meeting_id
stringlengths 27
37
| source
stringlengths 596
386k
| type
stringlengths 4
42
| reference
stringlengths 75
1.1k
| city
stringclasses 6
values |
|---|---|---|---|---|
DenverCityCouncil_05032021_21-0309
|
Speaker 1: Speakers must stay on the topic of the hearing and must direct their comments to the council members as a whole. Please refrain from profane or obscene speech and please refrain from individual or personal attacks. Councilmember Clark, will you please put Council Bill 309 on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 0: Yes. Council President I move the council bill 309 to be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 1: Thank you. It has been moved. We've got a second by Councilmember Hines. The required public hearing for Council Bill 309 is open. And before we get your staff report, Fran, I was just told that apparently the presentation isn't loaded into our system. And so I have asked our. Staff or legislative staff to send it out to all council members. And so you should be receiving that in your inbox here momentarily. But in the meantime, Fran will go ahead go ahead and have you share the presentation. Here via your screen.
Speaker 3: And you see there, is that working?
Speaker 1: Yeah. We've got it.
Speaker 3: Good afternoon, Member City Council, Madam President, and from beneficial associate city planner with Planning Services. And I'm here today. To present an overview of the Map Amendment four 1450 South Humboldt Street and also in some technical issues. That's probably why Sex and the Road. But it's all good now. See. One. Subject property is located in the in District six with Councilman Paul Cashman. In the Washington Park neighborhood. The property owner is proposing to rezone to a district that allows for accessory dwelling units. If approved, all other forms and standards would remain the same. The property is currently in the Urban Single Unit C Stone District, which allows for a minimum stone load of 5500 square feet. And it is completely surrounded by other properties that are also shown us, you see. The site is currently occupied by a single unit home and it is completely surrounded by other single unit uses as well as a public quasi public use, including a school one block to the west. Here. I'm going to back up a little bit and give you some background information. In 2013, the applicant hired contractor to build an accessory dwelling unit in the back of the property. When she tried to permit the structure to allow for the accessory dwelling use, accessory dwelling unit use, she realized that her USAC district didn't allow for the touch accessory dwelling units. She then tried to get a variance that denied, but the adjustments allowed her to keep the area for three years. After that, in 2016, she went ahead and removed the gas stove, plumbing and closets to be able to pair with the EU as an accessory structure without the EU use. So now the applicant is looking again at being able to have the access we use and that's why she's looking at rezoning. So now she's gone from asking if she can resign from us. You seem to you, as you see one, to be able to allow for the accessory dwelling unit use in the existing structure. And I'm expanding on these because we received a letter from an R.A. So I just wanted to explain where that letter came from. This slide shows the existing area with the site of the proposed rezoning on the top, left and right and bottom left. Some images to show the residential character of the neighborhood. Now, speaking of the process, information on notice of the application was sent on December 17, 2020. Planning Board recommended approval on March 17 and if present one letter of opposition has been received from the Washington Park East Neighborhood Association. The main reason for the opposition is because the applicant got denied a variance back in 2060. The owner is not aware that in 2019 the applicant permitted the access restricted without the use. As you will know, the Denver zoning code has five review criteria, the first one being consistency with adopted plans. There are two plans applicable to this rezoning. The first one is comprehensive plan 2040. The second one is Blueprint Denver. The rezoning is consistent with several of this tragedies and 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 already in place. Now looking at 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 type. This place type have predominantly single and two unit uses and accessory dwelling units are appropriate on both. Street is designated as local streets street, which is mostly characterized by residential uses. The growth area in Denver is all other areas of the city. These areas are anticipated to see a 10% employment growth and 20% housing growth by 2040. Blueprint also includes specific policy recommendations. Housing Policy four focuses on diversifying housing choice through the expansion of accessory dwelling units throughout all residential areas. Staff also finds that the requested sorting 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 implement the implementation of adopted plans. The justifying circumstance for the rezoning is a clear of the plan since the approval of the existing U.S. district. The city has adopted the Comprehensive Plan 2040 and blueprint, Denver stated throughout this presentation. The proposed rezoning meets the intent of these plans. Lastly, the proposed zoning is consistent with the area of a neighborhood context residential district on the new as you see one zone district. Stock does recommend approval based on finding or review criteria has been met.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, friend, for the presentation. And I believe council members, you should have the presentation also in your inbox. Council tonight has not has not received any written testimony on Council Bill 21, Dash 0309. We have one individual signed up to speak this evening. Jesse Paris is our speaker. Go ahead, Jesse.
Speaker 5: That's good, he remembers. Members count for those watching at home. My name is Jessica Shaw. I'm Paris and I'm representing four black stars Exxon Mobil for self defense, positive action for Social Change, as well as the Unity Party of Colorado and Frontline Black News. And I will be the next mayor of Denver in 2023. I'm in favor of this 82 dwelling units for District six and Councilman Cashman's district. I just had a question about how this process works, because several times last week we heard from a gentleman who kept telling us that he was not able to get approved for his application in, I believe, was either Sunnyside or Chaffee Park in Amanda Sandoval's district. So if somebody from CPB could explain that process of how that works, I would greatly appreciate it. This may all of criteria. So I'm going to be in favor of this rezoning tonight. Uh, good. Good job, Casserly. Thank you.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Jesse. That concludes our speakers questions from members of Council on Council Bill 309. Council Member Cashman.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Council President Fran. If if this bill passes, it allows for an ad you use on the property. But before this particular structure might be used for an idea, it would need to meet all other building code requirements, as was said. The stove was removed, so on and so forth. But it would need to meet any quality qualification imposed by our existing ordinances, correct?
Speaker 3: That is correct.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you very much. That's all council present.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you. Councilmember Cashman. Councilmember Flynn.
Speaker 0: How about I'm president? Fran, could you tell me if you're aware? Does the existing structure that was erected without permits and and operated as an aid to you without the zoning, I guess, for a couple of years? The owner then was turned down at zoning board, but given until 2019. Could you tell me if the building form complies with all of the rules for setbacks and height and whatnot for an ADU in this particular zone district?
Speaker 3: Yes, that's correct. It complies with everything. And anyway, when she goes to get to get it permanent now, because she's going to like once she gets the rezoning, she's going to have to get a permit again. So they're going to check on that again. So they're going to have to check again. But she complies with all but but it does the current it does comply with the said but of building form and everything.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you very much. That's. That's all I needed to know. Thank you.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Flynn, and thanks for answering those questions, Fran. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 309 Council Councilmember Cashman.
Speaker 0: Yeah, thank you. Council President I certainly have great respect for the neighborhood group and understand the concerns. But in my looking at the history of this property, first of all, the building as as Fran tells us, does meet the requirements imposed on an ADU in this setting as it is an existing building, it certainly doesn't change the landscape of the community. And I see no evidence that the property owner had evil intent when this structure was built. And I think it was a case of a lack of understanding of the zoning code, which is certainly understandable. I still have work to do myself to become fully conversant with with our code. So that being said, I will support this ADA application this evening, as I do believe that it's clear that the criteria as presented in our code had been met, and I would ask my colleagues to support that.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Cashman. And I concur. It does meet all of the required criteria and I will be supporting it as well tonight. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 309, please.
Speaker 3: Cashman.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 2: Can each. I. Ortega.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 2: Sandoval. I.
Speaker 3: Sawyer, I. Torres. Black.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 3: CdeBaca, I. Clark.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 3: Flynn.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 5: Hi. I.
Speaker 3: Council president.
Speaker 1: I. Madam Secretary closed the voting and announced results. 11 811 Eyes Council Bill 20 1-0309 has passed. Council Member Clerk Will you please put Council Bill 310 on the floor for final passage?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 1450 South Humboldt Street in Washington Park.
Approves a map amendment to rezone property from U-SU-C to U-SU-C1 (allows for an accessory dwelling unit), located at 1450 South Humboldt Street in Council District 6. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 3-23-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_05032021_21-0310
|
Speaker 1: I. Madam Secretary closed the voting and announced results. 11 811 Eyes Council Bill 20 1-0309 has passed. Council Member Clerk Will you please put Council Bill 310 on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 0: As Council President, I move the Council Bill 310 to be placed on final consideration and do per second.
Speaker 1: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. The required public hearing for Council Bill 310 is open. May we have the staff report, Fran?
Speaker 4: Sure.
Speaker 3: Okay. Can you see that one?
Speaker 1: Mm hmm. Go ahead.
Speaker 3: Perfect. So, you know, it's use my specialty, so. Here. We're going to be looking at the Map Amendment overview for 1590 South Emerson Street. Subject property is located in Council District seven with Councilman John Clark. In the flood park neighborhood. The property owner is proposing to rezone to a district that allows greater use. If approved, all forms and use standards should remain the same. The property is currently in the urban single unit thesun on the street, which allows for a minimum lot size of 4500 square feet. And as you can see on the map, most of the surrounding properties are also on us and U.S. You'll be one to a south. The site is currently occupied by a single unit home and it is mostly surrounded by other single unit and two unit uses as well as a public quasi public use, including a fire station just south southeast from the site. Here. You can see the area with the side of the proposed rezoning on the bottom left and the top right and left. Some images to show the residential character of the neighborhood. Speaking of the process, informational notice of the application was sent on January 5th, 2021. Planning Board recommended approval on March 17 and have received no letters of support or opposition have been received from the public or are in place. You know, the Denver zoning code has five review criteria. The first one is consistency. We adopted plans. There's two plans applicable to his rezoning Comprehensive Plan 2040 and Blueprint Denver. The rezoning is consistent with several of this prejudicing 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 in Denver, there's subject property is mapped as part of the urban neighborhood context. The future places map designates the subject property as low residential place type. These Plains states have predominantly single and two unit uses, and accessory dwelling units are appropriate. Emmerson Street is designated as a local strip, which is mostly characterized by residential uses. The growth area in Denver is all the areas of the city. These areas are anticipated to see 10% employment growth and 20% housing growth by 2040. Luke Bryan also includes specific policy recommendations. Housing Policy Ford focuses on diverse diversifying housing choice through expansion of accessory dwelling units throughout all residential areas. Stuff was fine, so they requested Sony meets the next two criteria. The rezoning will result in uniformity of district regulations, and we will further the public health, safety and welfare primarily through its implementation of adopted plans. Just defining circumstance for the rezoning is a caveat of this plan sees the approval of the existing use you based on 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. Lastly, the proposed zoning is consistent with the urban neighborhood context residential district and the U.S. once owned district. Stuff does recommend approval based on finding or review criteria has been met.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Fran. Tonight, council has not received any written testimony on Council Bill 21, Dash 031 ten. And we have one individual signed up to speak. Jesse Paris. We'll go ahead and get. Jesse, back into the queue here.
Speaker 5: Yes. Good evening. Members of council watching their crew. My name is definitely imperative. And still for black stars and symbol for self-defense of of 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'm in favor of this new zoning request tonight. As I have stated numerous times, I supported accessory dwelling units when I ran for city council at large in 2019, and I plan to support them in 2023 when I run for mayor. So with that being said, this meets all five of the criteria. So I'm in favor of this tonight. The job, a council man, Dylan Clark. You got this. Thank you.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you. That concludes our speakers questions from members of Council on Council Bill 310. Seen no.
Speaker 3: Questions.
Speaker 1: The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 310. Councilman Clark.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Council President I think as was articulated in the staff report, this clearly meets the criteria and I will be supporting it tonight and encourage my colleagues to do so as well. Thank you.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you. And I also agree that it does meet all of the criteria and will be supporting it as well. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 310, please.
Speaker 0: Like I.
Speaker 3: Flynn.
Speaker 5: I. And I.
Speaker 2: Cashman.
Speaker 0: Hi.
Speaker 2: Can each I.
Speaker 3: Ortega, I. Sandoval. I. Sawyer, I. I don't believe I see Tories.
Speaker 2: Black sheep.
Speaker 3: I see tobacco. I. Madam President.
Speaker 1: I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 3: 11 days.
Speaker 1: 11 I's Council Bill 20 1-031 ten has passed. Councilmember Clark, would you please put Council Bill 317 on the floor for final passage?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 1590 South Emerson Street in Platt Park.
Approves a map amendment to rezone property from U-SU-B to U-SU-B1 (allows for an accessory dwelling unit), located at 1590 South Emerson Street in Council District 7. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 3-23-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_05032021_21-0317
|
Speaker 1: 11 I's Council Bill 20 1-031 ten has passed. Councilmember Clark, would you please put Council Bill 317 on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 0: Yes, Council President. I move that council bill 317 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 1: All right. I think I heard that second from council member Ortega. The required public hearing on Council Bill 317 is open. May we have the staff report? And I see we have Val here.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. 1/2. All right. Can you all hear and see that screen? Full screen?
Speaker 1: Yep. You got it, Val.
