delay the construction of housing desperately needed for Denver's current and future residents. Thank you. Appreciate your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Michael Henry. Mr. Henry, we'll have to have you hit Star six to unmute. There you go.
Speaker 1: Good evening, members of council. My name is Michael Henry. I'm one of three applicants for a landmark designation of the Channel seven headquarters at Lincoln Street in Speer Boulevard. As you know, after the landowner filed an application. In late December for demolition eligibility. Landmarks have reported that the building has potential for a landmark designation and sent a report as required by the Landmark Ordinance to registered native organizations and historic preservation organizations. Bird, Cameron, David Wise and myself. I have lived and worked in greater capital health for many years and have worked on many historic preservation projects and we are thrilled and submitted the application for this designation. We reached out to the building owner and and the prospect to purchase her home and had several Zoom discussions with them both before and after we filed the application. We were unable to reach any compromise solution. We filed our application because we. We're convinced in our. The building and its history meet several of the criteria set forth by the ordinance. It's true, I think. We have been told in Turkish, like you mentioned. That a memorandum of understanding. Oh. That are critical. Recording the property to reach a compromise between. The relevant parties regarding our application. However, it is important that Council carefully review this so-called compromise. First, the students were never invited by the landowner or the property purchaser to sign such a memorandum of understanding.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Henry. That's the 3 minutes we have allotted for each speaker. We'll go ahead and continue on with our next speaker, Bruce O'Donnell.
Speaker 1: Good evening, Madam President, a members of council. I'm Bruce O'Donnell.
Speaker 6: I live at 386 Emerson Street, a few blocks away from the Channel seven building. I've served on the Denver Planning Board.
Speaker 1: For ten years and served on the boards of.
Speaker 6: Both history, Colorado, pardon me. And historic Denver.
Speaker 1: And so I have an appreciation.
Speaker 6: For it and understanding of the importance.
Speaker 1: Of historic preservation.
Speaker 6: And speaking to unite in opposition of.
Speaker 1: This application for landmark designation. This is a hostile application, which means the owner objects in the permanent.
Speaker 6: C bar for a decision of this magnitude should be higher.
Speaker 1: It is clear from the Heritage Consulting Group.
Speaker 6: Report dated March 22nd of the building, does not meet the criteria for landmark.
Speaker 1: Designation. The three.
Speaker 6: Proponents of landmarking this property do not own.
Speaker 1: It. Disagree.
Speaker 6: So meeting the criteria may.
Speaker 1: Be unclear.
Speaker 6: And is in question.
Speaker 1: This should never.
Speaker 6: Be the case for a hostile designation over the property owners. Objection for a hostile designation. Meeting the criteria should be unambiguous. The bar should be higher and the property should not be designated.
Speaker 1: In addition to meeting the criteria being in question. This building, at an important gateway intersection.
Speaker 6: In Denver is among Denver's ugliest and most embarrassing.
Speaker 1: Buildings. It is a walk on our skyline.
Speaker 6: It turns its back on Speer Boulevard, and Cherry Creek is unwelcoming, inwardly focused in discouraging street activation.
Speaker 1: Its cheap, nearly windowless design and poor use.
Speaker 6: Of materials is the antithesis of everything we aspire to do for our city's built environment.
Speaker 1: Landmarking this building will lock in these horrible.
Speaker 6: Design shortcomings forever. This building, not being landmarked, however.
Speaker 1: Will create a new, a unique opportunity for Denver to improve our built environment.
Speaker 6: An important attribute as a Denver zoning code is that it prohibits a lifeless, monolithic structure like this building from being built. Instead, it can be replaced by a well-designed building that addresses the public realm and engages as a community. A new building. All of us can be proud of it. This important intersection is what is needed.
Speaker 1: In the facts of the developer is entered into an M.O. You with shown.
Speaker 6: Is an important step toward ensuring a quality redevelopment and is indicative that not landmarking this building is a first step toward improving the intersection and the neighborhood. All City Council needs to know is that if the words hostile and.
Speaker 1: Brutalist are describing the situation, something's amiss.
Speaker 6: And it would be a poor policy and unfair.
Speaker 1: To look.
Speaker 6: To pardon me to lock in this wrongness in.
Speaker 1: Perpetuity.
Speaker 6: I urge City Council to vote no on Council Bill 21, Dash 0437 and not landmark 123 Spirit Boulevard, thereby catalyzing much needed additional housing in the core of our city. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Mary Chandler. We'll go ahead and have you unmute, Mary.
Speaker 4: Thank you. My name is Mary Chandler, and I live in North Capitol Hill in Denver. Two Denver City Council members. Thank you for the opportunity to speak for the application for designation of the Denver Seven Building. For two decades, I wrote about architecture excuse me preservation and art for the Rocky Mountain News while producing two editions of The Guide to Denver Architecture. My interest in Denver's architecture is still important, even though I have seen too many tears in Denver's urban fabric and the loss of history. What stands before us is a large corporation ready to demolish the Denver Seven Building at 123 Speer Boulevard. The office tower is the building that has had much attention. But when gone, the land will leave a blank slate for an apartment building. This is no surprise because Denver has allowed many neighborhoods that have changed and not necessarily for the better. The three men who have worked to save the tower from the beginning have sought adaptive reuse. Denver may talk a lot about being green, but apparently that does not apply to this. Ours owners. Excuse me. We know the city will change and evolve. But the past decade has been like a tornado tearing down buildings that we'll never see again. At some point, only Victorians can survive in Denver. The application to the city by Scripps Media Inc sought the approval for the total demolition of buildings on that land. They had three ideas. No distinct. No distinguished architect. No appreciable appreciation for the architectural style. And no understanding of a tower that is highly visible. I must disagree. Scripts Media made a list of the items that meant to them, ignoring the reality about the architect, the style and the towers visibility. Their goal was to receive a certificate of demolition eligibility. That's all. The style and the word brutalism have often been tarnished because of the imposing buildings that rely on concrete and weighty massing. Denver is a few examples of this style in terms of the office tower. The monumental building offers a balance. It covers above a smaller base. The loss of this tower would be a loss for Denver's evolving architectural history. Finally, there has been a resurgence of interest in bearded brutalism across the country, but not in Denver. Instead, my fear is that the city has turned Denver into anywhere U.S.A.. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Mike Stejskal. Oh, you'll have to unmute. Mike. We'll have to have you go. There you go. I didn't want to get too far into your head.
Speaker 1: Had no thank you. So I'm the general manager and future owner of Turn Bicycles at 700 Lincoln Street, which is directly across seventh Avenue from the 123 Speer Building 12 When I want to simply state my opinion that the assertion that the 123 Speer building represents a high quality example of the architectural style known as Brutalism is dubious when compared to examples like the anchor building or the Pikes Peak Center for the Performing Arts. I also agree with prior remarks that many other examples of this architectural style are public buildings that will remain and never see a reimagining of their use. I believe, though, that it is in my experience as a general manager and future owner of Turn Bicycles that carries more weight in this issue. Myself, my customers, my staff and my staff are the ones who look at this building every day. And I will tell you it is not an inviting building and certainly does not add to the area that has grown into a true neighborhood over my 21 years on this corner. That neighborhood is now inhabited by people who patronize local retailers and restaurants and take pride in their neighborhood, as opposed to the current inhabitants of 123 Speer, who simply drive into and out of the imposing chain link parking lot without a thought for the surrounding neighborhood. 21 years ago, I never saw groups of friends or couples walking arm in arm to visit local restaurants after dark where they are the norm today. I see redevelopment of the Channel seven building as an opportunity to further this transformation, and the prospective residents of a responsibly designed, mixed residential and commercial building represent the perspective represent perspective business to myself and other local businesses. I don't think I speak for myself when I say that business will be greatly appreciated in the current climate of flight from the office buildings in the area and the idea that it could be repurposed to even more office space seems inaccurate. Furthermore, if we intend to focus on improving the esthetic of the city, I don't believe disincentivizing land owners to work with well-known designers achieves that purpose. In my opinion, the best way to realize a more milquetoast development is to tell land owners they can't do as they choose with the property that they've owned for decades, even after that building's original intended use has long been outgrown. Redevelopment of 121 23 Speer Boulevard represents an opportunity to invest in a neighborhood on the rise, not protect and outgrown, underutilized and frankly, unattractive building. So I ask the council, the city council, to reject the proposed landmark status. Thank you very.
Speaker 6: Much for your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is David Weiss.
Speaker 1: Good evening, members of council.
Speaker 6: I'm David Wise, an architect in.
Speaker 1: Denver and a resident of Capitol Hill.
Speaker 6: I'm one of the applicants as a grad student at Harvard and had extensive studies of the social history and physical development of Denver. I returned to become the Director of Urban Design with the Partnership and President of the Urban Design Forum. I chaired the LA Downtown District Urban Design Committee and of course filled Urban Design Committee and preservation experience includes the poet's historic district, the Crawford IL Mansion reuse and the reuse of the New Stairs building on 16th Street Service video. So as chair of the Channel Seven Building is nondescript and unremarkable, and those comments motivated me to advocate for adaptive reuse. Denver last key parts of our modern architecture heritage from current hall, the modernist parabola at Skyline Park and Mile High Center to the now threatened 16th Street Mall, where replacements are generally downgraded and disappointing.
Speaker 1: Those treasures are from the late modern period.
Speaker 6: Of American architecture from 1950 to 1980. They prioritize boldness, robustness and honesty. In contrast, Denver's boom era apartment buildings, for the most part, offer bland design, harsh street frontage and high rents. David Hill, Denver's nationally known writer on design, wrote to the Denver Post regarding the Channel seven building. Unquote.
Speaker 1: It's a superb example of brutalist architecture.
Speaker 6: Scripps Media characterized the building as nondescript and unremarkable. It scripts as mistaken, end quote. The architecture celebrates an exciting period in Denmark. German broadcast television helped unify the region. The builder Nick Petrie of the Colorado Business Hall of Fame, and the architect Raymond Bowers, who founded an Institute for Excellence in Design at Penn State, were acclaimed professionals at the top of their game.
Speaker 1: We've seen the proposed apartment building in its concept form, extending the underground parking ramp deeper, which supports the developer's goal of 600 apartments.
Speaker 6: With no added height and would leave the tower standing. We Africans have never seen the adaptive reuse schemes set to exist. Let's remember that in downtown Denver.
Speaker 1: Holy Ghost churches.
Speaker 6: Wrapped comfortably with the high rise office building and a historic building is integrated neatly into Coors Field. Our effort to preserve Channel Seven relies on adaptive reuse and links, preservation and a fact based way to environmental and societal benefits. We know that preservation sells and that it works. It's been good for Denver businesses and good for Denver neighborhoods. Developers skilled at adaptive reuse demonstrate those truths again and again. Dialog over the Channel.
Speaker 1: Seven.
Speaker 6: Building has been constrained and contentious and future case to this. The development proposals and the preservation.
Speaker 1: Alternatives should be made available with.
Speaker 6: Drawings, calculations and cost analysis for real negotiation.
Speaker 0: Thank you, David. All right. Our next speaker is Monica Ortega.
Speaker 3: Hello, everybody. My name is Monica Ortega and I live at 3275 West 14th Avenue, Denver, Colorado 80204. I'm a fifth generation Colorado native. I was a Uber driver from 2013 to 19. I had over 11,000 trips. I've also been the pitch person that appeared on Mile High Living for Power as or complete. Our business knows this building very well and I've seen all the changes in Denver, Colorado. So like I say, I am speaking in opposition to this landmark preservation application. The first and obvious reason for my opposition, and it's just my personal opinion, I believe that this building is unattractive and it it does not meet the surrounding areas , especially all the businesses that are surrounding it. On the corner at 640, Broadway hosted an upscale nail salon in a new building. Next to that was a Burger King, now demolished, is now a first bank in a new building. The Denver Post moved into a new office building on 101 Broadway.
Speaker 4: In a new building.
Speaker 3: A high traffic gas station that used to be situated at that triangle right across from that building bordered by Sixth Avenue. Grant and Speer is demolished and is now a new building. The original Racine's, that building was on block, Bannock and Speer. It's gone. It moved into a newer building that's directly east of the Channel seven building on Sherman. Further east, the entire University of Colorado Medical Campus on ninth and Colorado Boulevard, lots of concrete buildings there.
Speaker 4: Was also.
Speaker 3: Demolished and is now mixed use. Buildings one block away from Channel seven is Denver Health. They upgraded and built a much larger needed facility to house their clinics and office space in a brand new building. But somehow Scripps Media Channel seven can't do what they want with their property, though this landmark application sounds like sabotage, in my opinion. The corner is a high value location, so why shouldn't they be able to profit from the sale of the building and use it to build something that better fits their needs? In Denver, not too far away is another building found to be a national landmark. Its description reads.
Speaker 4: A three story deco.
Speaker 3: Sorry, a three story deco. Colin Thompson Motor Company, Chrysler Building, decorated window frame, stained glass windows, pinnacles Crockett's and a sign that still reads the 1930 Plymouth here and now that is the old Sports Authority building. That to me is a historic building. That building that they're in at 123 square is not. So I don't.
Speaker 4: Understand how those compare. However, also.
Speaker 3: A concrete building at ninth and Granite used to be the former.
Speaker 4: DPS moniker.
Speaker 0: That's the time allotted for each speaker. Thank you for joining us. Our next speaker is Kathy Corbett.
Speaker 4: Hello. Thank you. Thank you. And I'd like to thank you for the work you do. First of all, I understand that we're really we're all here because we love our city. And and Denver is a very important place to us. I'm here to speak in support of the application. I actually have a Ph.D. in architectural history, and I've worked in historic preservation for 17 years in Colorado. I live in Denver. I live in District four. And I am and I am president of Corbett H.S., which is an architectural history services firm. I didn't work on this application and I really haven't been much involved with it, but I have been watching it in the press and I and I and I do understand that Brutalism is an important architectural style. It was a very important part of modernism. It doesn't mean brutal. It means authentic. It means you know it. It means what it means. The raw, authentic materials that we see in the work of Marcel Breuer, Le Corbusier, I can see in this building, I understand, I think is important here that honor opposed designations, honor opposed. Landmark applications are inconvenient for property owners and developers, and often they're very costly. I understand that. But I believe that Denver citizens deserve a voice when the places that they love or the places that represent parts of the city's history that are important to them are threatened. When when we think about modernist buildings that we've lost, like like the I.M. Pei designed Parabola and Dorf Plaza downtown, where a lot of it's used to go ice skating. That's that's something that we'll never we'll never see again. And that a lot of a lot of people in this city loved and it's gone. So. People deserve a chance to try to save the places that they love. And that's what the landmarking process gives us. That's that's one of the tools. The landmarking process is one of the tools that people can use to try to do this if they feel that something is really important to them. And so this particular application exceeds the number of criteria that it would need, that it would need to be landmarked. I think the channel built seven buildings should be saved. I think that a solution for development can be found where there's a will, there's a way. And I encourage you to vote to approve landmark status for 123 Spur Boulevard. Thank you very much. I yield the rest of my time to Monday evening. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Cathy. Our next speaker is Adam Astrup.
Speaker 1: Hello. City Council. My name is Adam Ashraf. I live at 361 L.A. Street in District seven. I live really close to one, two, three SPEER And I'm speaking in opposition to the designation. It's right now, it's a parking lot surrounded by a fence. That's my experience with the building. You know, it's not really adding a lot. And there's a huge housing crisis going on. We all see the stories every day of housing, of houses going four over, asking price going in like two days with 18 offers. We all see rents going up and that's all because we've made it really, really hard to build housing. And this is one of the ways we've made it really hard to build housing. And we've seen all over our city when historic preservation is valuable, like in Uptown, where they preserve that facade, they do it. And here it would be really, really hard to bring this building up to code. And we really need housing now. So I urge you to vote no.
Speaker 6: And thank you so much for your time.
Speaker 0: Q Adam, our next speaker is David Engel. Kurt Angle Ken, or go ahead, David. I probably mispronounced your name. Go ahead.
Speaker 1: You get me? Okay. Got it. Thank you very much for your time and for your great patience with this kind of work. I live at 1633 Humboldt Street. My name is David Engle and I'm a member and leader in the Humboldt Street Neighborhood Association. Our block is also the Humboldt Street Park Avenue Station Historic District, which we created working with historic Denver City staff. And in Councilwoman Eva, Elvira Wedgeworth is and this became usual with our work. We were supported with good coverage from Channel seven News. So I want to share some other experiences I've had that we've had together in our neighborhood preservation work as reasons for my personal support for preserving this building. We began as a single block organization almost three decades ago. We worked with Hiawatha Davis, our councilman, and then with Carla madison. When she was both a neighborhood leader and later councilwoman. We were able to rezone our immediate area of Capitol Hill and save its now delightfully restored Victorian and postwar Victorian historic structures. And a fellow officer in the Navy with me who was an architect and serving in the in the U.S. Navy on the same ship. And here his ideal was the Courvoisier inspired type of architecture, was what he felt deeply he wanted to do with his own career. So I recognize the preservation importance of this particular current in architecture, given even its modernist, maybe somewhat controversial aspects. To date, we've led from Humboldt Street different citywide efforts to protect our small part of Denver's excellent history, and sometimes with thank you for the small light ordinance that a number of you worked on with your predecessors. And we've worked to help protect neighborhood character in the city as a whole. The seven nine News, the seven News Building always played a crucial role in all those campaigns, so I speak in favor of supporting it. Mike Henry always enjoyed that. Our block was called by a different channel, the little brat blocks abroad. But our campaign victories over here could never have happened in helping preserve the city's character except for Channel Seven. So I hope that you'll back the same quality and commitment that we've found from Channel of Channel seven News historically to preserve the history and the character and shape those for the benefit of our citizens. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, David. Our next speaker is Lloyd Lewis.
Speaker 1: There you are. Hi, I'm Lloyd Lewis. I'm the president, CEO of the ARC Thrift Stores, one of the state's largest nonprofits and funders of programs that advocate for people with intellectual disabilities and testifying respectfully to ask that you reconsider the decision on the landmark application for the Channel seven building seven is a long time partner of Arkansas stores, and we rely on them to achieve several of our relief effort goals across the state, including, but not limited to one of the largest food drives in the state. Their ability to expand operations is critical to our partnership and the additional efforts and projects we plan to add in the coming years. Just this year alone, with the help of Channel Seven, we were able to collect over 40 tons of food for families impacted by COVID and loss of jobs and food insecurity. They also assisted with many other relief efforts to those impacted by the COVID crisis that we were involved in. In addition, they've been a strong supporter of our employment programs for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities, providing financial support, as well as coverage of our programs and their impact on our community. A particular impact was a story they did on the need for vaccine priority for individuals with intellectual disabilities or at much greater risk of severe impacts from COVID, as is my son Kennedy, who is 17, with Down's syndrome. Their impact on the nonprofit community in Denver is quite broad, important to us for the food and relief we provide as well. It's important to us as an employer of nearly 100 individuals in our two stores on South Broadway in Alameda and federal as CEO, one of Colorado's largest employers of people intellectual development disabilities. We rely heavily on this partnership and would ask you to reconsider this application. And I have to say this I love the people in that building, but I don't love the building itself, you know, and the people in the building apparently want to move. So I'm a little confused, particularly with the housing shortage. So I urge you to reconsider its application. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Chris Marotta. And you'll have to go ahead and unmute yourself. Okay. Well, see, Chris, you're up. And it looks like we have you in the queue if you can unmute yourself. All right. We'll see if we can get Chris. Next, we'll go ahead and go to Jeremiah Bebo.
Speaker 1: Oh.
Speaker 6: Good evening. Thank you. Madam President, members of Council for your Public Service and the work done by city staff. Jeremiah Bibeau. I live at 89 1/14 Street Unit 907 muzzle speaking on behalf of the parlor Capitol Hill, which is a locally owned salon located at 218 East Seventh Avenue, just one block from the site. And the city planner by trade. But commenting as a resident myself in the parlor are adamantly opposed to the landmark designation being pushed by the neighborhood group and against the will of the property owner. While we do support and start preservation and at times against the desires of the property owner, this specific case to us is an example of a neighborhood group opposed to development and densification and appears to be using this process to prevent the redevelopment of the site. This era of.
Speaker 1: Architecture.
Speaker 6: In time represents an era of suburbanization, urban renewal, white roads and overall for urban planning with zero attention to the public realm. While there have been some beautiful examples of this brutalist, brutalist style, it is our opinion that the style was done with detrimental to the inclusive and equitable city and beneficial to the elites and wealthy who wanted to keep the public out or make the public feel unwelcome. Additionally, we might add, as others have, that we're in the middle of a housing affordability crisis with the city that is primarily zoned for single family only use, as we must do whatever we can to ensure that in areas such as this, we prioritize densification and additional housing stock over lackluster forms of historic preservation, such as this attempt. CMCs 12 zoning was put here for a reason. Additionally, the site is located along a rapid bus transit corridor and the site should contain land uses that support that unlike the parking lot that is here, the site and area and this area of Governor's Park has been planned for high density development and that should be respected and respected to add added housing to sustain local businesses. History has a place in our city and in our neighborhoods. We have so many other valuable buildings that deserve protection. This building, however, is not one of them. We should be focusing our preservation efforts in historically black and brown neighborhoods, such as five points on the north side, where so much of our city's history has been lost. Prioritization should be on buildings worth saving that have true meaning and directly meet the intent of the preservation ordinance. We need more housing. We need more density. Please vote no on this. A post on its own. Our post landmark designation. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Our next speaker, we're going to go back to Christy Marotta. And see if we can get Kristy into the queue. Oh, right. No, Christie. Okay. We'll go ahead and go to Joseph Halperin. Joseph. All right. We'll see if we can get Joseph in. Can you? All right. Well, go ahead and. There you go. Go ahead, Joseph.
Speaker 1: Too many, too many.
Speaker 4: Little buttons to click on to undo my.
Speaker 1: Computer's buttons. And your computer. Your buttons there. Thank you for your time this evening. It is late. My name is Joseph Halper and I have lived in Capitol Hill for all of my 42 years in Denver. Less than a mile from the CMS building. I am here to speak for the building's designation as a Denver landmark as I did before the Denver Landmarks Commission. I have been personally involved in historic preservation for 50 years, and that includes a leadership role in the designation of the Alamo Casita Historic District. The KMC building has always had a commanding and dramatic presence on a prominent site. One commentator has rightly called it, quote, a brutalist beauty, a bold and muscular but unpretentious design, unquote. But thanks to Esteban Hernandez of Denver ICOM for that quote, both the application for designation and the Landmark Commission's report amply demonstrate that this structure meets all of the criteria in in multiple categories juxtaposed against those well-documented reports. Is the report of a Philadelphia consultant hired by Scripps Media to tell us that the CMS building is at best a mediocre building built on the cheap in the backwater of Denver. Councilman Hines commented earlier this evening that for profit companies exist to deliver shareholder value and not necessarily to serve the public interest. That's why Scripps Media shut down the Rocky Mountain News in 2009, just short of its 150th anniversary. You have an opportunity to tilt the equation in favor of the public interest. I recognize that your job is easier when a property owner is in favor of landmark designation. But if council takes the inflexible view that owner approval is always required, there is no incentive for the Scripps Company, the Scripps companies of the world to seek a bold, imaginative solution that incorporates the best of the old. With the new, the octagon tower of the building can be incorporated into what will still be an extremely large, high end apartment building on the remainder of the site, which is a full city block. There are other examples of Denver incorporating old modernist buildings into new construction, including our central library building downtown that incorporated the 1956 library building and 1445 Cleveland Place that was incorporated into the Webb Building. Those are stellar examples, and this could be a stellar example to if the city council gives a nudge to this property. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Christian Louboutin fils.
Speaker 1: Yes, thank you, Madam President, and members of council. My name is Christian Lipton, fellows of District four at.
Speaker 6: 3205 South Brant Court.
Speaker 1: I'm a Denver resident of over 30 years. I grew up about a mile and a half from the site for one Franklin Street.
Speaker 6: I can past the site regularly.
Speaker 1: I patronize the nearby retailers regularly for lunch, dinner.
Speaker 6: Tours and bicycle shop.
Speaker 1: I will be brief to say for repeating the many.
Speaker 6: Accurate comments.
Speaker 1: From my fellow citizens regarding the power of properties, failure to meet any of the ten landmark criteria, especially in consideration of what should be a more stringent.
Speaker 6: Evaluation in the face of hostile application.
Speaker 1: I would like to highlight my perspective of this landmark designation process. Landmark designation as an important.
Speaker 6: Useful tool.
Speaker 1: To preserve the culture of our city and community. Unfortunately, a very select few have increasingly used this tool as a blunt instrument in an attempt to stall and stymie well-planned growth and development. I respect respectfully request that City.
Speaker 6: Council resoundingly deny this application for landmark designation.
Speaker 1: On its complete lack of qualified criteria. The vague nature of the current landmark application process opens too wide a door to allow for any building older than 30 years for consideration. Should council not express a clear and resounding denial? The city will only foster further misappropriation of city resources, time and this important tool encouraging other select activist citizens to utilize the landmark designation process when historic preservation is not their goal, but simply a means to resist.
Speaker 6: Creative and well-designed development.
Speaker 1: Lastly, I'll just say the subject property is a gateway entry point to our central core. It would be dead devastating to stick in permanence, this obsolete purpose built and uninviting building at this critical front door to our city. The nature of the building will also likely lead to it either sitting vacant or being excessively underutilized for decades to come. I appreciate the council's time, my citizens time in hearing my comments and respectfully urge each of the council members to vote this application down. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Jason Sisk. And Jason, you're going to have to unmute yourself.
Speaker 1: Council president, council members, thank you very much. I'm going to try to make this concise. This session's getting.
Speaker 4: Pretty long in.
Speaker 1: The tooth. I appreciate that. So I'm just going to go here and I speak as a citizen of Denver. Senator Lincoln Street, 34th floor. I've got zero economic interest in that in the subject property.
Speaker 4: But I definitely want.
Speaker 1: To speak up to oppose the landmark.
Speaker 4: Designation.
Speaker 1: That building is not worthy, and neither are any of the buildings that are currently housed in other media properties here in Denver. You know, if we had to count on the noble work of journalism today, you know, they wrote the rules for the state. I think that when you go to work on federal.
Speaker 4: Facilities that let them do their job, you know, let them do with their assets as they please.
Speaker 1: So it's definitely a property rights issue. I'm also against the process that has been, I think, abused.
Speaker 4: Namely by the.
Speaker 1: Serial applicants that have made many.
Speaker 4: Many all applications for limited designation, namely to this property.
Speaker 1: And I.
Speaker 4: Think it's turned into.
Speaker 1: An activist tool, and it's been wrongly used for buildings that really aren't like this one that I have really a I'll.
Speaker 4: Speak for kind.
Speaker 1: Of in the public realm of smell. I've never been to the mill, but any.
Speaker 4: Rate.
Speaker 1: I want to.
Speaker 4: Stand.
Speaker 1: To oppose that and and say that we should let scripts and this.
Speaker 4: Society's denver7 do it their assets as.
Speaker 1: They please and give them the.
Speaker 4: Latitude to continue their business in an ever evolving and changing media landscape. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Jason. Appreciate you keeping your comments short as well. Next up, we have Tess Dougherty.
Speaker 3: Hi there. Good evening, City Council. My name's Tesoro. I live in District nine, and, um, I. I don't know how I. I don't completely.
Speaker 2: Know how I feel about this one way or another. I know that historic preservation has been used by people to keep other people out of their neighborhoods. I also know that it's been used, you know, to help with with sites that would prevent gentrification. So, you know, I don't I don't know how I feel about this, but I do know that when certain properties in other parts of the city have come before you and people have come on here and we stayed on here till one in the morning and they've all been in opposition. I mean, literally the majority of the people like have been twice as many as are here tonight have been in opposition of a property. You've gone ahead and passed it anyway. And so tonight, though, because we're talking about people who want new development and they're saying that it's going to be for affordable housing. Affordable housing in this city does not mean what people think it does. Affordable housing, according to this council and the planning board does not mean what people think it does. So don't be fooled by the fact that you think that they're going to be, but that this is going to help the housing problem. This is going to help further gentrify. This city. Just like every other development that has been allowed. This is a developer's playground. Denver's. Developers have just been allowed to come in and build high rises and it does not. Density means pushing poor people out of the city. That's what it means for this council in the city. Denver does not. Denver hates poor people, actually. Look at the city. Look at the streets. The city has not done anything to actually put people in houses. So, you know, I don't know how I feel about this historical preservation, but I do know what it means to actually put people in houses. And y'all are not doing it.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Jeff Bernard.
Speaker 1: Am I needed?