Speaker 2: Wonderful. Thank you. Good evening, City Council. And, Madam President, my name is Valerie Arara, associate city planner with Community Planning and Development. I will be presenting a rezoning case for the subject property located at 3431 North Columbine Street. I'd like to acknowledge Elyse Stevie, who has been my mentor throughout the process of this case. This is my first rezoning case, that city council. The request is for urban single unit, a one for 3000 square foot lot minimum size, and it is in Council District nine under Councilman CdeBaca. The subject property is currently 6250 square feet with a zone lot width of 50 feet. The proposed rezoning is to go from USC to be one which is a minimum lot size of 4500 square feet, allowing urban houses and detached adu use. There are a selection of parcels that have some two story main streets and mixed use zoning. Sorry. It was on the wrong. A block to the south and two blocks to the west. Zoning transitions to USA A1, which is the smaller size that the applicant is requesting. The existing land use is single unit residential with a mix of two unit and multi-unit existing uses in the neighborhood as well as some commercial and public public. Quasi public. The subject property is mid-block with alley access. The existing structure is nestled toward the rear of the lot and nearby properties are shown at the top in the bottom of this three. I should note that the bottom right picture is a an existing multi unit residential building form as well. For the process. The MAP Amendment did go to Planning Board on Wednesday, March 17. Planning Board voted 9 to 0 to recommend approval. The rezoning was moved forward to a final hearing of city council by the Land Use Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and is being heard today. The Clayton R.A. is in support of this request, and the application includes three letters of support from nearby Clayton Neighbors. Sapp also received one email throughout the process that is outside of the scope of the rezoning regarding trash in the alley or dumpster pickup. But that's been forwarded to the applicant and acknowledged. 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 Science Plan 2040. With regards to ensuring equity affordability and inclusivity from the planned 2040 vision element, Sapp found that this rezoning is consistent with the goals listed here that encourage increased development of housing 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 climate and environmental resiliency, this vision elements staff found this rezoning to be consistent with the goal listed here that encourages promotion of infill development where infrastructure and services are already available. For Blueprint Denver's Map for urban context. The context is mapped as the urban context is urban in this location and residential low, which consists of predominantly single and two unit uses on smaller lots. This is where we'll spend a little bit more time in terms of the lots split in the analysis. Specifically, when seeking a rezoning to a smaller minimum block size in a residential low area, it is only appropriate to allow smaller loft sizes than the existing zoned districts. If there is an established pattern in the surrounding blocks of smaller lots that similar uses that would be consistent with.
Speaker 3: The zoning district.
Speaker 2: Request, that language can be found on page 231 of the blueprint Denver Land Use and Transportation. In this area, 36% of the lots are between 3000 and 4499 square feet, which does align with the proposed U.S. one zone district. While there does not appear to be a dominant lot size in this area, this analysis does show that the size of the proposed U.S. A1 is even slightly more prevalent in the surrounding blocks, with similar uses than the existing U.S. one ones. Therefore, the rezoning is the proposed rezoning is consistent with diverse guidance for rezoning to a smaller minimum lot size for the Bruce Randolph Avenue plan. This plan was adopted in 1986 and does include this area. Staff found that the request is consistent with this plan, including recommendations such as the one shown here that speaks to diversity of in-fill housing located on page 39. Four criteria. Number two and number three, staff found that the rezoning is consistent with adopted plans. The proposed rezoning will result in uniform application of zoned district building form, use and design regulations, and it will further public health, safety and welfare through implementing adoptive parents and facilitating increased housing density. Staff also found that the proposed rezoning is justified through changed and changing conditions in this neighborhood. The adoption of Blueprint Denver includes policies that specifically support this rezoning to a smaller lot size on this site. Additionally, staff report lists recent redevelopment in the area that is similar to this lot size split request. And finally, the context zone, district purpose and intent of urban single unit A1 are all appropriate for this particular location given the surrounding area and the adopted plans guidance. Given the finding that our review criteria have been met. Staff recommends approval of this rezoning. And just to note that approval of a rezoning is not approval of a proposed specific, specific development project. And I will go ahead and share my screen and open for questions.
Speaker 1: All right. Well, thank you, Val. Great. First job presenting a council night. You're welcome. Good job. Council has not received any written testimony on Council Bill 21, Dash 0317. And we have one individual signed up to speak this evening. Jesse Paris. Go ahead.
Speaker 5: Yes, good evening. Members of Council of Watching at home. My name is just in the shop Harris and I'm representing for Black Star, similar for self defense positive African-American social change as well as the Unity Party of Colorado in front line black nose. And I will be there next November and 2023. I'm in favor of this rezoning tonight, especially in an area of town which I'm very familiar with, pretty much a native of East Denver, northeast Denver, in a rapidly gentrified area of town. So I welcome any opportunities that the city puts forward to deal with our affordability and our housing crisis that we've had for decades now, as previously stated. So I'm in favor of this rezoning. Um, I would love to know what the demographics of that are and who is going to be residing at this property. Because as I stated already, this area has been rapidly gentrified. Um, so, so I would take the time out to answer those questions. I will greatly appreciate it. Thank you.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Jesse. That concludes our speakers this evening. Questions from members of Council on Council Bill 317. Councilmember CdeBaca.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Is the applicant here to speak to what.
Speaker 3: The proposed plan is.
Speaker 2: For the lots.
Speaker 3: And if there's a.
Speaker 2: Plan to do something yet? Yes. Councilwoman Whitney Parcell should be available if someone can bring your two panelists.
Speaker 1: Perfect. All right. Yep. All right, Whitney, you want to go ahead, make council member repose your question, because we were moving Whitney into the panelists.
Speaker 2: Hi, Whitney. I am just wondering, what's the plan with the with the parcel? Are you guys. Do you have something in mind already? We do. We would like to do two new homes on the property. One may be a rental one. Perhaps we move into. Perhaps will be for sale. We're not entirely sure yet, but the plan is that it will be two new homes built on the property instead of the one small house that currently is on the property now. Is there going to be a target affordability rate for the rent or do you are you guys thinking that far ahead yet? It's of course, it's you know, something we're considering?
Speaker 3: We would like to be able to.
Speaker 1: Do that for sure.
Speaker 2: That neighborhood definitely deserves some areas of affordable rent. Are you guys currently in the unit or. No. It is a 475 square foot unit. This is my husband, Darren, and we have our son as well. So we just do not fit in that home. It is currently a rental. Got it. Thank you. That's for my questions.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you. Up next, we have council member Hines.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Council President Mazara, this is your first presentation to city council.
Speaker 2: Yes, Councilman, please take it easy.
Speaker 5: I was just going to ask, should I ask you the hard questions?
Speaker 2: Go ahead. Why not?
Speaker 5: I was just telling. Thank you for your great presentation. Thank you for all you do. Thank you. Council president.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 1: All right. Next up, we have council member Hines or excuse me, council member Flint.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam President. Valerie. And as long as Whitney is here, too, maybe she could offer an answer as well. I'm a little confused about how this lot could be split for two single units. Can you explain how that what that would look like? And then each of them would also have an ADU available. Correct. Under this rezoning.
Speaker 2: Yes. Council. Yes, Councilman. The current law does already have the right of an aide to you. Right. That is something that's existing. So this is the lot split to downsize the lot from the one 4500 minimum zone, lot size to one, which is 3000 square feet of a minimum zone, lot size. And that would bring the width down from 50 to 25 for those that lot split.
Speaker 0: So would they be side by side or would they be front and rear? What would that look like?
Speaker 2: Whitney, would you like to add to that? Yes, of course they would be side by side.
Speaker 0: Okay. So 25 foot front width. Correct?
Speaker 2: Yes. Yes.
Speaker 0: And you potential in the in the rear of each. Are you planning to do a to use as well or just are you going to demo the rental that's on there and build two new structures.
Speaker 2: Yeah. So we would demo the current home, build two new structures. The we, we want to, you know, go by zoning laws. We may or may not be able to do an 80 you that's I'm sure uncertain at this time but it's a possibility.
Speaker 0: Okay. Valerie would be if the lot were split and were these two very narrow parcels. Would it meet the requirements to add an edu on each of the on each of the split lots as far as setbacks and depth and everything else.
Speaker 2: That's a great question, Councilman. We actually, during the rezoning process, connects the applicant with our development services side of things so that they can go through perhaps this pre concept review and sort of get more into the nuances of the building form and standards. So not to not answered the question, but we are going through that process right now of trying to get that free concept going and getting what you do, the development services side of things.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. Madam President, I think for Whitney, I would just add that you said your intention was perhaps to live in one and rent the other one out or sell the other one and live in one. And I think just a reminder and Valerie, you might be able to verify this, that if you had an edu on there, that the owner would have to. My recollection is the owner of the parcel would have to live in the in one of the residences, either the primary or the Adobe before one of them could be rented out. And that would be true on both lots of them, correct?
Speaker 2: That's correct, Councilman Flynn. Yes. And something that was also brought up and talked through that land use Transportation Infrastructure Committee.
Speaker 0: Excellent. Thank you. Thank you, Madam President. As as someone who grew up in a small little house of three bedrooms with seven people, all five, five sons, one bathroom. And my mother always said, thank God I never had a daughter because we only had one bathroom and a 25 foot frontage. I can relate to this. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Flynn. All right. Seeing no other hands raised for questions. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 317. Council members, State Abarca.
Speaker 2: I do not have any comments on this.
Speaker 1: All right. Sounds good. And not seen any other hands raised. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 317, please.
Speaker 3: See the burka. I. Clark.
Speaker 0: I. When I.
Speaker 5: Hines, I.
Speaker 3: Cashman.
Speaker 2: I can. I.
Speaker 3: Ortega by Sandoval. I swear. I.
Speaker 2: Black eye.
Speaker 3: Madam President.
Speaker 1: I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced the results.
Speaker 3: 11 Eyes.
Speaker 1: 11 Eyes Council Bill 20 1-0317 has passed our pre adjournment announcement on Monday, May 10th Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 21, Dash 035 to approving a proposed Loreto Heights rezoning and App Development Agreement between the City and County of Denver and ACM Loretto Six LLC.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 3431 North Columbine Street in Clayton.
Approves a map amendment to rezone property from U-SU-B1 to U-SU-A1 (lowers the minimum lot size), located at 3431 North Columbine Street in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 3-23-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_04262021_21-0257
|
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 addresses when called upon. Please wait until our meeting. Host promotes you to speaker. When you're 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 yielding 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. Council Member State Abarca Will you please put Council Bill 257 on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 2: I move that council bill 21 dash to 57 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 6: It's like a.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It's been moved in our second by councilmember flynn. The required public hearing for council bill 257 is open. May we have the staff report? And I see we've got Fran here with us.
Speaker 4: Can you see my screen there?
Speaker 0: Yeah. You're good, friend.
Speaker 4: Perfect. Sorry. I'm dealing with many a monitor, so it's all good. It afternoon. Members of City Council. Madam President, my name is Fred Benefit and I'm the associate planner with Planning Services and I'm here today to present an overview of the MAP Amendment for 4735 Quitman Street. Subject property is located in Council District one with Councilwoman Amanda Sandoval. In the Berkeley neighborhood. Just have a look. So for my 70. The property owner is proposing to rezone to a district that allows for accessory dwelling units. If approved or other forms and use standards would remain the same. The property. The property is currently in the urban single unit season district, which allows for a minimum of 5500 square feet. And if it's owned, it is completely surrounded by other properties that are also shown us, you see. The site is currently occupied by a single unit home and it's mostly surrounded by other single unit and two unit uses as well. Some multi-unit uses just northwest from the property and some public quasi public open spaces do exist. You can see there that's the school to the west. This slide shows the existing area with the site of the proposed rezoning on the bottom right and on the bottom left, the top right. There's some images that show you the residential character of the neighborhood. Now speaking to process information on notice of the application was sent on January 5th, 2021. Planning Board recommended approval on March 3rd and a present one letter of support of three letters of opposition had been received from the public. One of the leaders of opposition expresses concerns with spot zoning, but notes that they would support a rezoning for the whole neighborhood if there was an option. The second letter opposition refers to their concerns with the applicant's intentions of renting the main property while living in the. Just as a reminder, the Denver zoning code requires the property owner to reside in either the primary dwelling unit or the accessory dwelling unit while residing in one unit. The owner might rent the other unit. Third letter only notes concerns, but does not specify what the concerns are. And finally, the letter of support explains that the way to use I already allowed nearby Sony would allow the owners to invest in the property with an appropriate use. As you know, the Denver zoning code has five review criteria that we're going to look at. The first one is consistency. We looked at months. There are two plans applicable with this rezoning. The first one is a comprehensive plan 2040. The second one is Blueprint Denver. The rezoning is consistent with several of the tragedies in comprehensive plan 2041 example. This MAP amendment will promote equity by creating a greater mix of housing options in the Berkeley neighborhood, and it will lead to an environmentally resilient Denver by promoting infill development with the structure and services already in place. No nothing at Blueprint Denver. The subject property is mapped as part of the urban neighborhood context. The future places map designates the subject property as no residential place type. This place types have predominantly single and two unit uses and states that accessory dwelling units are appropriate. Now looking at the street designation with my street is a local street, which is mostly characterized by residential uses. The growth area in Blueprint. Denver is all areas of the city. These areas are anticipated to see a 10% employment growth and 20% housing growth by 2040. You also include specific policy recommendations. Housing Policy four focuses on diversifying housing choice through the expansion of accessory dwelling units throughout all residential areas. Stock also finds that the requested Sony 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 where this rezoning is a city adopted club. Since the approval of the existing you. As you see on the street, the city has adopted a comprehensive plan 2040 and blueprint deliver a stated throughout this presentation. The proposed rezoning meets the intent of this plus. Lastly, the proposed zoning is consistent with the urban neighborhood context residential district and the U.S. U.S. one stone district. So that's a recommend approval based on finding or review criteria has been met.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Fran. Council has not received any written testimony on Council Bill 257. And we have one individual signed up to speak this evening. And we have Jesse Paris. So we'll go ahead and get. Jesse. And to the cue. All right. Go ahead, Jesse.