Speaker 0: Uh huh. Go ahead, Jeff.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much. City Council. Thank you for your hard work. You do a lot for. And I'm not that bird up there. I know where I come from. You do a lot for our city. And I I'm sure a lot of us appreciate it. I'm speaking out in opposition of of this initiative and primarily because we we do need more housing. It's been reiterated many times. There's a few things that haven't really been touched on that it could reduce traffic congestion considerably. Most of the people that would move there would likely logically work downtown. So it's going to be more walkable. That would reduce emissions. Emissions would be, you know, these things are important for the future of our city. And perhaps most importantly is this property is the southern gateway to downtown Denver. So many wonderful things can be done there. And it is not that I don't appreciate. Historic buildings and property. Quite the contrary. I just think that it demolishes real historic buildings and property. To consider this to be one. I have a long history of real estate experience in Denver. Both in my career, I've served on the Broadway Partnership District and many other boards, including the Homeless Coalition. I care deeply about Denver real estate. I oppose this, and I hope you consider that when you make your final deliberation. And once again, thanks for your hard work.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Jeff. Our next speaker is David Pardo.
Speaker 1: Uh, City Councilor, can you hear me? Mm hmm.
Speaker 0: Go ahead.
Speaker 1: Thank you. So I feel like a lot of people have already spoken to a lot of the points that I care about. I'm speaking in opposition to this designation, things about the fact that it could reduce our ability to produce more housing in units that the city desperately needs. To me, one thing that people haven't really made mention of is that plenty of people who spoke out against this designation called the Building Ugly. Nobody spoke out for this designation. Thought it was a it seems to think it's a pretty building. Because it's not. Plenty of people do not like Brutalism as an architectural style for good reason. It's it's not the easiest to enjoy. It tends to be a little rough and all of that. But there are some absolutely incredible examples around the world, and there are some not bad examples in Denmark. This building is not one of them. It's kind of a is about to use something that I shouldn't use on a zoom call in front of 120 people. But it's bad. It's not a pretty building. It should not be saved. It is it is an eyesore in my mind every time that I've ever rode past it on the cherry tree trail or driven by it on spear, I have gone, wow, why is that there? And I think that is worth taking into account, even if it meets some of the requirements to be a historically designated building. Do we want to use that tool to save something that looks like this and that will, with a historic designation, continue to look like this after we're all gone? And that's really all I have to say about that. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you, David. Our next speaker is Jonathan Patoka.
Speaker 6: Yes. Good evening. Hello. Good evening. As West Colfax residents over on Newton Street, I understand the importance of history and the benefits that come with the appropriate and thoughtful use of landmark designations. It is for this reason that I speak to oppose this landmark application. I do commend those who directed discussion seeking adaptive reuse of this building. As adaptive reuse can result in exemplary results in some cases, and that pressure did result in an MRU that will enhance the next life of this lot through superior design and community benefit offerings. However, this building does not rise to the level of designation in the landmark criteria, and the claims in the application lacked the exceptional nature warranting designation over the objection of the property owner. The 1970s television studio was notably constructed at the end of, or arguably after the Hugh Terry period that city staff presented on tonight. Even the staff report notes that this building was designed by a company that specialized nationally in communications buildings just like it. It was effectively a mass production design in its time. You need no more than a quick perusal of reader comments in Westword and other publications regarding this application to understand that the broader public does not consider this building to be so exceptional as to be worth preserving. In contrast to notable structures such as the Molly Brown House, the Diana Tower, or the Brown Palace. We want our historic districts and landmark structures to thrive and have active and successful uses. This building is not a good starting point. It is not well-positioned to thrive. Even the use that it was purpose built for a television studio cannot sustain operations within the claim that a television studio should be designated as a historic landmark. Because the news was broadcast from that building is a stretch. By this measure, the presence of any business in any building more than 30 years ago could merit landmarking. There are better ways to celebrate the news media than landmarking a single studio. This holds particularly true given that the landmarking this building would do damage to the future business prospects of that very same news organization trying to survive in today's difficult media landscape. How does landmarking this building do them honor? If we know, it will hurt them. Additionally, the developer of the site seeks to replace it with housing, which is desperately needed in our city as it faces a crisis of housing supply. And this site is particularly well positioned for sustainable transportation options. Denver's network. Again, I urge the City Council tonight to vote this landmark application down. I also encourage City Council to consider this application a clear example of why our city's rules for landmark preservation should differ for hostile designations. We should, at a minimum, require a council supermajority for such designations or the bar. The criteria that have to be matched should be clearly met, not questionably met. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And our last speaker this evening is Kevin McCrossin. We'll have to have you go ahead and unmute, Kevin. All right. There you go. Go ahead, Kevin.
Speaker 1: Hello. So my name is Kevin McCrossin. I own counterculture brewing group. We are right there.
Speaker 4: On the edge at 205.
Speaker 1: East Seventh Avenue. And we. We're going to have to go ahead and oppose the designation as well, because we believe that there. The neighborhood will do well. If we could redevelop that area where the building resides. Which is. As we've discussed. Not the most beautiful thing. And thank you for your time.
Speaker 0: All right. Very good. Thank you, Kevin. That concludes our speakers this evening. Thank you, everybody, for staying with with us, questions from members of Council on Council Bill 437. Council member can each.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council presidents. I have some questions about the criteria, so I know for sure that I'm going to have questions for Kara, but I may have questions for I think the she was Adkins architect as well. So I'm just going to dove in. And so the first one is the period of significance. Kara I'm a little confused. The slide reference, 1953, and it referenced the second half of the century and the fall of print media and the rise of television. But this building didn't open until 1969. So I'm a little concerned about the citation of, you know, a change that happened 15, 16 years ago when that's not the period of significance. So can you help me understand why we're referencing things that weren't part of the period of significance when describing the significance of the building?
Speaker 3: Yeah. So we're talking a little bit about the historic context of like, what is that? When did these changes occur? Understanding what happened before helps understand how this building came to be. So the period of significance for this building is 1969 to 1970. Two or three, I apologize. All of a sudden it dropped out of my head. But it's talking about basically how it was media and television really transformed enough to. Decided to build a whole new studio for it that they had been using only for the studio. And then because it was so successful, it led to the development of this new purpose built studio. And so leading up to it is just an important part of the history and talking about the importance of Hugh Terry and some of his work. And so that that, that, that was the purpose of the designation application narrowing the period of significance, providing greater historic context.
Speaker 2: But I just want to clarify, the rise of television did not occur during this period of significance. It happened in the 1950s. It did not happen during this period.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 4: Correct.
Speaker 2: Okay. The second question you mentioned, Hugh Terry, I want to ask about. I'm going to try to get my wording right here, the significance association with the significant person. I'm going to say it wrong anyway. An important person associated with the building. So, you know, I'm familiar with buildings that were lived in by significant people. I'm familiar with buildings built by or owned by significant people. This person just worked there. So can you give me is that is that a common I don't recall other applications coming before me with someone who just passed through a building for a couple of years being associated with that building for a designation criteria. So can you help me out if if I'm not remembering.
Speaker 3: There aren't necessarily a lot of buildings that have been designated for in the preservation term. It's called their productive life, but for works of where they have worked. But occasionally because their work is so significant and the building itself is what's left to represent that work that is sometimes done in Denver. We haven't done it a lot, but it is part of an established preservation practice to do that.
Speaker 2: Anyone else with this short of a period. On the overlap in the building like this is not a person who worked in the building for 30 years. They pass through for 2 to 3. I'm sorry my math might be off too at this hour, but anyway, I mean, I just it it seems short to me.
Speaker 3: It is short. And one of the things that was we considered our staff as well as was put forward in the application was that because the other building had been torn down, that this was the last remaining building that was associated with this productive life? If the other building was still standing, that would be more representative of his work. But because it wasn't and because it has been demolished, it's the building that's most associated with his productive life.
Speaker 2: All right. I question whether the criteria allow us to consider a building that's already gone in comparison. I don't know that I question. That is something that I don't read in the ordinance. But the. I want to talk about brutalism for a second. And this is where I might need to ask the serious Atkins folks to chime in. But there is conflicting testimony or information in the record about whether or how much of this building was cast in place versus I forget the other prefabricated and it's significant piece of that brutalism is this cast in place. So can someone clarify for me definitively how much of this building was cast in place?
Speaker 1: I think we need to get Andy Rock more promoted.
Speaker 2: Thank you for your help identifying who to ask for.
Speaker 3: Amy Unger, who also wrote the designation application, may be able to answer that. I could I could take a stab at it that you have the the gray pieces, the ribs that you see are the cast in place.
Speaker 2: Would it be accurate to describe that as a minority of the building? Yes. Okay. And so I guess I would just ask maybe, Kara, you wrote, you know, the staff report if that's a significant feature of brutalism and it's a minor minority of this building, how is it that you determine it as in, you know, I'm going to say the wrong word again, but the an exemplary, you know. Anyway, do you get the question? It's very I have no vocabulary right now.
Speaker 3: I understand at 11:00, I'm sure my answer is coherent because they would be at an earlier time. So losing can be a combination of brutalism can also have different materials like the example of the jail.
Speaker 4: It is a.
Speaker 3: Brutalist style, but it is a brick material. So it can be cast in place, it can be pre-formed concrete, it can be a mixture of both. A lot of the examples in Denver are mixtures of both, so it doesn't have to be just one or the other, but it's its form and its use of concrete, whether it's free form or casting place.
Speaker 2: Can I have Andy chime in on that question as well, please?
Speaker 1: Sure. I'd love to. Thank you. I think the the challenge that we found in describing this building as brutalist is that brutalist style is really known for its integrity, for for its rigorous application of karst concrete. There's there's really no sort of gray area with a brutalist building. And in in almost all brutalist buildings, precast concrete is used either for ornament or maybe sunshades. So here I agree that it's in this building. It's almost flipped. The precast is by far the significant material, save the columns and a few exterior elements. It's this building lacks integrity, in our opinion. For that reason.
Speaker 2: Got it. One more question on the brutalism. Are there? Did anyone who researched this building, either the applicants or the owners? Were there contemporary descriptions of it as brutalist when it was built? Did the media say, Hey, Denver has a great new brutalist building, you know, etc., etc. Where was that term applied to it? In contemporary contemporaneously to its creation?
Speaker 3: This is the I'm the prepare the of the nomination. I did not find any. In my research, I did not find any references that were specifically noting it as its request building when it was first open. But that's not unusual for this type, I would say. I would also, just to hearken back to your question about past concrete sources, precast panels that I would agree with Terry's interpretation and Brutalism is a. Type of architecture that is often tried to be defined by very narrow, just a few boxes that you pick off. It has to with cars.com. It has to be colored concrete, things like that. When brutalism, when it was first described as it first emerged, was really about principles, a set of principles. And one of those principles was the honest use of material especially and concrete being the primary material that was over building buildings. And so the honest use of concrete is really what is most. Indicative of brutalism as opposed to what it is, how it's put in place, whether it's passing plays. What? Pre-Cast panels are then installed. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. That's really helpful. My last question is for Cara again. I want to understand a distinction between how I have become accustomed to hearing recognized architects described and this recognized architect that you guys identified in the staff report as recognized. So I guess, you know, I'm used to you all saying this architect was known for their clean ends or this architect was known for like developing half the post-World War two. You know, I don't recall another architect that was just famous for doing a lot of buildings nationally. So I guess I want to ask you this. Of major architecture firms who are in in business nationally who would not be recognized based on value. I guess I'm curious about I did you know, Walmart does a lot of volume, but they may not be known for, you know, the particular value that they bring to retail. I don't know. I'm just trying to use a bad analogy, forgive me, but I guess the fact that this architect does a lot of buildings, is that enough for it to be recognized under our criteria? Because I just I don't see that they have a record from the testimony of me in the record that they have, you know, that they're known especially for Brutalism. I don't see that they're known, especially that they have other dedicated buildings. It just seems like they do a lot of buildings. So I who wouldn't qualify under that criteria.
Speaker 3: And so the LPC actually had a discussion of like what does recognize me? And that it's a known architect, it named architect, someone that has a body of work. And in this particular instance, the Fuller and Bower, Fulmer and Bowers designed a variety of different types of buildings, but they were known for doing purpose built television stations . And so that's part of what they were recognized for, is that television studios would hire them because they knew how to do purpose built. It was sort of this national trend, sort of postwar in the fifties, late fifties and sixties of television studios having their own kind of figured out how to do studios. And so they're nationally known for doing television studios. And so that's why they're recognized for that. And so that's why we found that they were a recognized architect and that this was significant for them. As one of the early realists in only one, it was.
Speaker 1: Aware of.
Speaker 2: Where any of those other television studios designated.
Speaker 3: I don't know. I don't know the answer to that.
Speaker 2: Okay. All right. Thank you.
Speaker 3: I can answer that question. None of their studios have been designated. But I would argue that that does not mean that they're not sick. They would not be eligible for designation. And certainly one of their finer works has been already demolished, and that certainly would have been eligible for National Register designation.
Speaker 4: But didn't get a chance to. So just because something hasn't been.
Speaker 3: Designated to date doesn't mean that it's not necessarily eligible.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Amy. And thank you, council member Mitch. Next up, we have council member Black.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 2: And thank you to all of our speakers who came tonight. Appreciate your passion. I have a question about. The discussions that the owners.
Speaker 4: Had.
Speaker 3: With the.
Speaker 2: Capitol Hill United Neighbors. I know in 2019, when.
Speaker 4: We updated our.
Speaker 3: Landmark ordinance.
Speaker 2: There was a. A specific effort to bring applicants.
Speaker 3: And owners together to.
Speaker 2: Try and find a compromise. But I'm curious about this agreement.
Speaker 3: Because the Capitol Hill United Neighbors are not the applicant.
Speaker 2: But Travis Leiker spoke and he sent us a letter with all the details. And so I'm.
Speaker 4: Curious how that came.
Speaker 3: About.
Speaker 2: And I'd like to hear more from the applicant.
Speaker 3: About their commitments to.
Speaker 4: The Capitol Hill, your neighbors and what.
Speaker 2: Might go in that spot.
Speaker 1: Councilwoman Black, I think we should have been Littleton promoted as well.
Speaker 6: He's the general manager of Channel Seven, and perhaps he and Evan SHAPIRO can answer questions about interactions with John.
Speaker 4: Great.
Speaker 0: All right. We've got Evan promoting and theme. So please go ahead.
Speaker 1: You have. Thank you. The memo you is is actually with with PMG and Shawn. We had a number of conversations with with John as part of our community outreach. So, Evan, maybe you want to touch a little bit on the on the IMO you. Sure. So throughout the process.
Speaker 6: We we've approached a number of neighbors and stakeholders who obviously have what goes on this site in their interest. And over the past several months, we've had conversations with Sean. And certainly and this is in many ways thanks to what happened at the at the.