Speaker 4: Jesse?
Speaker 1: Yes. Good evening. Members of council, those watching at home. My name is just bizarre. Person represents the black self-defense class, the best of social change as well as the United Party of Colorado and my front line black nose. And I will be the next mayor of Denver in 2023. I am in favor of this rezoning tonight. I just had a quick question for Amanda Sandoval. How many of these additional requests have you received within the past year and have been approved? Because those brother that called in on general public comment earlier that had some issues with the process of which is racially biased. So I would hope that the person that is nurturing or proposing this Ed is a person of color or black. Especially after. Hearing how Brian Johnson was treated in regards to these rezonings and his obsession with women, that he won it for his brother, who was just able and he wanted her to be close to home. So if Amanda Sandoval could please answer that question, I really appreciate it. Also, we're in favor of this rezoning. I supported a use when I ran for office in 2019 and I'll continue to support them in 2023. Just for the poor people all across it. Reporter Urban camping. MAN Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Jesse. That concludes our speakers questions from members of Council on Council Bill 257. Seeing no questions from members of council. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 257 Council Member Sandoval.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam President. So just wanted to clarify something for our public comment on this rezoning. The public comment that we had prior to this rezoning, not for the public hearing, was regarding a board of adjustment case, not a rezoning case. So the Board of Adjustment case is totally separate. Then a possible rezoning, which is a change of entitlement. We don't have the right to build it. And then if you get through this rezoning, you would have the ability to rezone it. So I just want to clarify that and as we got the wonderful presentation from Fran, thank you CPD and it meets all of the criteria. So I asked that my colleagues support this. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Sandoval, Councilmember Hines.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Council President. I wanted to thank CBD for all your hard work. I'll just say this for this and the next presentation as well. And. And thank you for ensuring and promoting access, including access to housing. And so thank you. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Hines. All right. See no other hands raised. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 257, please.
Speaker 3: Sandoval.
Speaker 5: I.
Speaker 4: Sawyer. I'm Torres.
Speaker 3: I work. I need tobacco. I Clark. I.
Speaker 7: Flynn I.
Speaker 4: Herndon.
Speaker 1: I ain't I.
Speaker 4: Cashman. I can h i.
Speaker 3: Ortega.
Speaker 4: I. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced the results. 13 813 Ies Council Bill 21 Dash 0 to 5 seven has passed. Council members say to Barker, Will you please put Council Bill 258 on the floor for final passage.
Speaker 2: And move that Council Bill 21 dash to 58 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 1: Second.
Speaker 0: Thank you. We have the second by councilmember hines, the required public hearing for counsel. Bill 258 is open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 4: Okay. So. This one is similar. I'll present you a map amendment for 4530. We know what occurred and 4345. Ryan Street. This is the first one for me where I present two cases, but they're very similar. For simplicity, throughout the presentation, we refer to the properties as we know what occurred and Ryan's three. Both properties are located in Council District one with councilmen Councilwoman Amanda Sandoval. We know what occurred is in the Berkeley neighborhood, and Brian Street is located on the Sunnyside neighborhood. Their request is to resign from the current US USOC one Sony to you as you be one a southern district with a smaller minimum standard size that would allow to the touch accessory dwelling unit in each property. All other forms and standards would remain the same. The standard know record is 4690 square feet, and the one in Bryant Street is 4710 square feet, both under the 5500 square feet required by you, as you see. Want to build that attached to you. So that's the reason why they can because they can build in the current state. They can build the bit that you. On these two zoning maps, you can see that we are on a court surrounded, but to the north, west and south, they probably also shown us, you see one end
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 4735 North Quitman Street in Berkeley.
Approves a map amendment to rezone property from U-SU-C to U-SU-C1 (allows for an accessory dwelling unit), located at 4735 Quitman Street in Council District 1. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 3-16-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_04262021_21-0258
|
Speaker 4: Want to build that attached to you. So that's the reason why they can because they can build in the current state. They can build the bit that you. On these two zoning maps, you can see that we are on a court surrounded, but to the north, west and south, they probably also shown us, you see one end to the east. But you too, you see. Bryant Street is completely surrounded by U. S you see one. But you can see us. You be one district to the north of 44th Avenue. The current land use on both sites is single unit residential and they are both mostly surrounded by other single unit uses and with some two unit and multi unit uses in the case of wind on a court. This right here shows the existing building performance scale for going on record with the site of the proposed rezoning on the bottom left. And some images that show the residential character of the neighborhood in the top right image. You can see the two unit residential uses to the east of the property where they go up to 2.5 stories. These houses are just behind the subject property on the other side of the alley. Now this slide shows the existing area for brine stream with the site of the proposed rezoning on the bottom right and so on , even just to show us the very residential character of the neighborhood on the top of this slide. Speaking of the process, information on notice of the application was sent on December 15, 2020. Planning Board recommended approval on March 3rd, and to date, staff has received only one letter of support from an area No. Four 4345 Bryan Street and quality of opposition for the public hearing from the public four 4530 win on a court expressing concerns with traffic and parking congestion. No. I will go over the review criteria in the Denver zoning code. The first criteria is consistency with the class. There are three plans applicable to free zone comprehensive plan 2040 Loop in Denver and then the Sunnyside Neighborhood Plan that is applicable for Bryant Street, but only two for the Bryant Street property. The rezoning is consistent with several of the strategies and comprehensive plan 2040. This MAP amendment will promote equity by creating a greater mix of housing options in the Berkeley and Sunnyside neighborhoods, and it will lead to an environmentally resilient Denver by promoting infill development where infrastructure and services are already in place. Now looking at the maps in Denver, the subject properties are both mapped as part of the urban neighborhood context. The future places map designates the subject properties as low residential place that these places have predominantly single and two unit uses and accessory dwelling units are appropriate. We know that Court and Bryant Street are both designated as local streets, which are which are mostly characterized by residential uses. Lupe in Denver also provides guidance on when it is appropriate to respond to a district with a smaller minimum. So look so looks nice. It says it is appropriate when a pattern of smaller nodes with similar uses is present in the surrounding blocks. The growth theory and blueprint Denver for both sites is all areas of the city serious anticipated to see 10% employment growth and 20% housing growth by 2040. Therefore, it's defined. So the requests are consistent with the applicable adopted plan. Now looking at the Sunnyside Neighborhood Plan was adopted in 1993 and simply applicable to a property located in Bryant Street. The plan is silent on residential rezoning specifically. However, the proposed rezoning is consistent with residential land use to maintain and sterilize the residential character of Sunnyside and housing goal. Stabilize and upgrade the housing stock by encouraging long term residency and increasing home ownership. If the property is restored to a smaller lot size, the property owner will be allowed to build the detached 80 new building . Forming the subject site and the residential character of Sunnyside will be maintained and the housing stock will be upgraded and will allow the property owners to age in place encouraging long term residents. Locals opines that they requested Sony meets the next debate due to the rezoning will result in uniformity of district regulations and will further the public health, safety and welfare primarily through implementation of adopted plans. Justified circumstance for the rezoning is a city adopted plan. Since the adopt the approval of the existing U.S. you see one on district. The city has adopted the Comprehensive Plan 2040 and blueprint. Denver stated throughout this presentation. The proposed rezoning to be one meets the intent of those plans. Lastly, the proposed zoning is consistent with the urban neighborhood context residential districts and the new sub one zone district. Conclusions. Doctors recommend approval based on finding or review criteria has been met.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, friend. Council has not received any written testimony on Council Bill 258. And we have one individual signed up to speak this evening. Jesse Paris. Go ahead, Jesse.
Speaker 1: Yes. Good evening. Members of council, those watching at home. My name is just a bizarre personal representative for Black Star music itself, the first positive commercial for social change, as well as the Unity Party of Colorado and front line black males. And I'll be the next mayor of Denver in 2023. We're in favor of this rezoning tonight for this accessory dwelling unit for remote locations. I'm glad to see that it was in the code somewhere that to maintain a cultural integrity of this neighborhood. As we know, Denver is the second most gentrified city in America right now. So I'm glad to see that that was written into the bylaws of. I just have a question again. I'm still trying to figure out why this brother, Brian Johnson, is not allowed one of these 80 for his.
Speaker 0: Keep your comments to the bill at hand.
Speaker 1: Jesse Owens could please answer that question. I would really appreciate it. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. That concludes our speakers questions from members of Council on Council Bill 258. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 6: Hey, Madam President. Fran, could you speak.
Speaker 7: A little bit about how these.
Speaker 6: Two came to be combined into a single application? As far as I can tell, there is no relationship between the owners of the two properties, but it's rather unusual to see them bundled into a single application. In the staff report it said that and I don't know if this was their motivation, but it said it was less expensive and less time consuming because of the similarities between the two properties. Do you know how they came to come together and and why?
Speaker 4: Yeah, good question because it's my first one. So I was also surprised by.
Speaker 6: Two this ones.
Speaker 4: So they I think that they went together to talk to Councilwoman Sandoval's office. So they got advice that they could apply together if the if the applications were similar enough. So they came to me and at first I was like, I've never seen it. Let's do two different applications. But then we talked to a team and we talked to somebody and we realized that they we had the same recommendation for both and they were similar enough that they could go together and that would save them having to pay for two applications. And that would save us the time, 2%, two times the same presentation. So, I mean, they they knew that the the risk was that if one of them gets denied and the other one is denied. So that was their risk. And they were they were made aware of that.
Speaker 6: Right. And although being so similarly situated in their circumstances and in their request, it would be pretty hard for for the council in a quasi judicial setting to say one meets it and one does. It does. So basically, economy of scale and saving us the time of a third hearing tonight would be.
Speaker 4: Great if we could do it more often.
Speaker 6: Okay. And then the only thing that's different from the previous one is that they're looking to go to a to a different zone district designation because of the size of the lot. Under the current regulations, it would allow only an attached ADU and they were looking for detached in both cases. So, so.
Speaker 4: So they are currently they have the one. So in theory they should be allowed to have an EU, but they don't comply with the minimum. So not to do that. Right. So that's why they need to go down to be one.
Speaker 6: Okay. Thank you very much. Madam President. Thank you, Councilwoman Sandoval, for saving us one additional hearing tonight.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Flynn. Councilmember Sandoval.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam President. Thank you for the presentation, Fran. You did great presenting them together. So just so we're clear for the public, we are going from CS Omar, which is a bega's so they're actually going to a smaller zone. Is that correct? Because sometimes in at city council we see where people go to bigger zone lots and then add the one behind it, which allows the accessory, the detached accessory dwelling unit. And then they usually split the zone, right, so they can get two out of the one parcel. But that's not what's happening in this situation, correct? They're going down because see the bigger zone at the end?
Speaker 4: B Yes. So they currently see one and that they should be they would be required to have 5500 square feet, but they only have 4700. So they're liking the. Don't make me do the math. Yeah, I know. 700 square feet. So because they don't have it, they need to go down to be one that the minimum zone lot is 4500.
Speaker 5: Perfect. Thank you. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Sandoval. Councilmember Hines.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Council President And thank you again, CPD. Councilmember Sandoval, I want to give you the softball list of softball questions. You were great in saving us one one hearing tonight. Have you considered going bigger? Like maybe allowing me to use in an entire neighborhood.
Speaker 5: So yes, I've done Cherokee Park neighborhoods that had three driving units. I have Sloan's Lake in the Q right now. Then I'm headed into West Colfax. So Berkeley is on the list, but not higher. I have like two more neighborhoods that are higher than that. But yes, I'm making my way slowly you up Council District one to make sure that you don't have these one offs too, that it's just all zoned with accessory dwelling units. And then I'll be back to standards and then we'll get into the nitty gritty of all the standards. And you'll see me a lot talking about the standards so that we can get more of the gentle density and attainable housing into the Denver as a whole. But I'll happily use District One as a pilot.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman. Presentable for your word for general density or missing metal. But if you want to call it. Thank you, council president.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Hines and Councilmember Sandoval for the responses seen their hands raised. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 258. Councilmember Sandoval.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for your presentation. It meets other criteria, and I would ask my colleagues to support these two bills, these two parcels moving forward.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Sandoval, Madam SEC. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 258, please.
Speaker 4: Sandoval.
Speaker 5: I.
Speaker 4: Sawyer.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 3: Torres, I.
Speaker 2: Black Eye.
Speaker 4: CdeBaca. Clark.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 3: So when.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Herndon.
Speaker 1: I. I.
Speaker 2: Cashman.
Speaker 3: I can eat. I. Ortega, i. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary. Close the voting and announce results.
Speaker 5: 12 hours.
Speaker 0: 12 eyes Council Bill 21 Dash 0 to 5 eight has passed. On Monday, May 24th, Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 21, Dash 0357, changing the zoning classification for 235 West Evans Avenue in Overland and a required public hearing on Council Bill 21, Dash 0407 Changing the zoning classification for 99b North King Street
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 4530 North Winona Court in Berkeley and 4345 North Bryant Street in Sunnyside.
Approves a map amendment to rezone properties from U-SU-C1 to U-SU-B1 (allows for an accessory dwelling unit), located at 4530 Winona Court and 4345 Bryant Street in Council District 1. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 3-16-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_04192021_21-0211
|
Speaker 2: A move that council bill 20 1-0211 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved and we have the second by council member or take up the required public hearing for council bill 211 is open. May we please have the staff report? And I see we've got Libby Adams here with us. And so. Go ahead, Libby.
Speaker 3: Okay. Okay. Can you see that? Mm hmm. Okay, great. So thank you. Council president. I'm Libby Adams, and I'll be presenting the Map Amendment application for 2017 North Colorado Boulevard. This application is located in District eight in the South Park Hill neighborhood. So it's located on Colorado Boulevard, just across the street from City Park, and the applicant is requesting to rezone from urban single unit E to Urban Single Unit E1 to allow for an accessory dwelling unit. The current zoning of urban single unit E allows for the Urban House primary building form, and it's a minimum zone lot size of 7000 square feet. This is the former home of Dr. Margaret Long and was locally and locally designated in 2013. If this rezoning is approved, when the applicant applies for the EU permit, it will go through the landmark design review process, which includes a final determination from the Landmark Preservation Commission. Existing land use is single unit residential. As you can see, most of the park to the South Park Hill neighborhood is single unit residential. And then there's park and open space where City Park is across Colorado Boulevard. This slide shows the existing building form and scale with the subject property on the upper right hand side. And then you can see other single unit homes in the area and then the park across the street. The application was complete at the gate at the end of December and an informational notice was mailed to property owners within 200 feet on December 29. To date, staff has received two letters of support for this application, as well as the applicant has submitted nine letters of support with their application. The Denver zoning code has five review criteria that must be met in order for a rezoning to be approved. The first is consistency with adopted plans, and there are three that are applicable to this site. This rezoning meets several of the strategies within the comprehensive plan, but most notably, it will create a greater mix of housing options in this neighborhood and will promote infill development for infrastructure and services are already in place. In Blueprint Denver. It's designated as urban neighborhood context for the future neighborhood context. These areas are mostly single and two unit residential uses with some multi-unit and mixed use embedded throughout the block. Patterns are regular, and there's a high degree of walkability. Blueprint identifies the future place type as low residential. These are mostly single and two unit uses, and accessory dwelling units are appropriate. And then the future street type for Carrara Boulevard is a residential arterial, which is mostly characterized by residential uses. The Growth Area Strategy and blueprint. Denver is all other areas of the city. This is where we anticipate 10% of new jobs and 20% of new housing by 2040. Blueprint also identifies specific policies. So in the land use and built form housing policy for strategy. It states that until there's a holistic approach on the individual rezonings to enable, it should be small in nature. And then this site is also within the East Area plan, which provides more specific guidance for certain areas. The blueprint does so for the future place type in the East Area plan. This area is designated as single, low residential single unit, and that does say that these are appropriate. And then the maximum height is up to two and a half storeys. There are also specific recommendations within the East Area plan for the South Park neighborhood, and it talks about integrating abuse and missing middle housing, inappropriate locations such as this area. So staff does think does find that this rezoning to USC you is consistent with the adaptive plan guidance. Seth also finds that it's consistent with the next two criteria and that it will result in uniform regulations and it will further the public health, safety and welfare by implementing our adaptive plans and providing a new type of housing unit in this largely single unit area. And there's also a justifying circumstance that warrants a change in zoning to U.S.C. E1 in the guidance for use in Blueprint Denver, as well as the East Area plan for this area. And lastly, staff finds that the rezoning is consistent with the urban neighborhood context. The residential districts, general purpose and the specific intent of the USC E-1 zone district. So finding are review criteria. Have the MET staff recommends approval? And that concludes my presentation.
Speaker 0: All right. Well, thank you, Libby, for the presentation. And this evening, counsel has not received any written testimony on Council Bill 21, Dash 0211. And this evening we have five individuals signed up to speak. And our first speaker this evening will be Tess Dougherty. I'm going to go ahead and get tests. Moved over. Up. Let me see. We had a little bit of a lag in our system and so had to wait for the the list to load. So thanks for your patience. It will be Kristen such. Go ahead, Kristen. And correct me on your last name. In your muted.
Speaker 4: Oh, sorry. Thank you. Issue and no worries.
Speaker 3: And really, I wasn't quite sure how to respond.
Speaker 4: I am one of the homeowners at the residence for application and so I really wanted to be able to be.
Speaker 3: Here and answer any.
Speaker 4: Questions. But also I am supportive, I think for all of the reasons that Libby has already presented in terms of preserving the character of our neighborhoods, in providing other options for for residences in this neighborhood. And also for us, it largely has it gives us the.
Speaker 3: Ability to have intergenerational.
Speaker 4: Housing, which is significant for our family. So I'm here to answer the questions otherwise.
Speaker 0: Very good. Thank you for being here this evening. Our next speaker is Sha De. All right. Looks like we don't have share with us. And so we'll go ahead and see if she gets into the queue. Sure. If you join the meeting back, please raise your hand. And our next speaker is Matthew Fitzpatrick. Go ahead, please. Matthew.
Speaker 1: Yeah, hi. My name is Matthew Fitzpatrick and I am a resident of the city of Denver, as well as the owner's application representative. I just wanted to take a moment to thank the Council for hearing the application before you to rezone 2070 Colorado Boulevard. I also want to express my gratitude to the Council and to the community planning and development for their efforts to simplify the rezoning application itself, and especially for working to make the city's housing more equitable and affordable through consideration and approval of accessory dwelling units within the city. I fully support this housing typology and strongly feel it's necessary for the cultural and economic survival of this growing city. And as an immediate neighbor to 2017 Colorado Boulevard and as a resident of Park, I fully support this application for rezoning the subject property to allow for the accessory dwelling.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Matthew. Our next speaker this evening is Jesse Paris.
Speaker 1: Yes, good evening. Members of council, those watching at home. My name is just on the show on Paris. And I'm representative. Excuse me. I live in District eight in north east Parkdale and I'm representing for Blackstar, actually, movement for self-defense, positive action, criminal for social change, as well as the Unity Party of Colorado, Universal African People Organization and Frontline Black Knows and I will be the next mayor of Denver in 2023. I am in favor of this rezoning of this 80 you I supported 80 years when I ran for office in 2019. I will continue to support them in 2021. We have a housing crisis. So anything that is being done by this council to alleviate that housing crisis, I'm here for favor of. So I'm here for favor of this. Rezoning. Tonight's for the 80 you. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Jesse. Our last speaker this evening is Tess Dougherty.
Speaker 3: My name is Tess Sturdy, and I'm a resident in District nine. And I think I also support the this zoning. And and I would just call, you know, in the presentation, it was noted that the building formed standards, design standards and uses work together to promote desirable residential areas. And that part of the goal of the rezoning for to use is to expand diversity of housing types and affordability to support households of different sizes, ages and incomes in all neighborhoods. I just wanted to kind of point that out for the gentleman who gave public comment tonight regarding the zoning that he's having trouble with, for his mother with a disability. I talked to people with disabilities and it's not you know, it's about universal design and about about equity and responding to the individual needs of someone with a disability. And so I you know, it's it's just interesting to see the stark contrast between that, you know, this process, which seems to be also for intergenerational housing for the applicants and to see that a gentleman earlier is having so much trouble in being told that he should hire a lawyer, I find that just egregiously discriminatory. And I hope that whoever you know, that that was the response from the mayor is is unacceptable. So I hope that in the any department and whoever they're making, whoever is making these decisions, that we are thinking about it with an equity lens and that that we're really considering that these plans are in place. It should provide guidelines, but that, you know, people with disabilities are going to need different things than than other people sometimes. And so taking that into consideration, it seems it just seems like that was a clear case of discrimination. And I don't I just I don't know much more about it, but I don't understand why he's just being told to hire a lawyer. That seems ridiculous. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you for your comments this evening, Tess. And that concludes our speakers this evening. Questions from members of Council on Council Bill 211. Right. See? No questions. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 211. Council Member Herndon.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. This is in Council District eight. I. I believe the criteria has clearly been met and I would urge my colleagues to support this.
Speaker 5: What is interesting, this is.
Speaker 1: Not the first you but I do believe this is the first aid you've done on a on a building and a house has been.
Speaker 5: Landmarked. So I'll be curious just to see.
Speaker 1: Watching this process through landmark designation to see how that goes. And I'm now the place of the.
Speaker 5: More elder.
Speaker 1: Council members who back in 2013 remember designating this along with my At-Large colleagues, council members Ken Needs and Ortega, when I looked at this property was like.
Speaker 5: I remember when we did.
Speaker 1: This back in 2013, so I am supporting this and I urge my colleagues to do so as well. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Herndon and I concur, looking at the zoning criteria that this application does meet all of the criteria and seeing no other hands raised for comments. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 211, please.
Speaker 4: And then.
Speaker 5: I.
Speaker 1: Hinds I.
Speaker 4: Cashman.
Speaker 5: I.
Speaker 4: Can each I. Ortega All right. Sandoval.
Speaker 3: I. Sawyer I.
Speaker 4: Or as.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 4: Like.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 4: CdeBaca.
Speaker 2: I. Clark.
Speaker 5: I.
Speaker 4: Flynn.
Speaker 5: I.
Speaker 4: 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 1-0211 has passed our pre adjournment announcement on Monday, May 17 Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 21, Dash 0356 Changing the zoning classification for 8120 West House Avenue in Marston are required public hearing on Council Bill 21, Dash 0370 Changing the zoning classification for 3030 North Newton Street in
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 2070 North Colorado Boulevard in South Park Hill.
Approves a map amendment to rezone property from U-SU-E to U-SU-E1 (allows for an accessory dwelling unit), located at 2070 North Colorado Boulevard in Council District 8. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 3-2-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_04122021_21-0257
|
Speaker 0: All right. Well, thank you and thank you, Councilmember Torres as well. And it looks like we have one hand raised here. Councilmember Flynn.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President, I. I don't want to prolong it too long, but I wanted to thank my neighbor. Councilwoman Tavares for bringing us forward when she reached out to us just a short while back that she was intending to do this. When I when I read that, I was immediately struck by how profoundly moving. This this is this donation to the tribes was and I could feel it and I just I just think it's just a really profound and a fitting way to live up to our our words and our commitments. And I just want to let the councilwoman know how much I appreciate her bringing this forward. It's rare that I open an email and then get emotional about it, but I could I could feel it as a as a person. And I just want to let her know that. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Very good. We'll thank you, Councilmember Flynn, and likewise. Thank you very much. Council Member Torres, Council Pro Tem Torres for your leadership in this area and your steadfast commitment to making sure that this was going to go forward and that this would not only be a one time opportunity, but ongoing. And I think the ongoing piece is so important because it's not just for show. It's to really make this meaningful and to create an important precedent that this is how we do things in Denver. And so thank you, as again, Councilmember Pro-Tem, for all of your support and leadership during this time to make it happen. All right. Well, we're going to go ahead and move forward. We've got a couple next items up that we need to take care of. And these are council bills, 20 1-0257 and 20 1-0258 Council Member Sawyer Will you please put council bills 257 and 258 on the floor to take out of order this evening, please.
Speaker 1: I move the council bills 20 1-0257 and 20 10258 be taken out of order in a black ink.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and we've got the second from Council Member Hines comments by members of Council Council Herndon.
Speaker 3: Yes, Madam President, when we get to the appropriate point, I need to postpone the public hearing date and I'll explain why. But first I need to take them out of order and blocks. I ask my colleagues to support that effort.
Speaker 0: Very good. Thank you, Councilmember Herndon. Madam Secretary, roll call, please.
Speaker 3: And I. Hynes i.
Speaker 2: Cashman. I can. H. I. Ortega. I. Sandoval. I. Sawyer. I Torres. I black. I see tobacco. I. Clark.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 2: Flynn.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 2: Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce results.
Speaker 2: 13 eyes.
Speaker 0: 13 I count. 13 I's council bills. 20 1-0257 and 20 1-0258 may be taken out of order. Council Member Sawyer Will you please put Council bills 257 and 258 on the floor for final passage.
Speaker 1: I move that council bills 20 1-0257 and 20 10258 be placed upon final consideration and do pass in a.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved and I believe we got that second from Councilmember Herndon and Councilmember Herndon. Your motion to please postpone.
Speaker 3: Yes, Madam President. I move that final consideration of council bills 20 10257 and 20 10258 with their public hearings be postponed to Monday, April 26, 2021, in a block second.
Speaker 0: Very good. I've got the the motion and I believe that second was from Councilmember Ortega. Comments by members of Council. Councilmember Herndon.
Speaker 3: Yes, Madam President. For those who are unaware, both of these bills do with adding new accessory dwelling unit and council district one. This is an administrative change. With the cancelation of our meeting previously we needed to push back the date for the public hearing. So in our agenda it says April 19th and that has to be pushed back one week due to that cancelation we had earlier this earlier this year. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Very good. Thank you. Councilmember Herndon. Madam Secretary, roll call, please.
Speaker 2: Herndon.
Speaker 3: I. Hines, i.
Speaker 2: Cashman.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 2: I. Ortega.
Speaker 0: I think we might need to get your eye again. Council member Ortega.
Speaker 2: I. Sandoval, I. Sawyer.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Torres. I. Black. I see tobacco. I.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 2: Flynn. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 2: 30 nights.