Speaker 1: Rudy hearing a.
Speaker 6: Few weeks ago. We recognize that now is an opportunity to continue to reengage.
Speaker 1: We did offer a good neighbor agreement to.
Speaker 6: The applicants for this designation, which didn't gain any traction. And that Sean.
Speaker 1: Group was aware of that. And discussions began about, is there a way.
Speaker 6: For us to work together? You know, if if we're still going to be interested in this, even if, you know, the applicants aren't interested necessarily in any sort of agreement like that.
Speaker 1: Is there an opportunity for other stakeholders.
Speaker 6: In the neighborhood to engage with us in that sort of conversation? And so a number of.
Speaker 1: The of the key issues that Sean has.
Speaker 6: Happened to be exactly the things that we care about ourselves. And so we're looking forward to the opportunity going forward to.
Speaker 1: Have those working sessions with them, hopefully starting as soon as within.
Speaker 6: The next 30 days, about things like engaging local businesses, about sustainable building materials and practices, about public art, about the opportunity to see if.
Speaker 1: If there are ways that we can pay homage to to the history of this site, that I think is completely understandable, that there is so much passion about it by the neighborhood. And then.
Speaker 6: You know, attainable housing is a core principle.
Speaker 1: Of what we're doing.
Speaker 6: And clearly.
Speaker 1: The housing crisis in Denver is real. And so an opportunity to engage with many.
Speaker 6: Stakeholders in the neighborhood about how do we like to solve that problem, but also what are your ideas for it and.
Speaker 1: See if there are overlapping opportunities there.
Speaker 6: Is is such a testament to what we're trying to do anyway, that there's no reason for us to not have that sort of M.O. in place.
Speaker 3: And so the email you is with John.
Speaker 2: And you PMG as.
Speaker 4: The potential.
Speaker 3: Owner.
Speaker 1: That's right.
Speaker 6: And I and without.
Speaker 1: Going too much into the specifics.
Speaker 6: The working group is supposed to include more than just China in its first include a number of other stakeholders that showing, you know.
Speaker 1: To their credit insisted should be involved in the process. And so I think the idea is because there is not an.
Speaker 6: Existing.
Speaker 1: Methodology in the planning process.
Speaker 6: Of getting stakeholder.
Speaker 1: Input, that this is a way to work together to do that anyway.
Speaker 2: And the applicants declined to work with you on some kind of.
Speaker 4: Agreement like this.
Speaker 1: Sure. I mean, of course they're on there.
Speaker 6: So I'll let them speak to, you know, how they feel about the process. You know, they are focused on landmarking this building. And so we made an offer. They they can explain the reasons why they didn't feel it was appropriate.
Speaker 1: But, yes, they are.
Speaker 6: Not a party.
Speaker 1: To the M.O. You know, we have negotiated with China. We not.
Speaker 6: Participate.
Speaker 4: I'm sorry. I.
Speaker 6: The the entire process is predicated on demolition. And we have not been invited to participate in any discussion of adaptive reuse.
Speaker 4: Okay.
Speaker 2: And so back to you, Evan, that the.
Speaker 3: Ammo you is not. There's nothing legally binding about it, is there?
Speaker 1: Well, I'll let Andy I'm sorry, Bryan, speak to that. My understanding is that it is a legally.
Speaker 6: Binding document.
Speaker 1: Of we must work in good faith to to go through the the bullet points that are in there. And I think that the vast majority of them are things we will do anyway. I'll let Brian speak to, you know. Whether or not I said that correctly, Councilwoman Black It is a legally.
Speaker 6: Binding document and what it binds.
Speaker 1: PMG and John two is.
Speaker 6: Is a process. And so it creates a community working group. It requires certain.
Speaker 1: Meetings of the community working group.
Speaker 6: And the types of things that Evan was listing off are set forth in the memo.
Speaker 1: You as topics that the Community Working Group.
Speaker 6: Is going to work on as this project progresses. Obviously, because of this process, the project has not been fully designed.
Speaker 1: By any means.
Speaker 6: It's sort of dependent on the outcome of this process. But, you know, as Evan indicated, that the intent is that assuming we receive a favorable vote this evening, then Gavin and his team and Sean will work together to begin those conversations and to begin to develop those plans.
Speaker 2: Okay. Thanks, Brian. And I see that one of the points in that agreement or the MRU is to consider opportunities for adaptive reuse or preservation.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I think the idea with that is.
Speaker 6: That throughout.
Speaker 1: This process we've been open. We've held designs for us with the applicants, with historic Denver, and we are open to to ideas that we perhaps haven't.
Speaker 6: Considered, even in.
Speaker 1: Just the past two weeks, since alluding we've you know, we've met with the Landmark and.
Speaker 6: Planning.
Speaker 1: Group at the city of Denver to understand what.
Speaker 6: Are the opportunities for 16 stories they they come.
Speaker 1: With. The potential in our in our view, of trading one problem for another.
Speaker 6: And that has certainly been indicated to us by a number of the groups that we've spoken with. But that.
Speaker 1: Doesn't mean that during the working group that somebody.
Speaker 6: Doesn't bring to us a solution that we haven't yet.
Speaker 1: Considered. The problem that you know, and I don't want to get too far ahead of myself, but once a building is landmarked.
Speaker 6: We lose the opportunity to do that.
Speaker 1: So we are.
Speaker 6: In all can, you know.
Speaker 1: In being transparent. We're not saying.
Speaker 6: We are going to preserve the building, but we are also not, you know, our history.
Speaker 1: Our our firm was founded in the first ten years of of a 30 year company was all about adaptive reuse. And so we haven't been able to find a workable solution yet. But if something is put to us that is clearly going to work, then it's something that we will consider.
Speaker 6: But it's only possible for, in our.
Speaker 1: View, to do those things if we don't have the limitations of a landmark on this.
Speaker 6: And if we are unable to do that, at.
Speaker 1: Least this gives us a way to.
Speaker 6: Achieve so many of the other things that the stakeholders in the surrounding areas.
Speaker 1: Are passionate about. There's clearly a number of different drivers.
Speaker 6: For everyone who is in this area.
Speaker 1: Some people are concerned with density, some people are concerned with height, some people are concerned with preservation. And certainly we need to do our best to weigh all of those. And there's not always a perfect solution, but we want to do our best. And in my view and our view, we think we've come up with.
Speaker 6: A way that can help us do.
Speaker 1: That. Is it perfect?
Speaker 6: I you know, I don't know. But but I think it's a it's a I think it's a good attempt, certainly.
Speaker 2: All right. Well, thank you for explaining.
Speaker 3: All that and. There's a lot happening in.
Speaker 2: Denver right now. And you you heard all sides of it with our hours.
Speaker 3: Long public comment.
Speaker 2: And that location really is a very prominent location in our city. And it is a gateway. And I think a lot of the fears.
Speaker 4: That residents have.
Speaker 2: As well as members of council are, yes, we're having a housing crisis.
Speaker 4: Yes, Denver's crowded.
Speaker 2: But we also fear ugly apartment buildings and we're getting an awful lot of them in our city. And so I think a lot of what we're hearing is about that. So I'm really glad that you're working with that neighborhood group to really talk about those.
Speaker 3: Kinds of things. And that's all I have for now.
Speaker 2: So thank you.
Speaker 6: Thank you.
Speaker 0: And Councilwoman Black. We also have Travis Leiker from Capitol Hill. United Neighbors, did you want to pose that question to him as well, or do you have enough information, Councilwoman? Oh in your muted.
Speaker 2: I said, I think I'm good. Travis wrote us a long email with the.
Speaker 3: NYU.
Speaker 2: Intact.
Speaker 4: So very good. Okay.
Speaker 0: All right. Great. Thank you, Councilwoman. Next up, we have Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam President. And thank you to Councilwoman Kim each for exploring the issues about the criteria. But I want to remind folks that Chapter 30, the procedure here allows the council, in fact, I would say, imposes on the council the duty to take other things into consideration, such as the the opinions and the position of the owner of a property and a third party designation. So with that in mind, I think we need to explore some of the things I brought up last week, Dean Littleton or Brian Conley. I, along with my colleague Mary Chandler, who was testifying here earlier, the architecture writer at the Rocky and I was the city hall reporter are both survivors of Scripps Rain in Denver for what it's about since 1926, when they in 1985 they took our building and right across from the Mint on Delaware Street to Colfax, and they added on to it in a parking lot just to the west. And they built three more stories above the the existing two stories that I remember. Mary will remember that we also everything will be better when we get the new building. And I think that's what Carolyn Sharp, who also testified, who worked at Channel Seven, said they were remarking the same thing about your property there, where the old Packard dealership was on the east side of that block, right where the original studio was before this was built. Tell me about the exploration of the potential for expanding onto that east side, as Carolyn Trump wrote to me in her email, which I have not yet replied to, I apologize, Carolyn, if your story it was always said at Channel seven, everything will be all right when we get into the new building, which would be on the on the old Packard dealership site. What did you look at? What factors did you examine financial or otherwise for expanding onto that parcel? Keeping the the term building in place.
Speaker 6: We did. Thank you, Councilman Flint. I appreciate the question. We've explored myriad options on this site, as you're I'm.
Speaker 1: Sure aware that the the issue that we looked at with regard to making this move, we this is an.
Speaker 6: Employee driven initiative based on how much we've grown and figuring out this, you know, addressing the structural limitations of this building.
Speaker 1: By adding.
Speaker 6: Space does not necessarily address the needs that we have, which are the fact that the majority of our staff is in the five storey tower. Adding space off to the side keeps us even more spread out from where we are now. So the idea with this move is to be in a facility.
Speaker 1: With two or three floors where I can have the.
Speaker 6: Teams all together as opposed to.
Speaker 1: Adding more space.
Speaker 6: Elsewhere and then further spreading our teams out on the site. That was the reason that we went to screw ups and asked for their help to make this happen.
Speaker 5: Brian, can you help with that or Diem Maybe you could talk a little bit more, not just about the functionality of expanding onto that site, but about the cost. Did you explore costs or did you not get that far?
Speaker 1: Well, we didn't we did not get that far.
Speaker 6: Simply because it didn't address the needs and the problems that we had with the site. That's what led us outside.
Speaker 1: We really need to.
Speaker 6: Sell the site and use those funds to reinvest.
Speaker 1: In and.
Speaker 6: Local journalism somewhere else here in Denver.
Speaker 5: Okay. Could you briefly describe functional issues that caused you to want to move and get out of that building? And I've been in that building many times. I know the constraints that it has. So I'm just curious why that East Side parking lot, why could that not be designed to create the functionality that you're looking for?
Speaker 1: Sure. The the issue that we got.
Speaker 6: Is the fact that, for instance, I have I have three newsrooms and that's just.
Speaker 5: Not oh, my God, it sounds horrible.
Speaker 6: There's so many people in our building now we've had to scatter them all about. So adding another building elsewhere to scatters.
Speaker 1: And further, that's sort of at the core of the functional issues that we've got in the building. I need those teams that work together. Yeah. Mm hmm.
Speaker 5: Is that due to the two changes in broadcast media in Denver or nationally, that the old style doesn't work anymore, just like many other industries? And explain that.
Speaker 1: It's more so because of the small four plates in the five story arc.
Speaker 6: The issue. I'm sort of hamstrung by that. There's no amount of remodeling.
Speaker 1: Or, you know, painting something, removing walls that will.
Speaker 6: Address that.
Speaker 5: Okay. I believe that's all I needed to hear from you. Thank you. Now, that's why. Madam President.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Flynn. And seeing no other hands raised. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 437. Councilman Hines.
Speaker 6: Thank you, council president and thank you so much for for all the people who have remained this late into the evening. Also, thank you to CPD staff for all your and all the people who have testified on this important topic. District ten has seen a quite a bit of historic designation activity in the last two years. This is the third matter that's come before us since since this 2019 class was took office. The first Tom's Diner made international news. That was right after we started. We received comments from all over the U.S. and beyond about Tom's Diner. Our vote was ultimately not needed because at the effectively at the last minute, various parties came to an agreement. The second was an owner sponsored historic designation, and that passed with little fanfare, unless, of course, you are the owner of that newly designated property. So congratulations again to the owners of 1272, followed by that this third application is once again owner opposed. I want to disclose that I'm a fan of brutalist architecture. I don't know what that says about who I am or what is going on in my soul. But but I like the I like the style. I enjoy viewing the clyfford still the the Federal Reserve and other brutalist buildings in Denver, that center of land. The landmark process isn't about what is.
Speaker 4: Pretty or not.
Speaker 6: It is about what embodies the characteristic of an architectural style or type. So I think some of some of the comments and questions really encapsulate that, that a lot of this conversation and what we've heard in District ten office is that a lot of the people who supported landmarking discussed the rapid development in in the metro area . And a lot of the people who were opposed discussed our housing shortage. So, you know, just in this area, there's Racine's, there's Frank BONANOS restaurants. There's the park. The park, too. There are 15 projects that CBRE is tracking that's underway in the Golden Triangle and six more projects in Pre-Application that CPD is currently aware of. And this is in Golden Triangle. So, you know, this this one, two, three. Spirit isn't even in that list of 21 current and Pro's proposed developments. Same with the recedes in sight and in Mr. Bananas restaurants. Those are also outside the Golden Triangle designated the proposed text amendment and a statistical neighborhood. So put another. Or to put another way. There's an incredible amount of development all around 1 to 3 spirit. And I feel the pain expressed by so many who have lived in this area for decades and who feel the pressure of all this construction. To quote Caroline Sharp, the fear is another massive, undistinguished luxury apartment. But let's move beyond a proxy battle between those who discussed our housing shortage and those who resist rapid development. This application is about landmark preservation. We've heard from CBRE staff and other architects in support of landmark preservation. We've also learned or heard from numerous other architects, many with deep backgrounds in historic dwellings and opposition to this preservation. What's also at stake is the protection of landmark of all landmark structures in Denver in the process. If we approve a landmark such as this that has division among architects, it calls into question the other buildings that have already been through the process without controversy. Our landmark buildings and process should be beyond reproach, just as our current process is so that we retain the reputation of being a national model for historic preservation. We have architects who are who have presented tonight. We have architects who have not presented tonight. You are on the national stage and they report that we are a model here in Denver and how we preserve buildings. We, as in the city of Denver, recently made tweaks to the process to help facilitate decisions because neighbors didn't feel they had a voice. I'd suggest that this process says we should.
Speaker 1: Take another look.
Speaker 6: And and make sure that the conversations that you mentioned before, that proxy battle have the space to occur. Ultimately, the quasi judicial nature of this conversation kept me from sharing a lot of thoughts before now. And so I'm glad that that that the conversation continued in other and other ways and added, for example, to the conversation, the M.O. between Capitol Hill, United neighbors and and the proposed developer. What what I will say is I challenge the developer that whatever comes next, we don't want as much as another massive, undistinguished luxury development. We already have enough essence as as I think Councilmember Black has said as well. While the text the Golden Triangle text amendment doesn't cover this land. It is full of ways to improve the pedestrian experience. It's full of public comment from neighbors all around. What you three square. Should this not pass, please listen to the neighbors and create something that is exceptional and provide honor, dignity and homage to the history of this location. I will vote no and I hope you do as well. Thank you. Council President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Hines, Councilmember Black.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. And thank you, Councilman Hines. You said everything I was thinking, but you said it very, very well. Even though we're all so tired.
Speaker 4: So thank you.
Speaker 2: It is a really, really.
Speaker 3: Important corner for.
Speaker 2: Our city. And it's really important that no matter what happens tonight, that. We improve.
Speaker 3: That.
Speaker 4: Corner and make it a.
Speaker 2: Welcoming point in our city. I am a fan of historic designation. I am a historian. I'm a Denver native. A lot of beautiful historic buildings have been torn down and it is a huge loss for our city. I will not be supporting the preservation of this building. And one of the main reasons why is I believe that owner opposed designation should.
Speaker 4: Have a higher bar.
Speaker 2: I thought that for.
Speaker 4: All of my time on council.
Speaker 2: And in 2019 I asked council members if we could talk about it some more, but you all did not want to do it. But Councilman Sawyer and I are going to reopen that conversation. So hopefully we can have some more discussions down the road and we're going to engage some experts and get their opinion, too.
Speaker 3: So thanks again to everyone who is so passionate about our city.
Speaker 2: And again, I will not be supporting the designation.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Black. Councilmember Kenny.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council President I have not been shy about taking bold votes to preserve some of the character of our city, even when controversy is involved. And so I start with that assumption that it's critical to preserve some of our character in our city. I also take seriously the criteria, and I will just say thematically, my feedback to the commission, the Landmark Preservation Commission and to the staff is that the adjectives matter. It's not just that history was happening, it's that there was a significant event, right? And there was a significant role. It's not just that there's an association with a recognized person. It has to be substantial. And I do find that even though I couldn't find each of those words because I couldn't look at both screens at once. A few minutes ago, I've been thinking a lot about those adjectives, and I really don't find that those things were weighed. There was a person who was known. There was you know, it's not just that there was an architectural an architect who is known. It has to be a significant example. And you have to be able to distinguish why every other building made by that architect wouldn't count as significant. Right. If everything they do is a significant example, then it's not significant. It's just an example. And here's why I think this matters. I'm going to find tonight that this designation does not meet the criteria in our code. But I'm deeply concerned about the fact that both some I think less than rigorous evaluation and also, frankly, attempts to to designate some marginal buildings might weaken the overall regime that we need to preserve really important examples that really meet high standards. That's what concerns me about this report. So I respectfully I have so much respect for the staff of Landmark and for the Landmark Commission. And I have worked with you side by side for years, frankly, to try to save this ordinance. So I see this with loving kindness, that it is important to apply the adjectives rigorously in the analysis, because only if you can make the case that only some buildings qualify, not every building. Can we then really justify the standards that we have? And so I'm nervous about, you know, my colleagues, well-intentioned effort to evaluate whether higher standards should apply. And I'm fearful that we could lose the Molly Brown house or we could lose a low doe if we have unrealistically high standards. But I also understand that the failure to rigorously distinguish between rate significant, embodied, distinctive and substantial things from those that are just kind of like there while history was happening that I understand that that's why we've ended up opening in this conversation again. So I hope that those watching from historic Denver, from the Landmark Commission have some conversation about this and really reflect on it. And I hope that we can save these standards that we really might need to save some really critical things. The one last thing I'll say is, if for any reason this building didn't meet the standards, I would also find that the inability to adapt it for residential and commercial use because of the concrete materials would make it economically less viable and therefore also not warranting a rare circumstance. We don't have that with your average church or your average building, but all this concrete does make a difference. So thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember. Councilmember Flynn.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam President. I thank Councilwoman Kimmich again for her comments. I fully agree with them. And I would add on to this that the code, as we amended it a couple of years ago, specifically directs us to look at factors beyond the criteria such as the views of the owner. And I am very concerned about the financial implications to scripts and to their expansion and their ability to continue to compete with their other media challengers in the city. I say that even knowing having worked for Scripps for 27 years before they closed the Rocky Mountain News, how how it's not really prudent to trust all their financial statements. Okay. I mean, when I was hired, Al Knight, the Prince of Darkness, who hired me, said, Why do you want to work here? I said, Well, Times Mirror had just bought the L.A. Times. It just bought the Denver Post. There's going to be a great newspaper, War and Times. America's got deep pockets. And Al said to me, Well, scripts, scripts has deep pockets, too. Problem is, they are tiny little arms. So I'm naturally suspicious of the financial projections. However, I do also believe that the implications of tying a landmark designation that severely restricts the possibilities as a councilwoman can each set for adaptive reuse. The recessed windows and and the lack of any windows on four of the four of the eight sides entirely is problematic. And so I would also I would join my colleagues in voting no on this. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Flynn. And likewise, I do not believe that this meets the criteria and I will also be voting no against this. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 437, please write a.
Speaker 1: Cashman No.
Speaker 3: Can each.
Speaker 2: No.
Speaker 3: Sandoval. No. Sawyer? No. Torres. No. Black? No. Clark.
Speaker 1: No.
Speaker 5: Flynn No.
Speaker 4: Herndon.
Speaker 1: No.
Speaker 4: Madam President.
Speaker 0: No. Madam Secretary. Close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 2: 11 Nays.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance designating 123 East Speer Boulevard as a structure for preservation.
Approves an individual Denver landmark designation for property located at 123 Speer Boulevard in Council District 10. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 4-20-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_05032021_21-0531
|
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Flynn. We echo those accolades for Angela and wish her best of luck in this new chapter of her life. And so thank you. All right. Seeing no other hands raised for announcements, we will move on. There are no presentations this evening and there are no communications. There is one proclamation being read this evening. Councilmember Ortega, would you please read Proclamation 20 1-0531 for us, please.
Speaker 3: Happy to do so, Madam President. Proclamation number 20 10531 in honor of Stella Madrid on the occasion of her retirement from Denver Housing Authority. Whereas, Stella Madrid has been a proven leader for 30 years of success in areas of affordable housing, community development, sustainability, community involvement, resident civic engagement, communications and leadership. And she has retired as intergovernmental and Community Affairs Officer from Denver Housing Authority of the City and County of Denver. Whereas Stella has worked on many of the A's in Denver housing and community initiatives that provided safe, affordable housing and community engagement. And. Whereas, Stella led changes including staffing, all of DHS, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, oh six and HUD Choice, Community Revitalization and Transformation Efforts from Newton Homes in 1994 to 95 and Curtis Park Homes in 1998 to Benedict Park Place in 2002. And. Whereas, Stella helped lead the successful team that was awarded a $22 million oh six grant from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, leading to the transformation of the former South Lincoln Homes in West Denver and into the award winning mixed income Mariposa District, preserving 250 units of public housing and addressing over 300 workforce and market rate units in 2010. And. WHEREAS, Stella worked on a team that was awarded a $34 million choice neighborhood implementation grant from the Department of Housing and Urban Development to transform the Sun Valley neighborhood as a transit oriented development, preserving 333 units of public housing and creating over 800 units of workforce and market rate units in 2016 and 2017. And. Whereas, Stella has been a community and civic leader in the city and county of Denver, serving on numerous community boards, working with the Colorado congressional offices and state and local elected officials. And she was active in community campaigns for the complete count U.S. Census and voter registration and outreach. And. Whereas, Stella was lead staff for COVID 19, funds for onsite testing and vaccinations to reach the most vulnerable residents in partnership with Denver Public Health and Environment and Denver Health and Hospitals Authority. And. Whereas, Stella's colleagues, DHS residents, the Board of Commissioners and her city friends and associates will miss her compassion, empathy, dedication, tireless work and leadership on behalf of the Denver Housing Authority. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Council of the City and County of Denver, Section one, that the Denver City Council hereby recognizes Stella Madrid's years of service to Denver citizens and her professional and personal dedication to the housing authority of the city and county of Denver and thanks her on this occasion of her retirement on April 30th, 2021, 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 a copy be transmitted to Stella Madrid.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember Ortega, your motion to adopt.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. I move for the adoption of proclamation number 20 10531 second titled.
Speaker 1: All right. We've got the second there by Councilman Hines. I heard him first. Their comments by members of council.
Speaker 3: Councilmember Ortega Thank you, Madam President. I also want to thank Council President Pro Tem Torres for co-sponsoring this proclamation with me. I've known Stella for all these years that she has worked for the Denver Housing Authority and had the opportunity to interface with her on many of the projects that were just read aloud. Stella is an amazing individual who has been just an incredible champion for the residents of Denver Housing Authority. She has done that with the utmost professionalism and advocacy on their behalf, many times interfacing with all of us, but also her work with the congressional delegation and with the state in in her work of trying to speak out on behalf of the residents. There was an event held on Friday for Stella. I was unfortunately not able to be there. I had a plumbing problem at my house and the plumber was here and they just had things kind of torn apart. But. So, Stella, I texted you expressing why I couldn't be there, but I'm really sorry. I know it was a great event. I talked to people who were there. You're going to be missed. And I know you and I will have a date on the golf course where we'll get a chance to go out and play some golf. And to the comment that was made earlier about individuals in our city who dressed to the nines. Stella is one of those individuals and she doesn't really do that in her professional life. You could best assure she's the best dressed person on the golf course as well of Stella. You're going to be missed. Thank you for your many, many years of service to the citizens of the city and county of Denver. And I know this isn't goodbye. You and I will continue to be friends for many years past. You're leaving the city, but I wish you all the best. And God bless. And your retirement. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 1: Luke, you council member Ortega. Next up, we have Council President Pro Tem Torres.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 3: Thank you so much. I think the ordinance gave just such a great synopsis of your influence.
Speaker 1: You have.
Speaker 3: Been such a a commodity for me as I'm kind of coming up in the city and getting used to the way things work and challenging things and just really appreciate your guidance and leadership and getting to know you even better.
Speaker 1: Through the DOJ board.
Speaker 3: I want to just quickly thank you for the work that you do and probably will continue to do for the River Sisters Organization in connecting Denver's River Network.
Speaker 1: To that of.
Speaker 3: Our community and our ancestry in Mexico. And so it's just really appreciate that and giving that it's not in the Sun Valley Park planning and really looking forward to that coming to fruition. So just thank you so much, Stella, and you will be missed.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Up next, we have Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam President. I want to second what Councilwoman Ortega and Torres have just said. Stella has the Stella and I actually met many, many, many years ago when I was at the newspaper and many, many executive directors of DHS ago as well as well, most likely. And it was a pleasure to work with you all that time. And now, especially even before I got on council working with you here. Stella and I were chair and co-chair respectively of our House District one Democrats, and we worked well together. We were a great team. Ben and I and Councilwoman Ortega. I was able to get up to the to the reception up in that up in northwest Denver on Friday and say my personal thanks to her and my and my wife as well. And I think, Stella, you told me and you can confirm publicly here that your intention in retirement, when a lot of people say, you know, what are you going to do now that you're retired and and you're going to follow my wife's footprints and say, I'm going to do nothing? That's what retirement is. You know, go play golf, just enjoy yourself. But if you choose to re involve yourself in any social or civic activities, you're most welcome back. And as a constituent of Council District two, especially, we would we would love to hear your voice continuing. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember Flynn. Councilmember Kenny.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much, council president. Thank you to Councilwoman Ortega for sponsoring this. And Stellar. I'll just be brief and say thank you. You know, I was saying to someone else who is departing the city today that their legacy that sometimes public servants leave behind is the impact they have on lives who may never know their name and may never know the impact. And so but but we here can bear witness. And I actually do wish for you that you get to have fun and continue to stay engaged right in your retirement. I think you deserve both. And we're you know, just I was blessed as I learned about housing and the world of affordable housing before I was elected. You were in that world already someone that I met in that pre council life. And so I just want to thank you in particular for the dedication you've had to housing for our residents from so many different walks of life. So thank you and good luck to you and congratulations.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember. Up next, we have Councilmember Sandoval.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. And Stella, you'll be greatly missed. So our families go long back in northwest Denver. And as I was learning to navigate being a council aide and figure out this city and not long right after I had started working, my dad had just passed. And you always just allowed me that grace and consideration because I think you probably saw it on my face during those first couple of years of how much I missed him. And you missed his guidance and you were just so kind and loving and always just reminded me that he was watching. And so that I always think of that when I think of you and I always talking about my mom and the work that you did. I'm sorry I wasn't able to be there on Friday, but I know that it was a great year, said Northwest Denver. And as everyone else said, Please don't be a stranger. I know that you're not going now. I'm going to call you and we'll catch up and I'll see you around because our paths crossed prior to council and the do it after that. Just you've left a legacy on me and my family and all of us. And so thank you for always considering everyone else in my family. When you talk to me and what was going on, it was so helpful and enjoy your retirement. It's well-deserved. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Sandoval. And see no other hands raised. I'll go ahead and chime in. Congratulations, Stella, on a job well done. And it's been an honor to get to know you and work with you. And it all works out in the end. It's such an honor to have you celebrating your retirement through this proclamation. And you also helped craft some of the exemptions for the rental license policy that we're also hearing tonight. And so I appreciate your partnership and your legacy. Your legacy will definitely live on and hopefully we will be able to see you around, if not in a housing capacity, in some other community capacity. And so sincere congratulations to you as well. Madam Secretary, roll call, please.
Speaker 3: Ortega, I. Torres. I stand all.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 3: Sawyer.
Speaker 2: I. Black. Hi.
Speaker 3: CdeBaca. I, Clark.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 3: Flynn.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 3: Hi.
Speaker 5: Hi.
Speaker 3: Cashman.
Speaker 0: Hey.
Speaker 2: Can I?
Speaker 3: Madam President.
Speaker 1: I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced the results.
Speaker 3: 12 days.
Speaker 1: 12 eyes proclamation 20 1-0531 has been adopted. We have 5 minutes for an acceptance speech or proclamation acceptance. Councilmember Ortega We'll go ahead and start that timer if you'd like to call up who you would like to accept this proclamation.