Speaker 0: 13 Ies Final Consideration of Council Bills 20 1-0257 and 20 1-0258 with their public hearings has been postponed to Monday, April 26. That concludes the items to be called out. All bills for introduction are ordered published this evening. Council members remember this is a consent or a 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 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 on final consideration be placed upon final consideration and do pass in a block for the following items. All 21 Series 02640265034403550343034503200335033603370340034103510326 and 0324.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved and I got the second from Councilmember Herndon. Madam Secretary, roll call, please.
Speaker 2: Black. I see. Tobacco, I. Clark.
Speaker 3: I. Schwinn i. Herndon High.
Speaker 2: Hinds.
Speaker 3: High.
Speaker 2: Cashman.
Speaker 3: High.
Speaker 2: Commission. I. Ortega. I. Sandoval. I. Sawyer.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Torres. I. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 2: 13 eyes.
Speaker 0: 13 eyes. The resolutions have been adopted and the bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass. Council will not take a recess this evening. Our pre adjournment announcement on Monday, May ten Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 21, Dash 0308, changing the zoning classification for 2000 West Virginia Avenue in the A4
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 4735 North Quitman Street in Berkeley.
Approves a map amendment to rezone property from U-SU-C to U-SU-C1 (allows for an accessory dwelling unit), located at 4735 Quitman Street in Council District 1. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 3-16-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_04052021_21-0013
|
Speaker 0: Councilmember Herndon, would you please put Council Bill 13 on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 1: Yes, Madam President, I move that council bill 21.0013 be placed upon final consideration and do pass, but it.
Speaker 0: Has been moved. Then we have a second from Councilmember Hines. The required public hearing for Council Bill 13 is open. May we please have the staff report and we've got some here with us.
Speaker 1: Good evening. Let me.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Let let's go ahead and get that into.
Speaker 1: Are you seeing it, Christine?
Speaker 0: If you go ahead and hit that display settings, I believe there'll be another dropdown. And you should be able to. Yep. There you go. You got it.
Speaker 1: Perfect. Good evening. My name is Edson Ibanez and I am with Muni Planning Development. Before you today, we have a map amendment for 1576 South Josephine Street and the applicant is requesting to reason for an 80 you. It is currently in Council District six in the Cary Merrill neighborhood. The site itself is approximately over 6000 square feet. It's a single unit residential. It is in close proximity to the University of Denver Station and just north of Interstate 25. The current zoning is ESU D x. It is surrounded primarily by that use, by that zoning and the land use is single unit residential and it's surrounded by single unit residential. As you can see, the subject property is on the upper right corner of the screen. As you can see, it's a new construction and you see a lot of predominantly one and two story structures in the vicinity. As you can see, the bottom two residential single unit residential buildings, it went before the planning board on that 217 but just want to make reference that it was originally scheduled for planning board on January six and the applicant asked to postpone the meeting so that they can have more public outreach and engagement. And so I went before fine board on February 17th and it was approved unanimously and it is before it tonight. As a present we have received a permit from the quarry. Merrell are now in opposition and they have two, primarily two primary concerns, which is a third unit in the basement and under occupancy concerns. So city records show that there is no unit in the basement. If the applicant elects to permit a basement unit in the future, then the code would not allow and one would not also permit a detached adu. So there is a lot of concern with people in the community that there was actually a unit in the basement . As a present we have received eight comments of opposition and six letters of support. The comments of opposition were primarily related to the placement of the detached a new and detached adus following the detached 882 building form standards, as well as there is concerns around a third unit in the basement, which our records don't indicate that as well as there is owner occupancy, high parking and noise concerns. The Denver zoning code requires owners to live in and maintain the property. There are several review criteria that are analyzed for a rezoning. The first one is to see what the doctor plans. And there are two plans that we are focusing on, which is comprehensive plan 2040 and Blueprint Denver, a land use and transportation plan 2019. The staff report specifies specific policies that are consistent within comprehensive plan 2040, and I will focus on Group and Denver in this presentation. Within Blueprint, it is classified urban edge, which is primarily predominantly residential. Within the future place type. It is classified as low residential, which is primarily primarily single and two unit uses and accessory dwelling units are allowed. The future street classification for a Josephine Street is a local street, which is primarily served by residential uses. And we do have some policy and blueprint. Specifically the land use and the foreign policy housing for which is talks about diversity, housing choice through the expansion of accessory dwelling units through throughout all residential areas. The other review criteria are specified in the staff report. Therefore CPD recommends approval based on all the findings and other of you have been met. I'm available on the question and the applicant, Greg, is also here for any questions that you might have as well.
Speaker 0: All right. Well, thank you, Edson, for the staff report. And counsel has not received any written testimony on Council Bill 20 1-0013 and this evening. Let me add, we've got one speaker signed up to speak. We have Jesse Paris. Go ahead and get Jesse in the queue.
Speaker 1: All right? Yes.
Speaker 0: Jesse, you're up. Go ahead, please.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Getty. The Council cannot be heard that.
Speaker 0: You can, Jesse, but your audio is kind of breaking up a little bit.
Speaker 1: Okay. How's that?
Speaker 0: Yep. That's better.
Speaker 1: Okay. My name is Jessica from Paris and represent him Las Vegas. ExxonMobil for self-defense. Positive actually move social change as well as the unity party of Colorado and frontline black knows and I will be the next mayor of Denver in 2023. I'm in favor of this rezoning tonight. We need more addus throughout the city and county of Denver. Despite what the opposition is saying, we still need these dwelling units. So I'm in full support of this rezoning to make good job Councilman Cash with.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Jesse. That concludes our speakers questions from members of Council on Council Bill 13. Council member, Flynn.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. Edson. Could you tell us how the city assured itself that there is not a second unit in the basement?
Speaker 1: We looked through our solar permit permit records to see if there is any permit specifically for some sort of unit in that in the basement. And then not only that, but when they submit plans for a detached aide to you, they will also verify that when the zoning inspector will go out there as well. So currently there is no buy on records for a unit in the basement.
Speaker 4: Okay. So we didn't actually go and look at the basement.
Speaker 1: No.
Speaker 4: Okay. Because I know just because it's not in the assessor's records doesn't necessarily mean that it doesn't. It could be an unpermitted second unit. The other question I have is the owner is listed as lioness, but in the assessor records, it's B.B. and L LLC. And I'm just curious if maybe the owner who is here that the individual could address that. Who actually owns this property?
Speaker 1: Craig is the applicant and he can address this.
Speaker 4: Thanks.
Speaker 1: Huh?
Speaker 0: Yeah. We'll go ahead and get. Great promoted. All right, Greg, we have a question for you from Councilmember Flynn. And so wanted to give you an opportunity to respond or if you need him to restate his question.
Speaker 4: No, I heard I understand the question. Thank you so much. Thank you. I'm reformed being able because of my wife and I own the property together.
Speaker 1: So we just formed an LLC in order for both of us to own it together in that structure. That's all it is.
Speaker 4: Okay, so who is Linus?
Speaker 1: Linus. That's my wife's corporation.
Speaker 4: Oh, so that was a recent transfer. And is it on the application? So the change to BNL has been since you filed the application under Linus. Is that the.
Speaker 1: Application for the permit? You mean?
Speaker 4: I'm not sure which. The application for the rezoning. Yes. Well, actually, Bibiano was in there. It was right around the same time. So maybe you can catch up with it. But it is it is under BBN now, which is just 50% myself and my wife. Okay. And how long have you owned the property? Since before we started renovating it. We've owned it about a year. Okay. Are you related to Linda, by the way? I am. She's my cousin. Oh, hi. Nice to meet you. The why are the neighbors saying that you have a unit in your basement? No, we're not really sure. There's a back door that was.
Speaker 1: Existing in the house when we bought it. There is no unit in the basement. There's just a bedroom and a bathroom and a big rec room.
Speaker 4: With no kitchen or anything like that.
Speaker 1: No, there's nothing like.
Speaker 4: That at all. Okay. Thank you. Edson. Maybe you could answer this in these two. The presentation, which was not. I could not find it in our granicus. I couldn't retain a copy of it. But one of your slides showed what I thought was the subject property, and it looked nothing at all like the one storey house that was in the staff report. What what what went on with that? It looked like a strange story, kind of a post-modern nightmare monstrosity. Showing and showing my my lack of taste, I guess.
Speaker 1: Yes. So when we create the staff report, we get a lot of times we get the images from Google Maps. And so they haven't been updated. And so. Or in order to have the presentation updated what? I asked the applicant to send me the most recent photo that they took. So you can see the actual notice, like hearing notice in front of the photo I can set up. If everyone wants to see it again, I can put it up as well.
Speaker 4: Okay. So the image that I'm sorry, I'm sorry. Pardon me isn't the image that was in the staff report then of the one story, brick looked like a maybe a forties ranch fifties rancher that's been scraped and replaced with this three story thingy.
Speaker 1: Correct.
Speaker 4: Okay. Thank you. That's all I have. Madam President.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Councilmember Flynn, Councilmember Cashman.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Council President Edson, do you in one of the letters from the constituents, they speak about.
Speaker 1: The.
Speaker 4: Property owner having sent out a letter stating that all the neighbors were in support. Do you do you have a letter like that in your file? I didn't see it in the packet that came online.
Speaker 1: No, I don't have a letter like that. What I included was a letter on the comments as an attachment in page 18, 19 and 23.
Speaker 4: Right. That's the after the after CPD told the applicant that it was felt their outreach was insufficient. They sent out a second letter and I believe may have had communication with with some some neighbors. Is is that what.
Speaker 1: You're referring to? Yeah. We always encourage them to do more public outreach.
Speaker 4: I wonder, Greg, if you could speak. Did you send out a letter at one at some point in your communication indicating broad support from neighbors? When we first reverse this whole process has been a learning experience. What we first did is.
Speaker 1: Contact all the immediate neighbors.
Speaker 4: To our left, right and.
Speaker 1: In front of us. But what we did.
Speaker 4: Not do was contact the neighbors behind us. And those are the neighbors that came forward and said, hey, we're not really thrilled about this because of the alley access and the traffic situations. It was after that that we canceled our meeting and decided we needed more community outreach. Then we wrote a second letter with giving.
Speaker 1: People much more time to digest that and appear at the next meeting. And we canvased the.
Speaker 4: Entire street of Josephine.
Speaker 1: Between Iowa and Florida on both sides, and the complete west side of Columbine Street, which is the alley the backs up behind us.
Speaker 4: Because we felt we had not really done a good job reaching out to all the neighbors. So to.
Speaker 1: Answer your question.
Speaker 4: In the beginning, we did reach out what we thought was substantial community outreach. But after hearing the feedback from the neighborhood, we decided it was and we postpone the meeting started again. Thank you. Greg Edson, what direction does CPD give neighbor give applicants about community outreach?
Speaker 1: So in our application, we, we, we encourage them to submit a narrative explaining their community outreach. And then in the Pre-Application stage, we always encourage the applicants to reach out to as many neighbors, to talk to their council representative, to see how many neighbors they should be reaching out to. And then we just leave it to the discretion of the applicants to reach out. But we always encourage you to try to reach within 200 feet. Yeah.
Speaker 4: Okay. Thank you. And just as a general question. You know, I hear a lot in these applications about the the roster of standard concerns is one especially.
Speaker 1: Concerning.
Speaker 4: To two neighbors is that it might be.
Speaker 1: Used for short term rental.
Speaker 4: And that is an option under under if an aid to you is approved. Correct.
Speaker 1: It is correct.
Speaker 4: And for any to have any aid, you approve the property owner, whether they have a relative living there or a short.
Speaker 1: Term rental or a long term.
Speaker 4: Rental, the property owner needs to reside on the premises in one of the structures. Is that correct?
Speaker 1: Correct. Okay.
Speaker 4: Is there.
Speaker 1: Is it legal.
Speaker 4: Or is it possible or has it been done that a a property owner would make some sort of agreement? To limit how that property might be used. You know, a neighborhood agreement.
Speaker 1: Good neighbor agreement. I have not heard of one, but I believe it to be possible.
Speaker 4: Is is there a city attorney on that? Could let me know whether or not it would be legal, say.
Speaker 1: For an applicant to make an agreement with their.
Speaker 4: Neighbors that we won't use it for rental at all.
Speaker 1: Or we won't use it for short term rental.
Speaker 4: Is there a reason that wouldn't be legal?
Speaker 1: Oh. Hearing, hearing person.
Speaker 0: I'm looking for Nate Lucero. Up there he goes. We've got him moving over here for you.
Speaker 1: Good deal.
Speaker 4: I couldn't imagine they wouldn't be on the line.
Speaker 0: All right. We've got made up there.
Speaker 4: Nate.
Speaker 1: Did you hear the question, sir? Yes, sir, I did. Thank you. I'm your assistant city attorney. So there. There. There's nothing that would prohibit two neighbors from entering into some sort of an agreement among themselves. It would be a private matter and not be involved in that.
Speaker 4: That's what I thought. Just wanted to put.
Speaker 1: That out there.
Speaker 4: In general, because I think that it's one area that concerns me just as a Denver resident and I in general have been supportive of that to use as an important addition to our housing stock. But I have no desire to have them use short term rentals. That, to me is not what the short term rental program was developed.