Speaker 3: Absolutely. So as you can see, we've got Stella Madrid with us. And so she got a chance to hear all of your comments. So stellar. Now your turn to make some comments. So thank you for being here with us tonight. Oh, well, thank you. I'm honored to have this proclamation tonight and certainly honored to hear all the words and kindness that you've all expressed. As was mentioned, I.
Speaker 2: Joined that housing authority in 91.
Speaker 3: And I have worked with every single city council office through those years. And each of your office does. And I want to thank you, all of you personally, council, council, as well as your staff. They have always been accessible and responsive. You know, I know Councilman Flynn mentioned his work through all the past executive directors, but I also want to acknowledge my work with with them specifically Kevin Markman, who was our former HUD assistant secretary for public housing. In addition to the DHS director and our wonderful dear friend Salvador Carpio, former Denver city councilman, oh, God bless his soul and his smile. Get a little who all of those executive directors believed in community and the residents. So there was a natural match for us to move down the path of.
Speaker 2: Serving our community.
Speaker 3: And meeting the needs of our residents. And I will say, you know, working for DHS was one of my most.
Speaker 2: Rewarding and enriching work.
Speaker 3: Since the eighties that I've been in public service with the state, with the city, the Mayor's Office of Employment and Training, DHS, and all my work in the community. And in closing, because I know it's a short it's a short night tonight on your agenda, and I don't want to lengthen it. But in closing, I really want to thank my family, all of you and all of us in public service. We know what a sacrifice our families make. I want to thank my sons for all their support, all their understanding and their encouragement. They shared me with my work. Right. And they share, you know, just like your families. My sons shared me with all my work in all these years, the many nights, the early mornings, the many, many, many community meetings during the week and on the weekends. We all know what we do, and we all do it because we do it from our corazon and we do it because we believe in what we're doing and who we're serving. Not for the accolades. But again, I'm humbled and I thank you all so very much. I will be around. And like many of us say, it's not goodbye. It's just we'll see you down the road. So thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you again, Stella, and congratulations. And enjoy that retirement. It's well-deserved.
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation in honor of Stella Madrid upon the occasion of her retirement from Denver Housing Authority.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_05032021_21-0420
|
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Councilwoman CdeBaca. And thank you, Jessica, for the answers. And we are going to go ahead and move along then. The next item up is Council Bill 420 Council Member Clark, will you please put Council Bill 420 on the floor for final consideration.
Speaker 0: As Council President and move that Council Bill 420 be placed on final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 5: Second.
Speaker 1: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded, council members say, to pocket your motion to amend.
Speaker 2: A move that council bill 20 1-0 420 be amended in the following particulars on page two. Line five strike January 1st, 2023, and replace it with July 31st, 2022 and on line 14. Strike January 1st, 2024 and replace it with July 31st, 2022.
Speaker 1: All right. We have a move. We have it moved. And I think I heard the second there is that Councilman Hines second. Okay. All right. We've got the second from Councilman Hines questions or comments by members of council on this amendment. Councilmember CdeBaca.
Speaker 2: Thank you. This change is to basically bring the compliance requirement date a little sooner, a little closer to us for the rental registry. We have it bumped out in in two phases one for our multi-unit, one for our single family units. And I think we should just be creating some parity there and making them both required compliance by 2022. I think that would meet the needs of our residents in the city a little bit better. And this is something that's been raised along with my upcoming amendment by our constituents, especially having spent a lot of time talking to mom and pops, mom and pop landlords for our Right to counsel initiative. While the sooner they might be a challenge for everybody, folks really want to see parity across what we're asking of all landlords. And so this is to achieve that.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Hines.
Speaker 5: I think you're council president. Do you know if this was the implementation date was discussed in the stakeholder process?
Speaker 1: Are you asking me or Councilmember CdeBaca?
Speaker 5: Well, ideally, I would ask you, but I don't know if there's someone else that that that has knowledge of the stakeholder process or I mean, ideally, I would ask someone who is part of the stakeholder process as opposed to having you play dual role of sponsor and council president. But if you're willing to answer it, I don't I don't want to put you on the spot.
Speaker 1: Oh, I'm perfectly happy to answer that question. Yes, we discussed the phasing in depth because this will be the largest license that we have within the city and county of Denver. And so, as you might imagine, excise and licensing would like to see the phasing because they need to get this program stood up. And it really is best practices across the nation that you don't just all of a sudden open up a license, but that you actually have an incentive period, you have a phasing in period. And it was specifically discussed among the stakeholders around what that phasing in would look like. And we based on their feedback, that is the phasing that you see in the original ordinance language because they specifically wanted to see multifamily go in first, followed by single dwelling units. So essentially with the phasing, it would allow all of 2022 and 2023 for those single family dwelling units to come into compliance and be able to pass an inspection to successfully secure their license.
Speaker 5: So is it reasonable to say that the that there are a couple of challenges here that the phasing is meant to address? The first is we're going to have time to plan and prepare and do some rulemaking, too, I'm guessing. And and then the second is for institutional property owners probably have a bit more discipline or bandwidth to consider a rental registry. And mom and pop landlords need a little more time to catch up. Am I? Mm hmm. I don't want to put words in your mouth. I'm also trying to be as expeditious since we are here and in the full council.
Speaker 1: Yup. You paraphrased it. Perfect. The other thing I think that folks should consider is that by having one start date, it creates a huge bottleneck of licenses that are going to licenses that are going to come in. And then upon that four year renewal, you're also going to have that bottleneck. And so I am not in support of this amendment. And I would ask my colleagues to vote the amendment down.
Speaker 5: So I'm sorry we're doing maybe this kind of work on the floor. Councilmember CdeBaca, do you have any thoughts as to what?
Speaker 2: Yeah. I mean, I hear what the concern is, and I disagree that we're setting a bottleneck date. We're giving a whole year for people to come into compliance. And I don't think that. A phasing has to be annual phasing. I think that there could be a six month phasing for one, a six month phasing for the other. We know where the multi-family units are. It's much easier for us to reach out to them and gain compliance. We also have property tax, property assessments, wastewater fees. All of those things go out directly to owners. And so we have plenty of touch points to communicate directly with landlords. And I think that 2022 is a reasonable amount of time to give them the runway we need for them to get into compliance.
Speaker 5: All right. Thank you both, Councilmember CdeBaca and President Gilmore. No further questions.
Speaker 1: Right. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 0: I thank the council president. Yeah. I guess my concern about moving the data is besides adding, I like the extra time for the mom and pop landlords to figure out how to address the situation. As I wonder, at the capacity of the the inspection industry and with the tens of thousands of rental units that will be meeting their initial inspection. As you know, Madam President, I, I asked you to consider on the second when when the license comes up for renewal four years down the road to consider allowing landlords to self attest. And you responded that you would certainly consider that based on whatever data we assemble from the first go round with inspections. And I accept that as a reasonable approach to the matter. But I do like the added time, not just for for the landlords, but for the inspection industry to get a rather large job done. So thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. And seen in the queue. There are no other hands raised. Madam Secretary, roll call on the First Amendment, please.
Speaker 3: CDEBACA All right.
Speaker 0: CLARK No.
Speaker 3: Flynn.
Speaker 0: Now.
Speaker 5: You know.
Speaker 3: Cashman.
Speaker 0: No.
Speaker 2: Can each. No.
Speaker 3: Ortega. Oh. Sandoval. No. Sawyer. No. Torres. Oh. Black? No. Madam President?
Speaker 1: No, Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 3: One I 11 nis.
Speaker 1: One i 11 nis. The amendment to the First Amendment to 20 1-0420 has failed. Council Member Sayed Ibaka Your second motion to amend, please.
Speaker 2: I move that council bill 20 1-4 28 be amended in the following particulars on page seven, strike lines six through ten and replace with each unit on a parcel is $50.
Speaker 1: All right, we have it moved. Is there a second?
Speaker 2: So again.
Speaker 1: All right. We have a second questions or comments by members of Council on this amendment. Council member State Abarca.
Speaker 2: Thank you. This amendment levies the same fee for every rental unit rather than giving large discounts to corporate landlords who have multiple units on a single parcel.
Speaker 1: Right. Thank you. We've got council member Sawyer.
Speaker 2: You're a thinks, not a president. I'm wondering whether you considered the cost that it would be that this change would be passing along in your original determination. Were you when you came up with the plan that you came up with, could you. Would you mind just walking me through that again? I think you mentioned it last last week a little bit. Or maybe, councilman, can you do but just and just curious.
Speaker 3: About.
Speaker 2: Why the two different treatments for the large property owners on the.
Speaker 3: Smaller ones? Thanks.
Speaker 1: Sure. Happy to. Thank you for the question. You know, when we started this work with our stakeholder group that we purposely seeded with affordable housing providers and affordable housing property owners, we knew that whatever fees we assess were going to be passed on to the renters. And so we needed to craft the original policy with that intent in mind that it was going to be passed on to the renters. And so that's why we kept the fees low to, one, mitigate the amount that would be passed on to the renters, knowing that renters in multi-unit apartment buildings are sometimes some of our most vulnerable renters, and that we also kept the fees low to encourage compliance. And really, when you're looking at the property owners are also responsible for arranging their own inspections that are heavily discounts that for smaller property owners because they only have one unit that they would have to get inspected versus the multifamily. They're required to have 10% of their units inspected. And so we know that that's an added cost in the thousands of dollars for the large multifamily apartment buildings. If you have 350 units, you're required to get 35 of those units inspected. And we knew that that was going to get passed on to the renters as well. And then lastly, the fees must be reasonable. This isn't a tax that we're assessing on property owners. It's a fee. And so those fees must be reasonable and they have to be supported by real costs. And the city, whatever the cost is going to be of the license program, the fees have to cover that cost, but only that cost. And so the amendment, it will generate close to $10 million. And I can tell you right now that those are not real costs that that that the program would incur. And so I don't believe that this increase meets the level of having a fee versus it really being perhaps a tax.
Speaker 2: Okay. Great. Thank you. Really appreciate that clarification. Thanks, my cousin.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you. Council member Slayer. Council member Hines.
Speaker 5: Take your council president.
Speaker 3: Did you consider.
Speaker 5: Hi. This $50 fee and then excusing mom and pop property owners from paying a fee at all for the parcels just to, you know, so that didn't end up being $10 million collected or whatever and more equitable to the small landlords.
Speaker 1: I think I'm understanding your question. We considered a lot of different scenarios because we've been working on this for two years, and so we knew that we needed to start somewhere and that in having the fees low, you know, the application fee is $50, it aligns with the short term rentals. And then the license fee was is $50 for a single dwelling unit owner. We kept them very low and we didn't want to exempt them other than the affordable housing providers that we have in the city. Because really this is a business and they are running a business. And so we wanted them to also have to comply with the application and license fee. But again, we needed to start somewhere and we needed to make sure that the cost was low. And I believe that we've accomplished that.
Speaker 5: And if the fee is out of balance with the cost and it is considered a tax, does that mean that the entire program would be in jeopardy?
Speaker 1: I believe that there would be serious questions about the program. And I'm happy to have Jonathan Griffin, who's in the queue. He can perhaps answer that question for you.
Speaker 5: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Jonathan Griffin, deputy legislative counsel. Can you repeat the question, Councilman?
Speaker 5: Yes, sir, absolutely. The question is, the statement was that if every person was charged $50, then the amount of fees collected would be $10 million, which is well above the cost of implementing the program and could be therefore considered a tax instead of a fee. So if that is the case, if the collections are well above the the cost of implementing the program, does could that potentially jeopardize the entire program?
Speaker 0: Yes, that is correct. I mean, the program would be opened up to legal challenges. Then under the Aspen case that came out back in 2018, which spoke to reasonable fees as part of their paper bag bill. It said that the charge had to bear a reasonable relationship to direct or indirect costs of the government providing service to regulating the activity. And so if there was not a reasonable relationship within the two costs, that could be challenged.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. Griffin. Thank you, Mr. President. No further questions.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Hines. Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Thank you again. Council President. Yeah, I'm struggling with this little bit. While I recognize that someone has 300 apartments and. And that the amount that they're end up paying, if I were units inspected, would would be challenging. But I'm I'm trying to I'm guessing that if that would be the case, that they would end up working a deal with with whomever is doing the inspections for a lesser, lesser fee per inspection. And and even if they were paying the same amount, the amount passed on to the renter would be the same per unit as a single family or a single unit landlord. So I'm struggling a little bit with this. While I understand the legal necessity for keeping this as a fee and not going past the cost of the program. I'm wondering if there isn't perhaps another way to to balance this. And should this pass, as you've proposed? That's another thing I would hope we would look at moving down the road. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Cashman, I'm happy to answer here. You need to have some sort of application and license fee to encourage compliance. If we had, you know, $10 or $1, would we have the compliance that we're looking for? And I would also ask that, you know, we don't make perfect the enemy of good policy, because we've got to start on this program and get, you know, a few years of data to understand where we're at with it. And then we're going to evaluate it on a yearly basis in July and happy to dig into that more. But we need to start somewhere. And I believe that we have kept the fees low enough that this is a good place for us to start. It's less than $5 a month that would be potentially passed on to the renters, from the property owners as we have the policy right now. All right. Next up, we've got Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam President, I. I, too, like Councilman Cashman. And I'm intrigued by this. I see the intent of the amendment that Councilwoman CdeBaca has proposed is basically looking at the corporate gift of a volume discount. Essentially, I would rather, though, see the converse of this. And Council president, we have I think we chatted about this early on in the process that perhaps a single license fee for a mom and pop landlord who a family might have three or four rentals scattered around the city. I would much rather see a singular license fee for that situation than than charging the operators of 300 unit complex for each unit. And but I know that we didn't have votes to do that. And I understood the reasoning behind it that Megan had emailed to me. So but I would with this amendment, I think I would rather see the converse of it to give her the same kind of consideration to a mom and pop it that just managed, you know, a handful of rentals around the city. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember Flynn, Councilmember CdeBaca, we have you back up.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I echo a lot of what Councilman Cashman and Flynn have said. I proposed early on the converse or a fee based on rent and what am I bracket? The landlord was catering to so that we can incentivize low rent and disincentivise predatory rents. I think that while sometimes our multifamily units are providing affordable rates, we also have many of the multifamily units providing our luxury rates as well. And so my my issue here is that. It's not about the the $50. I think the $50 is a reasonable fee. I if we're not trying to generate that much money, we could go lower. My issue here is treating landlords equitably. We're not. We're not we don't actually have a fee that's tied to something rational, like square footage, like parcel, like rent. It's very arbitrary. If you look at the fee brackets and while Jonathan mentioned that we could be sued if we raised over the a couple hundred thousand dollars that we're trying to generate and we used it on something other than administration of the database, we could be sued because that could be perceived as a tax. I wonder, Jonathan, if you would be willing to speak to the potential of a lawsuit by small landlords who feel that their fee is not rational in their being and there a fee is being imposed on them that it is not being fairly imposed on other landlords by unit.