Speaker 1: For, nor the.
Speaker 4: 80 new program. But that's kind of adjacent or tangential to this discussion. Nate, thank you for that. Let me see. What we're doing here. Oh, another thing I wanted to clarify that again, it's tangential, but since I have the owner here, Greg, you have a very large sort of spruce, blue spruce in your in your backyard that will have to come down, as I believe, if something is constructed in the back. Is that correct? We do have.
Speaker 1: A very large blue spruce of looking at it at the moment.
Speaker 4: We are honestly torn about whether or not to tear it down or not because we do enjoy it.
Speaker 1: But it really depends on what a tree expert tells us in regards to even.
Speaker 4: If we move the garage to the southwest corner.
Speaker 1: Of the lot.
Speaker 4: With the effect where the TV affected. Sure. And have you have not had it evaluated as of yet?
Speaker 1: No, I have not. Okay.
Speaker 4: As again, in the torrent of conversation that I've seen fly by, I've seen comments this someone believe they heard it. They were told that it was not a healthy tree.
Speaker 1: And I drove by it again today and it sure looked like it was to me. But again.
Speaker 4: That's tangential to this discussion.
Speaker 1: That's all the questions I have. Council President.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilperson Cashman. Up next, we have Councilmember Flynn, your backup in the questions, but I now see council member Sandoval. And so we're going to go ahead and go to Council Member Sandoval and then we'll come back to you, Councilmember Flynn.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 3: I have a question.
Speaker 2: For the owner. Great. Hey, Greg, thanks for being here with us this evening. Do you currently live in the property or why do you have this property listed on? Hat Heights as an apartment rental.
Speaker 4: We do not. We live in this property and we do not have anything was to dismantle it. I don't even know what hot spots is.
Speaker 2: Okay. Just so you know, this rent, this property. Is listed as a rental property going for 1790 and insist it is four bedrooms and it's talking about 1850 a month with a security deposit. So you might want it.
Speaker 4: And that sounds like a scam to me because we are not we're fully moved in and living here. So what's it what's sir. What. The name of the website is hot pots.
Speaker 2: Hot pad.
Speaker 1: Peter.
Speaker 2: And it's an apartment rental and it, and it's pretty expensive listing so someone has and there's even pictures of the inside of the house on the listing.
Speaker 4: Okay.
Speaker 2: Okay. And it says it was just recently purchased within the last year and renovated on the listing.
Speaker 4: Interesting. You know, we're definitely not us, so I don't know what that is.
Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Sandoval. Councilmember Flynn.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. I was going to ask the same thing. I think the same people might be emailing both Councilman Sandoval and I at the same time. So I had one of its hot pads, I believe was was the website. And in that listing, it also says that the owner is willing to rent only the upstairs if that were the case, if that were what the potential renter wanted. And perhaps that's why that's led folks to think that there are two units in the building. So great. You said that this is not you didn't place that and you don't know anything about it. No, I did not. And, you know, to be quite.
Speaker 1: Honest, I'm a little surprised, but also a little bit annoyed that somebody put it up there.
Speaker 4: You know? Oh, yeah. Or whatever. I'd be alarmed, too, whatever reason for this hearing, because.
Speaker 1: Now we are fully living in the house. We're not renting it to anybody. I trying to find it now to see what.
Speaker 4: The the pictures are that you guys.
Speaker 1: Are talking about. But yeah, yeah, it's not at.
Speaker 4: All what we're going to do. So. Okay. And you moved into the property recently? February and February. We were okay because your voter registration isn't yet at that address. So you are. But you are living there full time. We are all those.
Speaker 1: Rent a little don.
Speaker 4: Brag about president.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Flynn. Well, we all found a lot out about hot pads. I guess you don't have to show ownership to post something up there. And thank you to the council members for your questions and the owner for being president as well and seeing no other hands raised. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 13 Council Member Cashman.
Speaker 4: Yeah. Thank you, Madam President. This has been an interesting.
Speaker 1: One for me.
Speaker 4: There's been a lot of speed bumps along.
Speaker 1: The way, and this is certainly not.
Speaker 4: The poster child for how I think a zoning application issue should be handled. In that there was the property owner sent a letter out mischaracterizing my conversation with them when I went out to view the property. Theirs was a stop and then a restart on the on reaching out to the neighborhood. I think in general there is more discussion to be had, as I stated earlier on, what a use role should be in general, citywide and in our housing stock. It looking at the criteria. You know, I, I struggle a little bit with the third criteria as far as the health and welfare of the community. Just when when you get a situation where there's so much. Uncertainty about who said what, where, when. I don't know that that that really strengthens the the interaction of neighbors and.
Speaker 1: The creation of a true feeling of.
Speaker 4: Community. So yeah, I like I say, I think I think CPD may want to look at their instructions to applicants and perhaps there needs to be more clarity in what's expected in the way of community outreach. But yeah, this this has been a cloudy one for me that I don't know that it needed to have been. So that's that's my comments for now.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Council Member Cashman. Council Member Flynn.
Speaker 4: Madam President, I am going to abstain on this. And by abstain, I mean I'm not going to vote no on it or but I'm not I don't feel that I have enough information to vote yes at this point. So if it comes to a vote, I still have some some uneasiness about the situation here that that I would need more information before I would vote. Yes, ordinarily would have supported this. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Flynn. And I have to say, based on the information that was presented tonight, and it does seem like some things are a bit cloudy, but based on what was presented, it looks like it meets all of the criteria. And I'll be voting yes on it this evening based on that criteria. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 13, please.
Speaker 4: Cashman abstained.
Speaker 3: Can. Each. I. Ortega. I. Sandoval. At. Sawyer. Now. Torres, I. Black. I see tobacco. I. Clark.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 4: Flynn Epstein.
Speaker 3: Herndon.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 3: Hines.
Speaker 1: Ah.
Speaker 3: Sandoval. I. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced results.
Speaker 3: One nay, two abstentions. Ten Eyes.
Speaker 0: Ten Eyes Council Bill 20 1-0013 has passed Council Herndon. Will you please put Council Bill 175 on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 1: Yes, Madam President, I move that council bill 2101758.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 1576 South Josephine Street in Cory-Merrill.
Approves a map amendment to rezone property from E-SU-Dx to E-SU-D1x (allows for an accessory dwelling unit), located at 1576 South Josephine Street in Council District 6. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 2-23-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_04052021_21-0175
|
Speaker 1: Yes, Madam President, I move that council bill 2101758.
Speaker 4: Excuse me.
Speaker 1: Be placed upon final consideration. Andrew pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And we've got the second from Council Member Hines. The required public hearing for Council Bill 175 is open. May we please have the staff report?
Speaker 1: Certainly, Madam President. Good evening, Council. I'm Brandon Schaefer, senior city planner with CPD presenting an official map amendment application four 4410 North Fillmore Street. The request here is also for an 80 you going from SCADA to view as you see one the subject property is located in Council District nine in the various once used Cisco neighborhood. Here you can see the subject property along one North Fillmore Street between 44th and 45th Avenues. It is a quarter acre and land area, currently a single unit residential structure. Requesting the rezoning from the city that's urban edge single unit de lot size to us you see one which is urban single unit C lot size. That also allows for an urban house and a detached accessory dwelling unit building for the maximum building height of primary structures 30 to 35 feet with a maximum height of 24 feet for an accessory dwelling unit and a minimum size of 3500 square feet. Existing zoning, as I mentioned, is currently, he said. The property is surrounded on three sides by with the zoning as well as you you see it just to the south and east. Land use is single unit residential. Typical for this residential neighborhood as you see a lot of that surrounding along with some two unit residential and public quasi public uses to the Southwest. The photo on the bottom left identifies the subject property and you can see a mix of the other residential forms that are in the neighborhood, mostly single unit and one, two, one and a half stories in height. Speaking to the process, we sent informational notice of this application in November and went to a planning board in February where it was voted 10 to 0 in favor. And today we have not received any letters or comments from our in-house or the public. Moving to the criteria, the first being consistency with adopted plans. Plan 2040 outlines a number of goals and strategies that are supported by this rezoning related to creating a greater mix of housing options. And offering a mix of housing types and promoting infill development for infrastructure and services are already in place. In Blueprint Denver. The subject property is mapped as part of the urban neighborhood context. These areas do have small multi-unit, residential and mixed use areas, but typically embedded in one and two unit residential areas, usually a regular block pattern and a high degree of walkability. This site is just outside of the half mile radius of the 40th and Colorado commuter rail station. The future. Please type here is a low residential place. These are predominantly single and two unit uses where accessory dwelling units are appropriate and future street types. Both East 44th Avenue and North Street are understated because when we have low residential guidance and we are looking to change the lot, size Blueprint says that it's typically only appropriate to allow for a smaller, lot sized in the existing zoned district if there is an established pattern. And looking at the map on the screen, there is a clear pattern of flats that are between 50 507,000 square feet. As this is moving to the urban neighborhood context, the c lot size is the most appropriate using the lot size analysis for growth areas. This is located in all other areas of the city where we expect 10% of jobs and 20% of housing growth by 2040. And then here again, you can see that additional land use policy and blueprint that encourages a to use in all residential areas and it's a city wide holistic approach is in place. Individual rezonings to enable it to use are appropriate. The neighborhood plan was adopted in 2015 and the future land use concept here is Single-Family Duplex. These are residential areas that are moderately dense with a mix of housing types and the recommended building height is two and a half is consistent with the rezoning request in the neighborhood plan . There are also a number of recommendations and strategies for increasing housing choices and increasing access to housing by allowing a large range of housing types. And more most importantly, for this case, the neighborhood plan speaks to updating the neighborhood context to urban as opposed to urban edge to better reflect the use of the alleys and limiting future curb cuts for street access and the continuation of detached sidewalks for possible. The requested rezoning is also consistent with the next two criteria as a result of the uniformity of district regulations and further public health, safety and welfare. By implementing adaptive plans and providing an additional housing unit that can be compatibly integrated into the surrounding neighborhood. This application notes two justifying circumstances, the first being change or change in conditions of I-70, expansion and construction around the National Western Center are noted as change conditions. Also in in thinking through the I-70 expansion, there have been a number of housing units that have been lost in the neighborhood. So allowing for an additional unit here would help correct and stabilize the neighborhood. Also, a city adopted plan serves as a justifying circumstance as this property was resound in 2010, as neighborhood plan was adopted in 2015, and Blueprint Denver was adopted in 2019. And both those plans speak to allowing for accessory dwelling units as long as they are competitively degradable to a neighborhood. Lastly, we found this rezoning to be consistent with the neighborhood context, district purpose and intent statements, and those are found in further detail in the staff report. Therefore, CPD recommends approval based on finding or review criteria. Have the Met? I'm happy to answer questions and the applicant and property owner Andrew Garcia is also available. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Brandon, for the staff report. And tonight, counsel has not received any written testimony on Council Bill 21, Dash 0175. And we have one individual signed up to speak this evening and we'll go ahead and get started. And we have Jesse Paris. Okay. We're going to see if we can get. Jesse connected here. It looks like his screen froze. Oh. Are you there, Jesse?
Speaker 1: The.
Speaker 0: I know you're your audio's kind of breaking up a little bit. You might need to take your video down.
Speaker 1: Can I be heard now?
Speaker 0: Mm hmm. Go ahead.
Speaker 1: E Yes. That evening members of council. My name is just. There is. I'm represented for a lot of formally for being homeless out loud with all of the changes what are you gonna be party. Oh Colorado in front line black news and I will be the next mayor of Denver in 2023. This rezoning tonight I'm the full support of um. As Councilman Carson has voted who who was telling us tonight we need to increase our housing stock honestly if it's going to be affordable for people that can actually afford it in an area that will rapidly gentrify. Um, this area is literally this site in question is like a block or two away from councilwoman candidacy to block this house. So the neighborhood are very small. They have gone through rapid gentrification as well as the whole northeast of Denver. So. It is a step in the world who are going to occupy this 80 you as a representative of the community on which there are plenty already. So as long as this is not going to be a short term hurdle, I'm in full support of it. Thank you for allowing me to be heard tonight.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Jesse, for joining us. And that concludes our speakers on Council Bill 171 and questions from members of Council on this one. All right. Councilmember Flynn.
Speaker 4: Hey, man. President Brandon, could you walk me through or walk all of us again through the reasoning for changing the context from urban edge to urban, it's just this little parcel. Why can it not be stay within the urban edge context and the zone for an aide to you? I'm not quite understanding that because this is an urban context area and context means in relationship to its surroundings.
Speaker 1: That's a great question. And this is one of those, I guess, separate plants that we don't typically or something that we don't typically see a neighborhood plans. But this was a key recommendation from the 2015 plan as many of the residential areas already have a pattern in this area of detached sidewalks with tree lines and consistent alley access. So in changing the context, that would encourage the use of alleys and prohibit and limit new curb cuts and promote the construction of new detached sidewalks where possible. And then in some cases, I'm not this one. The change in the urban edge to urban eliminates the suburban house building form, so that would make sure that new development is complementary to the existing character of the neighborhood as well.
Speaker 4: Thank you. So is it fair to say then that the intent based on blueprint guidance is that at least this area, it's not obviously not all urban edge areas, but this area in particular. Eventually the context would be changed to urban.
Speaker 1: That's correct. And then the couple of rezonings that I think have come through in this neighborhood since the passing of the neighborhood plan in 2015 simply has been supportive of changing that neighborhood context. Update the actual character that's there today.
Speaker 4: Okay. Thank you. That explains it. Oh. One other thing. Does it have any effect on the configuration of an ADU on the parcel? Does the change from urban edge to urban bring with it any differences in minimum lot size or setbacks? Or are they relatively the same?
Speaker 1: They are relatively the same between the urban, urban context and the detached accessory dwelling units form.
Speaker 4: Okay. All right. Thank you. Thanks, Brandon. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Councilmember Flynn. Councilmember Sandoval.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Brandon. So, with the changing of the context, would they be able to split the zone and split this into two parcels and two single family homes and two detached accessory dwelling units?
Speaker 1: That is correct. The minimum lot, say, is that there is going to is 5500 square feet. And I believe that the subject property is a little bit more than twice that. So that would be an option for them.
Speaker 2: And is it correct in saying that because this is still excuse zoning, the property owner would have to live on site in order to if they wanted to do a short term rental for the accessory dwelling unit, detached or attached.
Speaker 1: Yes, you're correct.
Speaker 2: So one more question before Blueprint Denver. Before we updated Blueprint Denver in 2019, did we have guidance in the former Blueprint Denver 2002 to split zone lots like this through zoning rezonings because I don't remember them coming forward until we adopted the new newer blueprint. Denver, 2018 Was that a recommendation or policy recommendation from the new blueprint?
Speaker 1: Denver Can you clarify, is it more about is it splitting the lot because Omar Amendment or are you speaking to rezoning to a smaller what size is speaking?
Speaker 2: Well, when you read zoned to a smaller that size, you're able to do a split. So because it's a it's a smaller minimum requirement, what I'm seeing is this is happening throughout council district nine, in Council District one, often times where you are having developers buy these bigger lots and then rezoning them to X to split the lots and to get two single family houses out of one former prior single family zone lot. So is that a recommendation out of the newer blueprint? Denver Because I don't remember that this happening prior to our update in 2018. Does that make sense?
Speaker 1: That makes sense now. Thank you for that. So what we do have in Denver and the updated version is we have guidance on what what the appropriate lot size is. And that's where we now conduct a lot, says analysis whenever an applicant is wanting to go to a smaller what size? So in this case, the large size analysis shows us that there's generally a pattern of 6000 square foot lots, and this lot is about twice that size. So if rezoning to a smaller large size, we thought that to see what size is most appropriate to fit that pattern. So in this case that it could result in two single unit residences with two detached aides.
Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Councilmember Sandoval. Councilmember. So you hear?
Speaker 2: Thinks when I'm president. Brandon, can you please just clarify for me then? So it's only in the ESU laws that the owner has to live on the property in order to build the ADA, is that correct?
Speaker 1: That's the restriction that's been placed on any avenue that's built in the city. Regardless of context. The property owner has either lived in the primary residence or in the accessory dwelling unit.
Speaker 2: Okay. Okay. Great. Thanks for clarifying. I guess I'm a little bit confused because I thought that that was only for the sue zone lots or the zone lots. But you're the expert, so I will take your word for it.
Speaker 1: Or I can clarify. Are you speaking more to not the neighborhood context, but just the single unit aspect of the zone? All single unit districts that have any use have that restriction as well.
Speaker 2: Okay. Got it. Perfect. Thank you so much for clarifying. I really appreciate that.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Sawyer. And seeing no other hands raised, I'm going to give it a moment. All right. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 175. Councilmember CdeBaca.
Speaker 3: No comments. This is a basic idea in my neighborhood and hopefully you will pass it.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. Councilmember CdeBaca. Seen no other hands raised for comment. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 175, please.
Speaker 3: CdeBaca I. Clark.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 3: Flynn.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 3: Herndon.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 3: HINES.
Speaker 1: All right.
Speaker 3: Cashman.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 3: Can I? Ortega. I. Sandoval. I. Sawyer, I. Torres, I. Black eye. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced the results there tonight. 13 I's Council Build 20 1-0175 has passed. Thank you, Brandon, for the staff report and for being here to answer questions for us this evening. We're going to go ahead and move on. Councilmember Herndon, will you please put Council Bill 213 on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 1: Yes, Madam President, I move that council bill 210213 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. Okay.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 4410 North Fillmore Street in Elyria Swansea.
Approves a map amendment to rezone property from E-SU-D to U-SU-C1 (allows for an accessory dwelling unit), located at 4410 North Fillmore Street in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 2-23-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_04052021_21-0213
|
Speaker 1: Yes, Madam President, I move that council bill 210213 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. Okay.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved and I think we got the second in there from Council member Ortega. The required public hearing for Council Bill 213 is open. May we please have the staff report and we have Andrew Webb joining us tonight. Go ahead, Andrew.
Speaker 1: Great. Thank you, Council President Gilmore. And good evening, everyone. Can you see my slide deck as you would expect?
Speaker 0: Yep. You got it.
Speaker 1: Well, thank you. Thanks for having me this evening again. I'm Andrew Webb from Community Planning and Development here to present on this proposed amendments to the Denver Revised Municipal Code to bridge the Denver zoning code's recently updated definition and regulations for households two areas under former Chapter 59 or the old code. This is a follow up to the group living package of Denver zoning code amendments that were adopted in February and would effectively make the updated regulations for households effective citywide. It will impact the areas that are shown in the kind of pink or salmon color on this map. Everything in gray is under the Denver zoning code and everything in the that pink color is under a former Chapter 59 zone districts. This slide shows what is currently allowed in areas under former Chapter 59. So the the current former Chapter 59 regulations are very similar to the regulations that were in effect under the Denver zoning code prior to the council's adoption of the group Living Amendments in February. In former chapter 59 zone districts that allow residential uses. Currently in a detached home. A typical single unit house up to two unrelated adults are permitted to live together with any number of relatives, adult relatives to each and then in any multi-unit housing, so that any housing that shares walls or duplexes, apartments, condos with two or more attached dwelling units up to four unrelated adults are permitted to live together again with unlimited relatives to each. This slide shows what is proposed to change. So this is the this is the new newly updated definition or regulations for households that were adopted into the Denver zoning code. And if this is an amendment to the municipal code is adopted, they'd be effective in former Chapter 59 as well. Who would allow it retain the current allowance for unlimited relatives who live together? Adult relatives? Or it would allow a household of up to five adults who are not all members of the household are related . So that could allow five roommates to live together, two families to live together, but it does not allow additional adult relatives beyond that. That's a cap of five. If there are people in the household who are adults and who are not related, there is a maximum cap of five in a household. This slide shows a little bit more detail about where the residential zone districts can be found in the in areas under former Chapter 59. Those are shown in yellow. And then many of the pods which are shown in orange color also allow residential uses. And then the mixed use districts also allow residential uses just to drill down a little bit further as to where these residential types of uses are allowed. This proposed amendment is one of several efforts that we are at CPD aims to try to take on in the in the coming years to address the challenge with former Chapter 59, which still does cover about 20% of the city. As I said, this amendment will not change underlying zoning. The zone districts will remain their former Chapter 59 districts, but it will allow for the Denver zoning codes household definitions to apply in these areas. So that is that is a first step and a second step. We heard loud and clear during the the Group Living Project and doing other projects that as we continue to update and modernize the Denver zoning code to bring it in line with the way people live together or the way property is developed, that it presents an inequity to have 20% of the city living under a separate zoning code. That's that it is somewhat locked in time. And so we know that we need to get to a place where we have just one zoning code for the whole city, and we'll continue to work on that. And we're spending this year looking at what options might exist for either a city driven or applicant driven or development triggered rezoning out of former Chapter 59 and into the Denver zoning code and looking at what resources might be needed for any of those efforts so that we can begin making those requests and budgeting for that kind of work. But that will be out in the future at some point. So though this is not an amendment to the Denver zoning code per se because it is related to zoning and is a land use an update to land use regulations. We did analyze these proposed amendments to the municipal code against the criteria in the Denver zoning code for text amendments. This proposed amendment advances several recommendations from the Denver Comprehensive Plan, implements policies for the creation of a complete range of housing that helps people seek opportunities to share housing and and opportunities to reduce housing costs and reduce the vulnerability to displacement in a high cost of living city. And helps ensure that we have a flexible range of housing options available to people who live in all types of household configurations. It advances several recommendations in Blueprint Denver, including ensuring that our land use regulations support modern and equitable approaches to housing, providing a more inclusive definition of households by acknowledging that people, not all households live together as a nuclear family related by blood as they may have in the 1940s and fifties, when some of our current zoning code language was was developed and adopted, and it expands the allowance of flexible and affordable housing types. This proposed amendment also addresses blueprint's equity concepts by expanding flexible housing opportunities citywide and allowing people to simply choose how they want to live without fear that their housing is in violation of the zoning code. And finally, this proposed amendment advances recommendations from housing and inclusive Denver by increasing the flexibility of regulations for all housing types. This slide outlines the legislative review process for these amendments. This set of amendments was introduced directly to the Land Use Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, which held a meeting to discuss it in March. City Council reading was in early March as well, and then here we are at the public hearing on April 5th. We did hold office hours and offered several townhalls and community meetings as well to explain what was proposed for these amendments. So with that, I'm happy to answer any questions and stand ready for any questions you may have.
Speaker 0: All right. Well, thank you, Andrew, for the great staff report. I'm sure you can probably do that in your sleep by now or around how many times we've done it. But tonight, council has received 17 written comments on Council Bill 213. There were no submitted comments in favor of the bill and 17 submitted comments in opposition of the bill. 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 2013 have been read by each member of Council and all written testimony must be submitted to the official record of the hearing. We have three individuals signed up to speak this evening. Our first speaker is Paige Burkholder.
Speaker 2: That evening, Denver City Council. My name is Paige Burkholder and I live in Southeast Denver Council District four. I am part of the safe and sound Denver Issue Committee. I'm speaking today on behalf of thousands of Denver residents that oppose the group Living Zoning Code Amendment, which city council approved on February 8th. Not only was the group living the amendment a massive and aggressive change to the Denver zoning code. But the process was disingenuous and information from the city was limited and controlled. This is very disappointing to me to be here again in front of all of you, to now ask why City Council is moving forward with voting on the Chapter 59 Bridge Amendment tonight. As you all know, a citizen led issue committee has been formed and is currently in process of securing signatures to place the group Living Amendment on in the hands of Denver voters on the November 21st ballot. During the past year. The most common questions that I and others in safe and sound Denver continuously heard was Why isn't the zoning amendment on the ballot? Why is City Council making this decision for us? Why hasn't City Council listened to our opposition letters when over 80% of the comments submitted consistently opposed the group Living Amendment? Why isn't our city council listening? Will safe and sound? Denver Neighbors did listen. As you already know, those throughout the city involved in the grassroots endeavor over the past year filed a citizen led ballot initiative to offer all of Denver neighbors a voice and a choice. Our filing was approved in March. Denver neighbors have been going into their communities to gather signatures, and Denver neighbors across the city are clicking on the website safe and sound. Denver dot com to learn more and to sign up to place their signature on the petition. Let me go back to the the submitted comment letters. At the beginning of the February 8th meeting, Council released a statement that 619 comments were in favor of the group Living Amendment and that only 500 people were opposed. If you go over that is actually a you have some it's not open. No, this is related to the so there was actually final opposition was 4665 opposed. So Denver neighbors are angry and disappointed in the city council's vote in February. And we're disappointed that this is coming up to vote again. It seems premature to vote on this bridge amendment this evening. So I will leave you with my final question, which should be discussed tonight. Prior to the vote, when Denver neighbors place the group Living Amendment on the ballot and Denver voters decide in November 21 election to repeal the group Living Amendment. What will City Council do to unwind these approvals? Thank you for your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker up is Jesse Paris. And just a reminder, we ask that our speakers please speak to the bill that we have before us, which is the Chapter 59 Household Size Amendment. Go ahead, Jessie, please.
Speaker 1: Yes. Good evening. Member of the council. My name is just Tim Pearce and I'm represented for Black Star Accidents, Movement for Self-defense, Black Star Action Movie Self-defense, Positive Action Commitment, Social Change as well as the going to be party of Colorado in front line black nose. And I will be the next mayor of Denver in 2023 now. And with guards to this reasoning for this proposal tonight I'm in support of it. After hours of televised testimony from over a hundred and something, just two words that were mainly in favor of this proposal that Kennedy and others had drafted to alleviate our unhoused neighbor crisis or our lack of housing stock, affordable housing stock in the city and county of Denver. And to make it where, you know, people are being criminalized for trying to survive in the mile high income city where you have to have mile high income in order to survive or thrive and a fledgling, booming world class city and in the process, those that are not on those financial means. Cannot longer afford to live here. And that is a shame because I am a native. I grew up here. This city was affordable at one time, right after 2008, after the Democratic National Convention. It is no longer. It's become the high income city. So I'm in full support of this, despite with everything an opposition was saying tonight, which is racism, white supremacy on full display for those watching at home. This is what this city needs. We have a housing crisis. We had the housing crisis before COVID. We still have a housing crisis during this. And as I've stated before, I've stayed at collective house such as these. On where it would be legal for the people to live in that dwelling, whereas prior to this rezoning change it was technically illegal. So I'm in support of this. I appreciate the council's, uh, due diligence and get in this past, despite what the opposition was saying. He did all the right things. So I will not be discouraged at all by any of the previous testimony. This is what the city needs and going into 2023. I have to warn you, if you do not pass things like this, you will be swept out in 2023. Like you are sleeping on house neighbors each and every night. So thank you, Carol, for please pass this to my.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Jesse. Our last speaker this evening is Samuel Hargraves. And you're going to have to unmute, Samuel. There you go. Yeah, you might have to. We can't really hear you. You might have to turn your volume up. Maybe.