Speaker 0: Yeah. My understanding is that there was a study done on this. So again, that was why it's not considered a tax is that there is a reasonable relationship to the costs and that there was a study done to make sure of that. It does not appear in the method you're prescribing that there would be a study done.
Speaker 2: Can you explain how the fee is reasonable for the single unit provider versus the multi-unit provider when in reality a multi unit provider would be able to take advantage of economies of scale and would be able to absorb the $250 easily and pay for the, what, 30% of the inspections. Whereas you have an individual owner who is less able, less likely to be able to absorb that that fee, but also less likely to be able to absorb 100% of their inspections. Because even though we're giving the multifamily units 30% of their inspections, the single family unit is still required to pay for 100% of their inspections.
Speaker 0: I mean, I can always kind of speak generally to what's defined as reasonable on the law. Both, you know, there's a long line of cases of, you know, from the US Supreme Court under the 14th Amendment as well as Colorado Analog in our Constitution. And there's heavy deference granted to the legislature and the lawmakers when they're setting their fees. So if there is something so I mean, in my mind, this fee would be found as reasonable. But yeah.
Speaker 2: But what is the definition of reasonable?
Speaker 0: The I mean, the kind of the major definition when we're talking about excessive fines is that the fine has to be grossly dis support, just proportional to the gravity of the offense or of the charge. So this would need to be that's kind of the general standard for reasonableness under the Supreme Court. Is that grossly disproportionate?
Speaker 2: And is there anything in there about equal application? Of the fee.
Speaker 0: Is there anything? I'm sorry. I'm not following your question.
Speaker 2: So $50 is reasonable. And I say that as a landlord and somebody who's rented $50 is reasonable. The issue is not the fee. The amount of the fee. It is the application to others in the same business. It's like killing me. It's like telling me I have to pay $4 for a gallon of gas. But somebody who is filling up a tanker gets to pay $0.25 for that same gallon of gas.
Speaker 0: I'm not aware of anything that's looked at the tier structure and made that type of determination. And again, the basic standard of grossly disproportionate, you know, is what's looked at. So, no, I'm not aware of any anything that's ever looked at a tiered system and said that one tier was was unfair to another tier.
Speaker 2: Got it. And Councilwoman Gilmore, can you explain what the Fed ties back to in the tiered system? Because I I've gone through it and tried to see, you know, could it is it attached to square footage? Is it attached to the the single parcel? Is it attached to rent? I'm not finding the thing that the fee is attached to. Can you help me understand that?
Speaker 1: Sure happy to. The and I and I would love to also remind folks that the increased requirement of unit inspections and so we're only talking right now about the license fee. We're not talking anything about the cost that we know, again, will be passed on to the renters. It's the inspection fees. And so through the stakeholder process, it was a non-negotiable for the stakeholders to waive any sort of inspection requirements. And so we have the inspections across the board, but it is tied to the cost of the program and to administer it. And we knew that we needed to start low. And so we started with $50 for one unit and went up from there, basing the criteria on the number of parcels that we had that were in the 2 to 10 scenario, the 11 to 50 and the 51 2 to 50 scenario, because we wanted to have a good overview of what it would take to administer this license program based only on fees, and then also take into consideration the cost of the inspections that we knew were going to be required and that would be passed on to the renters. And so that was the criteria that we looked at for the program. The application fee is in alignment with the short term rental program. It's $50, and that covers the administrative costs. And so and the application fee is a one time fee. It is not needed to be paid upon renewal. And so that is the rationale. And we have worked very, very closely with excise and licensing and our partners to ensure that this we weren't gouging anybody on this, that we were really taking this into consideration and across the board being able to implement this and pay for the program as well.
Speaker 2: It's still not explaining how it connects to the landlord. I hear that there was a overall amount that was determined and then we backtracked to figure out how we would raise that. And I don't think I'm going to get the answer I'm looking for anyhow. But I've also been asked several times through our right to counsel proposal, how our proposal would interface with citizen led ballot initiative that's out there that proposes essentially the right to counsel the rental registry and the fee. Can you talk to us a little bit about how if the citizen led ballot initiative passes, this will interface?
Speaker 1: I don't have a crystal ball. So there will be limited interface, at least initially because, you know, we're standing up this program and we need to get it. We need to get it implemented. The citizen led ballot initiative, those funds raised will truly be a tax. And through that ballot initiative, you would need to identify where those dollars went to and how they're collected because of the tax for any fees for this proposal, anything that is revenue generated will go directly into the general fund and then it will be reallocated through the annual budget process.
Speaker 2: Got it. Thank you for that. That's it from my questions.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you. Up next, we have Councilwoman Connie.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council President I really appreciate the dialog. I just wanted to share two sets of observations and in terms of how I'm going to vote on this amendment. The first is that I frankly do a lot, as you all know, of housing stuff. And I get to spend time with economists and and I think a lot about housing prices and what impacts them and what doesn't. And I will just say there's a pretty large body of research that demonstrates that program costs like these do not get passed on a dollar to dollar to tenants. And we have this discussion a lot in the inclusionary housing realm. But the reason is that, generally speaking, in a marketplace, the seller is selling at the highest possible price the buyer can pay or will pay. And so generally speaking, you know, if your fridge breaks in your rental unit in the middle of a of a year , you don't get to raise the rent to replace the fridge because one, you have a lease. Two, you have your tenant may be at the top of what they can afford because if you could be charging more for that unit, you probably would be already. Right. And we've seen this in this market, right. That landlords will just continually raise the rent to the most that they can get for the quality of that unit, the location of that unit, etc.. So there's a lot of economic research that that will say that the cost of this program may not get passed on dollar for dollar. They may end up getting absorbed partially through, you know, reduced profits, partially through reduced other things that, you know, maybe landlords spend a little less than something else, landscaping, whatever. But the short story is that that these costs get spread over over a range of things. But the good news is, if I'm wrong, if the economists are wrong and the landlords are right when they say dollar for dollar, every dollar is getting passed on. That's why these fees are low. So that's why this is a prudent approach, right, to entering the marketplace with a new cost. So. So but I just I will just say I personally do not I side with the economists that generally speaking, dollar for dollar, not every cost does get passed on because generally the rents already at the top. So be that what it may, that's just more for your academic stimulation tonight. The second thing I wanted to mention in terms of what councilman would say to back is asking what's the basis? And the basis is the parcel. And I'll I'll share two reasons why I think that is appropriate for a starting point here. Number one is there are many things we do by parcel. So, for example, I send one property tax bill to an apartment owner. I don't send 300, but I do send one property tax bill to every single family home, regardless of who owns them. If they own 200, I don't send one bill to 200 different single family homes. I send one bill to each parcel. So there are a number of things we do in the city that we regulate by parcel. So this is consistent with some other ways that we do things as a city. Secondly, even though it would look it would be more like a tax if we were doing it based on value, which is why, as much as I might value wise, like the idea of charging by the price, that's just it looks and feels a lot more like a tax than a fee, especially if the unit doesn't cost the government more to regulate. So the but but you will I will say that the average value of a single family home or a townhome is going to be greater than the average value of an apartment. So if your concern is that you want folks who are owning, I mean, the value, if you were to evaluate a medium single family priced home or a duplex or even the ones that are being rented, you know, might be in the 3 to $500000 range, whereas the average value of an apartment might be in the 200000 to $400000 range. So they are just they are qualitatively value wise. Unit four, unit not the same. And the single family unit is worth more. So that's just a fact. It's not the basis why it was chosen, but it is a piece of why it may be more equitable than you think. You know that we think not you, any one person, but just that we might think off the top of our heads. The last thing I want to share is I do want to caution us from this assumption that every single family home out there is owned by a mom and pop. In fact, it is a massive business of equity funds to purchase, particularly during the foreclosure crisis, massive quantities of single family homes that were packaged on a resale market. There is an entire campaign to get the Federal Reserve and the folks who are engaged in this selling of, you know, bad mortgages to offer them first to community organizations. But that's a slow campaign. And the truth is big capital owns many single family homes. So I just want us to be cautious about any assumption that a single family home is necessarily owned by a neighbor. It's not to say that that's not. The case, right. There are definitely some some individuals who owned single family homes. But I would guess that when the data comes in, we'll learn more about how many are owned. Even the LLC can be confusing, right? It might look like 12 different LLC, but they all have the exact same partners in them. So it'll be very interesting to see what we can glean from the data. But so, so I respect the concerns, but for the reasons I've identified, I will be supporting the bill as is and not voting for the amendments. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 1: Q Council member. KOINANGE And I will go ahead and make my final comment. Thank you for the for the questions of my colleagues. And I respectfully ask that my colleagues vote down or vote no on this amendment. Madam Secretary, roll call on the Second Amendment.
Speaker 2: CdeBaca I.
Speaker 0: Clark No.
Speaker 2: Flynn.
Speaker 0: Now.
Speaker 3: HINES.
Speaker 5: Oh.
Speaker 2: Cashman.
Speaker 1: I believe you're muted, Councilman.
Speaker 0: No.
Speaker 2: Can each now.
Speaker 3: Ortega? No. Sandoval.
Speaker 2: No.
Speaker 3: Sawyer. No. Torres.
Speaker 0: No.
Speaker 2: Black? No.
Speaker 3: Madam President.
Speaker 1: No. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 3: One 811 days.
Speaker 1: When I 11 nays the second amendment to 20 1-0420 has failed. Council Bill 20 1-0420 is on the floor for final passage. Questions by members of Council on Council Bill 420. Give it a moment here. All right. Councilmember Flynn. And just for folks, we will have questions first and then we'll follow by comment. So wanted to split those up. So if anybody has questions, now is the time. All right. I'm not seeing any questions. And so we will go ahead and move on to comments by members of Council on 420 and Council member Flynn. Did you want to get up first in the queue? Go ahead.
Speaker 0: Sure. Thank you, Madam President. Yeah, I didn't have questions. I just had a comment. I wanted to amplify the same remarks that I made last week that I want to request that when rulemaking occurs on this, particularly with the the guardrails on inspections, that we'd be careful not to that this registry and the inspection process not turn into an accelerant for displacement, particularly when some of our older housing stock in our very vulnerable neighborhoods are vulnerable to displacement. That is, that we not end up incentivizing the owners to sell and have redeveloped into unaffordable, particularly unaffordable duplex or or McMansion type of a development that we keep these affordable rentals in the pool with inspections that truly look at the standards for habitation safety, life safety and that sort of thing. And not with an eye toward older houses that don't meet current building codes and never can if we required them to upgrade would would simply be taken off the rental market. And so that's that's my that's my direct not to I can't give direction to the department, but that's my request of the licensing folks and the inspection folks that we truly make it targeted toward habitability and life safety. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember Flynn. Councilmember Sandoval.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. I just wanted to echo what Councilman Flynn said. I have received a lot of feedback from constituents in Council.
Speaker 3: District One who.
Speaker 2: Owned smaller or not even smaller, but older homes and a lot of older homes in historic districts, too. And so they have a lot of concerns that their hallways won't make, won't meet the inspection standard. They have concerns that just a lot of concerns with older homes. So I had mentioned to you when we spoke about this, about having historic Denver as part of a partner, because if you are a member with historic Denver, you get a group, a list of contractors who've been vetted through historic Denver who know how to work on older homes because, say, for instance, if somebody has to add an egress window into their older home, you cut into the foundation. It's a little bit different type of building stock. And there's there there's programs out there's people out there who know how to do it. And one thing I do want to comment on is that you don't have to wait until the very end. If you own single family homes to get the $50 permit, you can rent, you can get it earlier, which is a $25 permit. And as I mentioned to you, council president about having an inspection preemptively, that's something I'm a rent. I own a rental property. I've been thinking about doing and I've been telling my constituents if they could get an inspection preemptively. So preemptive so that they know what to fix and they have a couple of years to fix it. So there's don't the the cost don't get passed down to the small mom and pop owners, because that's mostly all I've heard from in Council District one are people who.
Speaker 3: Own several different.
Speaker 2: Single family rental properties, and that's their concern. I haven't heard much concern about the actual need for the rental registry. Most of the concerns that my council office has heard from is the inspection. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember Sandoval. Councilmember Sawyer.
Speaker 2: He's not a president and they appreciate what Councilman Sandoval just said. I hear the same thing in my office, and I think that's spot on. And I think the determining factor in really making the decision here is the costs that are passed along to the renters as it stands now. I think the financial estimates that we were provided indicate the average cost of the proposal is $4 per unit. And so to me, that balances the city's interests in protecting our most vulnerable citizens and maintaining safe housing stock with the recognition that our residents simply cannot bear that many more costs given COVID and market conditions and all of those things. So the intent of the proposal is to make housing safer and more accessible to all. And I think that adding too many costs to that will dilute the proposal by significantly raising the rents in our city, increasing the barriers to housing affordability. So I'm in support of the rental registry this evening as a whole and will be in voting in favor of it. Thanks, Madam President.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Council member soya. Council member. Each.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council President I first just want to say thank you to you and your staff as well as to the agencies. This was no easy feat to get a set of city agencies willing to take on a task this large. And I think it's critical. So I want to thank them for their willingness to move and grow and and think about meeting the new needs that we've identified in our policymaking work here in the council because we rely on them to implement. And so so thank you to everyone who participated. For me, I think about this policy as a piece of a trajectory that we in Denver have been on as we have grown up as a city. And I don't just mean up in size. I mean up in complexity, up in being a major destination for businesses to relocate with workers. You know, I don't know if the Cowtown reputation was ever really deserved by the city of Denver. I think it was always dynamic and it always had things. But to the extent that we are unquestionably a modern city, that's a world class destination, it is natural that we have to grow our systems to manage that city in ways that we didn't have before. Right. And that meant banning forms of discrimination like use of source of income. That was the first renter protection that was passed four years ago by the city council. And since then, we've continued to look at ways that we can address evictions with eviction defense programs. We try to add the first rental assistance program that was available beyond those that were the deepest, lowest income. We used to have a human services program only. But each of these pieces is part of a trajectory, along with the requirements that we've been able to negotiate with developers. And we may be considering requiring in the future that when you have a city of this size and this complexity and frankly, with the exacerbated inequality that has come, then these are the mitigations that are needed for us to manage that city. And so I do just want to share one perspective. I know that we've heard about the landlords who shared concerns, and that's understandable given the change. But I want folks to know that I'm also hearing from landlords who are supportive. One of them is an elder African-American woman who owns several properties in the city, who reached out to our office to say that she was very supportive of this. And Ms.. Davis, this is what she said to me. She said, I pay these fees in other places. It's no big deal and it's really good because I want landlords to be responsible. I don't think it's fair to have people in this city who are not doing what they should be because they don't have anyone checking on them, whereas everywhere else they do business. I have to pay these fees and you know, and I know that at least it's a level playing field. So I think that's really important for the landlord who invests in their life and safety systems and make sure their unit is safe. They shouldn't be competing with someone who's not investing in those things. So I just wanted to share a different landlord perspective that we haven't heard as much about, but certainly is out there. And that is someone who supports this ordinance tonight. So I want to thank Ms.. Davis for reaching out to my office, and I want to thank my colleagues. And I'm excited to vote yes on the evolution of our city into a more equitable and more managed place. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Council member can each council member. Tories.
Speaker 3: Thank you so much, Madam President. Appreciate the work that's gone into this in responding to a number of emails from District three landlords. You know, we were emphasizing that this is a basic responsibility of a city, the size and depth of Denver, that we know what our rental stock is and that it meets basic capitation rules. Even when we looked at vacancy rates in the past in Denver. The number was misleading because it only calculated vacant units that had been previously occupied, not newly built vacant units that have never been rented. We should know what our stock is and who's responsible for them. My district was, when described by Councilman Kasich earlier, about single family homes that have turned over to investors, and we know very little about them or how many they own. One of our partners wrote this in their letter of support. As with so many things, COVID 19 has brought to light the importance and benefits of maintaining a central record of our community's rental housing stock. Various federal, state and local level renter protections and resources came online in an effort to keep people housed through this public health crisis. It would have been incredibly helpful to have current contact information for rental property owners and operators sort of enabled clear and efficient communication of still evolving policy changes and affordable rental assistance funds to the benefit of landlords and tenants alike throughout the pandemic. That was from enterprise community partners. I look forward to voting in favor of this tonight. I thank you for all of your hard work as President Gilmore and Kimmage even before I came into office on this. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember Torres. Councilmember Cashman.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Council President First of all, I want to thank you very much for considering the the tsunami of questions that I have sent your way. And thanks to you and your staff. And I am absolutely convinced that you've been as thoughtful as is humanly possible in creation of this policy. I still have some questions that I'm you know, I'm concerned about, you know, the that we still may be putting too much burden on some of our smaller landlords. And I'm thinking maybe it's in the those that have like 2 to 10 different parcels of single family homes. And so I'll be looking at that. But, you know, I want to be sure and I appreciate Councilman CdeBaca bringing up this question to be sure, where we're spreading the burden fairly. So I'll be looking at that. I think I'm 100% convinced of the importance of creating this rental registry. And I think as as Council Pro-Tem Torres just said, being able to contact our renters and our landlords with important policy changes coming down the road and I think having an as accurate a number as we can put together of rental properties to help us in, in a crafting policy down the road, I think is is critically important. You know, I we can't leave that complaint based. I've heard from a number of people that we've got the state warrant of habitability. We've already got things on the books, but they all require a renter to file a complaint, which puts one way or another puts their welcome mat in in their residence at risk. And so I support the inspection, the preemptive attempt to create safe housing. I do, again, have concerns about that. The the inspect, the inspection list, the checklist that every every landlord I've spoken to, I would say easily 80% of the landlords I've spoken to, that's their concern. And I've tried to put their mind to rest as best I can. But I have concerns myself. I'll be at rest when I see that final list along with my landlord. So I hope to, you know, keep keep an eye on that, be as involved in that as as I'm welcomed to be. So with that, I will be supporting this. I think you're exactly right. You know, not only is it not wanting to ruin the good by striving for perfection, but I think the way it's set up, the phased approach gives us a lot of time to arm wrestle over some details that I think are important in this. And again, thank you and thanks to you to your co-sponsor for the effort to put this together. Councilwoman Kenny just. I think it's fair to say, been our our council champion, at least in my time on council for affordable housing and safe housing. And I appreciate her efforts as well. Thank you. Council President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmember Cashman. Councilmember Ortega.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. I, too, want to express my appreciation for the two year process that you've been through by engaging multiple stakeholders to get input. And that reflected change along the way, including during the time that you brought this to before council. And that means you were listening and really took into account all of that input into this final bill that's before us tonight. I also want to just express that during the rulemaking process, when that comes up, that will be really important to keep us informed about when that comes up so that we will probably hear from people during that time frame as well. And I want to just extend my appreciation to all of the constituents that we've heard from on both sides of this issue. I think the fees are something we're going to have to monitor to ensure that it's not something that continues to grow over time. As we all know, when the Platform Park Hill project came forward, those wastewater fees were originally created to identify impervious surface that people had on their properties, and that was expanded to include the cost of the plaque to Park Hill Drainage Project, which, you know, taxpayers across the city ended up helping bear that cost as opposed to it being placed on each individual property. So it's why getting those annual reports to city council will be really important to monitor. And like with any ordinance, if we find that there are things that need to be tweaked over time, it gives us the ability to see what the reports are showing us and to make whatever necessary changes going to have to be made in the future to the ordinance. Obviously this is targeted to focus on habitability and life safety issues. And I think one of the challenges we're going to have is making sure that there are enough inspectors that can handle the volume of the inspections that will need to occur. And you and I have talked about the fact that there are organizations out there that provide the certification for those inspectors. And this is a great opportunity for people who are unemployed that can go out and get a license to be I think it's a license or a certification to become an inspector so that anybody who is unemployed can can have a new profession. This is going to be an ongoing process and a great opportunity for them to tap into this. So overall, I appreciate the work that you and Megan and folks from the city attorney's office and Dottie and Councilwoman Leach and others have have put into bringing this forward. I think in general, having that registry is going to be extremely helpful and it will be helpful as we continue to look at any policy changes that allow us to figure out how we continue to create that affordable stock that has varying price points for people in our housing market that are below what is considered market rate housing. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Council member Ortega. I was thinking about Stella Madrid. We've got to get Stella in the the home inspections gig. As you were talking. Thank you. Councilmember Ortega. Councilmember Hines.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Council President. I thank you for the bill and for all the hard work you, your staff, and your stakeholder process and all the stakeholder members have put into this topic. I'm just a council member. Cashman. I agree with you. I'm concerned that we're, uh. I just want to make sure that we're continuing to use our equity lens as we move into rulemaking, assuming this passes. And I look forward to having a list of our property owners. After all, the city's relationship is with the property owner, not the renter. And I want to make sure we have someone other than a registered agent in some out-of-state LLC. When a renter has concerns or when we need to discuss health, safety and welfare issues like snow abatement or a navigable right of way, including our sidewalk, which is the adjacent property owners responsibility. And to councilmember, can you just point we are an increasingly, increasingly complex city downtown or not? We're now one of the largest, 25 largest cities in the nation. I like that. We're getting more information about our housing stock, including long term rentals. Frankly, we should probably get more information about our short term rentals, too. The data collection helps us understand what we have in Denver so we can better shape policy for our future. Thank you. Council President.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember Hines, Councilmember CdeBaca.
Speaker 2: Thank you. I thought I was never going to get calls on my head, kept getting put down for some reason. I just wanted to share that. While I do not believe that the fee is being applied equitably or even equally, I do wholeheartedly support a registry. I think it's critical that we're able to track our landlords and our rental dwelling units within the city. I do want to echo what my colleagues have mentioned about wanting to be informed about the rulemaking process. I think it's going to be really important for the long term for us to create a data system that in the long term can be useful to the average citizen in Denver. There are other cities who have had nonprofit organizations who are in the process of creating their own usable databases for citizens. And so what I hope can happen with this database is that, one, we can infer, integrate, violation and complaint data in a in a map that can be interacted with in real time. I also hope that this can become a resource for landlords. Not all landlords are looking to exploit their renters. And I think that when there are good resources available for a landlord like we've experienced throughout COVID, with rental assistance, with property tax rebates, those kinds of pieces of information struggle to find landlords. And I think that this eventually can be a very helpful tool if we make it that. And so I hope that we're very intentional on creating something that's usable for everybody and not just a system for us to hoard information internally at the city. And very excited to support this and see what comes next. I hope that any landlords who feel like we've crossed some line here or have work to do, I hope you all will get engaged and help us shape the 2.0 version of this legislation. Because always remember anything that we pass here can be undone by us or by the citizens. And I encourage all of you to take government into your hands and make sure that it's working for all of us. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember CdeBaca. All right. I see no other hands raised. I'll go ahead here and want to thank all of my colleagues for all of your questions and your comments. You, my council office and I, along with affordable housing experts, providers and owners, we have been working for the past two years to address tenants rights and protections. And for the first time in Denver's history, we will have significant renter protections through the healthy residential rentals for all license. We have thoroughly researched and crafted this policy to mitigate concerns of unintended consequences to tenants, such as fees being passed on to renters or displacement. I'm proud of this policy and it is well researched, fair and equitable. I'd like to acknowledge and sincerely thank my two council co-sponsors. Council President Pro Tem Torres and Councilwoman Robin Kinney. Megan Allen's my chief of staff. Thank you for all of your hard work on this. You were tirelessly you you were tirelessly in your persistence in making sure that we could get good answers to the great questions posed. And also Melissa Sotelo in my council office and Emily Lapel, our legislative analysts who did our early research. I'd like to also personally thank Tiana Patterson from Elevation Community Land Trust, Kate Steen Stig Berg excuse me, Stig Berg and Michael Reddick from Healthier Colorado. Aubrey has filed from Colorado Coalition for the Homeless Kenzie Halstead and Katie McKenna from Enterprise Community Partners and Tonya Pringle from the city of Boulder and our amazing city agencies and staff who are truly experts and collaborated on this policy. Reggie Ngubane, who wrote this ordinance. And so blogger Kirsten Crawford and John Griffin from our city attorney's office. Molly Duplass. Shane and Erica Rogers from Excise and Licensing. Melissa Totty and Nick M Heiser from our Department of Housing Stability. And Julie Sapp. And John Keeler from the Climate Action Sustainable Resources Office. Tara Olsen. And Will Fenton from the Denver Department of Public Health and Environment. And all of the additional agency staff members who joined our stakeholder group to share their expertize and knowledge. We had a lot of help in crafting this policy, I must say. Denver has been in a housing crisis for decades, and the pandemic has put even more uncertainties on our residents who rent. For the first time, we will have a license that will ensure our rental properties are safe and meet Denver's housing standards. We'll collect that basic property owner information as well as important rental data to enable us to broadly share resources with tenants and strengthen our tenant, landlord education and outreach. The phased in proactive rental license program, where inspections are required and done routinely every four years, will help identify issues and protect the health and safety of tenants more efficiently. This shifts the burden of code enforcement from relying solely on a tenant complaint to a more prevention based, equitable approach to improve housing quality. In partnership with Councilwoman Connie. Additional renter protections include a requirement starting on January 1st, 2022, that renters have a written lease for all new tenancies exceeding 30 days. That rental owners and operators provide a notice of tenant's rights and resources and provide them again if there's any demand for rent. The Colorado Center on Law and Policy, a nonprofit that advocates on behalf of Coloradans experiencing poverty excuse me, are in support of this policy from Jack Regan Brogan, their senior attorney. This proposed ordinance would establish a meaningful process for ensuring a minimum degree of health and safety in residential rental properties by allowing for regular inspections of rental units. The proposed license program would more equitably standardize health and safety protections for residential tenants. In short, it is no exaggeration to say that this program would quite literally save lives. Many times during this process, people have asked me, why is this so important to you? Well, it's important to me because if it's happening in my community to renters, for example, that Green Valley Ranch property that we've used as one of the most egregious violators with black mold, exposed electrical wires, etc., then it's happening in all of our communities. It's personal as well. We will, for the first time be able to collect data on how many rental units are ADA accessible. You see, my dad is an incomplete quadriplegic. He had a car accident when he when I was 22 years old. And he uses an electric motorized wheelchair for everything that he does. Parking accommodations and more data are important to make sure that we're supporting those in our community. And also because for a short time, my husband and I lived in a rented mobile home. Every time it got down below freezing, the pipes would freeze. We didn't have water. We had a brand new baby. But I couldn't make formula. We couldn't wash our hands. We couldn't wash our dishes. We couldn't even flush the toilet. Hearing renters voices and their stories. Their experiences have all supported the need for this rental license, with required inspections to ensure that property owners understand clearly their obligations if they are going to rent a property in Denver. Last I asked you to think about how important your home was to you and your loved ones over the past year. How important was it for your children who when they were learning remotely? Or if you're a caregiver for a vulnerable family member. Our homes became our sanctuaries. Every renter in Denver should be afforded the right to know that their rental unit meets the minimum housing standards, along with the requirement of a written lease and access to tenants rights and resources. Thank you to my colleagues for your support and I respectfully ask for your vote this evening. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 21, Dash 0420, please.
Speaker 3: Black.
Speaker 2: Hi.
Speaker 3: CdeBaca.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 3: Clark.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 3: Flynn.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 3: Hines.
Speaker 5: I.
Speaker 2: Cashman.
Speaker 0: Hi.
Speaker 2: Can each I.
Speaker 3: Ortega, I. Sandoval, I swear. I. Torres, I. Madam President.
Speaker 1: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 3: 12 Eyes.
Speaker 1: 12 Eyes Council Bill 20 1-0420 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. Otherwise, this is your last chance to call out an item for a separate vote. Councilmember 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. Four 4426 For 14 or 15 for 16 or 17 for 18. 388. 389. 436. 438. 279. And 151.
Speaker 5: Second.
Speaker 1: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 3: Black.
Speaker 2: Hi, CdeBaca. I.
Speaker 3: Clark.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 3: Flynn.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 5: Hi. Hi.
Speaker 2: Cashman.
Speaker 0: Hi.
Speaker 2: He needs. Hi.
Speaker 3: Ortega. I. Sandoval. I. Sawyer. I. Torres. Hi, Madam President.
Speaker 1: I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 3: 12 eyes.
Speaker 1: 12 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 0309 changing the zoning classification for 1450 South Humboldt Street in Washington Park.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance establishing a system of licensing and inspections of certain long-term residential rental properties.
Creates an ordinance establishing a system of licensing and inspections of residential rental properties. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 4-14-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.