Speaker 1: Is that better?
Speaker 0: Mm hmm. Yeah. Go ahead, please.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you. Let me do something here because my computer. Doesn't like to let me listen to sounds. All right, terrific. Can. Can you say something so I can make sure I hear you?
Speaker 3: Mm hmm.
Speaker 0: Yep.
Speaker 1: Okay. Great. All right. Thank you very much. Thanks for your patience. I'm Samuel Hargraves. I live in District nine, and I'm speaking to the so-called group Living Amendment, which this will now impose upon the remaining 20% of the city, which until this point had been sort of and kept from its terrible consequences. Thousands of Denver neighborhoods are disappointed that the GLA was passed in February. The trouble is that the City Council was conflating traditional residential housing with felony and rehab housing, which was and is disingenuous and misleading. I think that the City Council canceled its current contracts with the service riders before they had an alternative provider. Thus, the City Council created a crisis which they then used an excuse to ram the GLA down the throats of residents which are now imposing upon the final 20% of the city. The vast majority of these residents oppose this so-called group living arrangement. What city council should have done is severed the traditional residential rental portion from the felony rehab housing portion. They're completely different forms of housing. The people I've spoken to are fine with a small increase in residential rental occupied occupancy. Well, the City Council falsely claimed that two was the maximum number of unrelated roommates allowed. It was actually three with an easily obtained waiver, not two, but three, which is 50% more than claimed. The other the other thing that's happened is that any opposition to this has been labeled racist, just as the prior commenter referenced. What white supremacy as as as a motive for opposing this. I object to that in the strongest possible terms. It's possible to object to this on the merits. An example is the response to any questions regarding parking. By this, increased occupancy was always reacted dismissively and deflected only racist or you care more about cars than people. More people and higher density equals more cars. You can try to racist your way out of this fact, but I have yet to hear a cogent answer to the simple, reasonable, practical question. I encourage everyone to go to safe and sound Denver and check out the ballot initiative we want to put on to rescind this. So-called Group Living Amendment. So that it can be implemented more, more, more practically and better and more and more appropriately sever the residential housing from the fell into rehab housing. They're completely different use.
Speaker 0: Of care at the time we have allotted for your comments this evening. I appreciate our three speakers joining us. And that concludes our speakers questions from members of council. Councilmember Ortega.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. I wanted to ask Andrew if you can.
Speaker 0: Add yourself and address the issue that Mr. Hargrove's just Hargraves just brought up about the fact that this particular proposal would create the opportunity for. What he referred to as felony rehab housing in residential neighborhoods and. So what was presented to us is just expanding. How many unrelated people can live in a single family structure, which is different from any of the other group living categories? So can you.
Speaker 3: Just clarify that?
Speaker 1: Your Council want to take out? I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth, but I believe that the speaker was referring to that original set of group living amendments and and his concern that that but we addressed all the residential regulations in the zoning code as part of one project. But just to clarify, these changes would only impact the household definition and regulations in areas under former Chapter 59 and the regulations for residential care uses, which are allowed in and in those zoned districts, would remain regulated by that former Chapter 59 code.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. I think that takes care of that. The question about parking and concerns about how. Parking meters saturated neighborhood would be addressed based on.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 0: How many people may be in a house under these new regulations. Can you just speak to what the tools are that the city has to address that problem and that challenge? I know that came up many times during the planning process.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 0: When all of the parties who were involved in looking at the various provisions to assure folks that parking would not become. Overwhelming and problematic.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So thanks for that comes from our take a few a few ways to respond to that. First, I would just highlight that the data that we've shown in previous meetings and I have it in my slide deck today, I didn't bring it up with any, but it would like to see if it is the table that shows or cities that we looked at and the number of unrelated adults that they permit to live together and the number of there are in the state, the average household size in those places. And if you recall from that table, the average household size in cities that have allowed, you know, five or more unrelated adults to live together for decades, the average household sizes stay the same, suggesting that while allowing people to make more flexible choices about who comprises of a household and to live with, you know, chosen family, there's there is no indication from any of these cities that we looked at in circle where we actually talk to colleagues there, that there's actually a change in the in the actual household size on average of those places or that there's a sudden change in the way people live together. I would also just highlight that the zoning code does have regulations about the front set back that can be used for parking. I know that in a lot of neighborhoods, parking in yards is a is a concern and ah, the zoning code, it varies by context but it's generally around 30%, only 30% of a front set back may be surfaced for parking and our code enforcement, zoning and Neighborhood Inspection Services Division does enforce on those regulations frequently. That's a that's a fairly common complaint that the city receives, and we do enforce that. And then I would also note that the municipal code and the zoning code have regulations about, you know, inoperable vehicles, vehicles parked that are inoperable in the street, the parking of work vehicles, nerves in the street and that sort of thing. So there are many regulations that address who can park what, where essentially. And then ultimately, if a neighborhood feels like there is a parking concern, typically driven by a a local attraction of some sort of a public a place that's popular with tourists or something like that, they can actually petition the city to have a resident only parking that would only go allowed a certain number of parking permits per household in some neighborhoods. And there are a few of those that exist around Denver today and that certainly exist as an option for neighborhoods that feel like they have a real concern with parking.
Speaker 3: I don't know if.
Speaker 0: We have Greg Morrow on tonight. I know we did during the first provisions, but.
Speaker 3: I just wanted to ask a question about what.
Speaker 0: Would be the proposed minimum number of people that would be housed in a community correctional facility to basically ensure economies of scale are being met because.
Speaker 1: Of the.
Speaker 0: Not only zoning restrictions, but the state requirements that are associated with the operations of any of the corrections facilities in our city. Do you? Do you know the answer?
Speaker 1: Yeah, I know that. I can't. So Greg isn't here tonight because this this particular amendment doesn't impact residential care or community corrections. But I think I can respond generally that there is not a minimum number of people who can be in a community corrections facility, but and that the state and city standards and statutes do have minimum space requirements and that sort of thing that would effectively determine if if a community corrections facility was looking at a particular building, how many people could could be housed in that particular facility. And I would also also just highlight and reiterate that based on the revisions made during the LUDI process to the group living amendments adopted in February, that particular use types, those residential care facilities serving non parole individuals would not be allowed in single unit two unit and row house 2.5 zone districts, the lowest intensity residential districts.
Speaker 0: Thank you for that additional clarification. I have no other questions. The President. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Councilmember Ortega. Councilmember Flynn.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. Andrew. You can go back to a neutral corner of Brennan. Make Lucero for a tag team in your need. It seems to me and correct me if I'm wrong, but this is kind of arcane. But to address some of the points that were made by our speakers at the public hearing this this ordinance does not amend Chapter 59 of the old zoning code. It amends Section 59, dash two of the current Denver Revised Municipal Code, which refers to how we will treat the former Chapter 59, which you can only read in the archives at this point. And all it says, it doesn't say that in the Chapter 59 neighborhoods that still exist, we will apply these rules. What it says is that the rules that are in the Denver zoning code that we adopted in February will apply as far as household definition will apply in these circumstances. Is that is that basically what we're looking at here? What I'm getting at is if if this initiative for repeal were to pass in November, it doesn't this what we're doing tonight doesn't really change anything. It simply means that what was repealed would no longer apply. Is that is that how that works?
Speaker 1: Naval Officer, Assistant City Attorney. I think I understand your question. I certainly understand your reading of what is happening this evening with with the request to amend the Denver Revised Municipal Code of Chapter 59.
Speaker 4: Exactly.
Speaker 1: But former chapter 59. So so if there were to be a referendum either for the ordinance that's going forward tonight or the ordinance that was passed in February, it would have to follow the typical referendum process or the actions.
Speaker 4: Right. And the bill tonight amends the DRC. It does not in men in Chapter 59 or former, chapter 59. That's correct. Right. So if something were to happen in November to overturn that, it would simply follow that what we're passing tonight would be of no force or effect anyway. We don't have to tear out root and branch and things like that. It seems to me is that. Would you agree with that?
Speaker 1: Yeah. I agree that, you know, former chapter 59 as it exists is is not being amended. So anything that happens with this bill does not. Amend former chapter 59.
Speaker 4: Right. It's what we're doing. If I can just say it in plain English. We're simply applying the household definition consistently and uniformly across our households, no matter what zone they are in 2010 Code or Former Chapter 59.
Speaker 1: Yes, that's correct. And that that was the impetus behind this bill was was to treat. Right. Correct.
Speaker 4: Thank you. That's all, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Flynn. Councilmember Kenny.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council President I just wanted to go back to something that you talked about and just make sure that I understand it. We got a number of letters today from folks who live in condos who seem to be under the impression maybe that there were more limits on their units than they were. And so I just wanted to clarify. If you lived in a condo or a apartment in former Chapter 59 zoning, was there any limit under the number of human beings who could live in that condo where apartment in chapter 59.
Speaker 1: Not in the zoning code.
Speaker 2: Okay. So so it's not that there was a prior limit. So. And how is that? People will say what? There was no limit. Just explain what the law was.
Speaker 1: So the current regulation in former Chapter 59 is the same as what was allowed under the Denver zoning code prior to the February 8th adoption of the group Living Amendments. And it would allow up to four unrelated adults, plus any number of related adult or of adults related to those four people in in attached housing. So condos, duplexes, apartments.
Speaker 2: So I just want to clarify for the many letters we got from those living in condos and apartments. The change before us today allows a change from four unrelated to five unrelated individuals. I'm going to get to part two, but part one is it simply changes from 4 to 5? It's a change of one person, correct?
Speaker 1: That's correct.
Speaker 2: But secondly, it actually reduces the ability to have related people along with those. So in some regards it is more restrictive than what the law is in those condos and apartments today.
Speaker 1: That is correct.
Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you for clarifying that. The other question we got is, you know, our H-2A or our you know, a condo building doesn't allow for certain configurations renting out a unit, etc.. Does anything in our change require an owner to allow individuals of a certain number to live in a unit?
Speaker 1: It would not.
Speaker 2: So it doesn't create a legal obligation for a building to allow that. It's still up to the individual owners whether they want to allow additional individuals of a certain number up to the zoning code in their in their unit.
Speaker 1: Yes, that's correct.
Speaker 2: Okay. Thanks for making sure I understood all that. I appreciate it. No more questions.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Canete. Councilmember Black. Of your media. You're muted, councilwoman.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council President Gilmore Thank you. Andrew Webb. And thank you, Councilwoman Canete, for bringing up those letters. I was actually going to address them because every single one of them came from one place in my district, a very large condo complex called Morningside. There are hundreds and hundreds of units there, and I have responded to every single person who has written me an email. There are management put fliers all throughout their buildings. I think there are seven buildings that range from 4 to 7 stories, and they had a lot of misinformation on there. I have followed up with the management company to point out their errors and to point out that this proposal is, in fact, more restrictive than what is currently allowed. And one person wrote me back today and said, Thank you for the clarification. Too bad the management company put out incorrect information anyway. They were all sent from the same place and they were all due to misinformation that was put throughout these buildings on fliers. And I did respond to every single person individually, so. Just wanted to make sure everyone knew that things.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Black. All right. Seen no other hands raised for questions. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 213. All right. Council member Sawyer.
Speaker 2: Thanks, Madam President. I mentioned the night of the group Living hearing that while residents of my district said they would have preferred to keep it for unrelated adults per households, council worked really hard to find a compromise that five and I can respect where we landed. I advocated for an amendment that would have allowed council to vote on the definition of households separately on the night of the group living vote so that I could vote yes on this portion of the ordinance. Unfortunately, I wasn't successful in convincing my colleagues to do that, and my concerns with the residential care side were too numerous to be able to fully support the zoning changes as a whole. Again, I talked about this on the night of the vote and also mentioned my concerns that this created an unfair situation with the group Living Amendments because specifically because they didn't apply to the city as a whole. So and that's why I voted against those the first time. So I just wanted to kind of walk through that and say that I'm supportive of this change to apply the new definition of household in those regulations to the entire city. Recognizing that my concerns with Group Living were on the residential care side, not the side. So I think this is a fair application of these changes and I will be voting yes. Me too. Thanks, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Sawyer. Councilmember Canete.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council President. I wanted to just thank you personally for sponsoring this bill, and I appreciate Councilman Sawyer's use of the word fair. I think that's what this bill is about. It's about treating our city fairly and not treating one area differently than another. I also want to thank the community planning and development and their team because, you know, originally I think there was a thought that this process could take a really long time. And the truth is, it's not new policy. It is just simply making it work fairly in across areas of the city. I just want to reiterate what came out in my last question and answer section, which is that nothing requires any owner of any property to rent or sell or allow occupants beyond what they are comfortable with. The owner of a property will continue to have that control and I think that that is really important. And, you know, we see that in most cities with these types of allowances. Very few households may make use of it, but for those who do, it may be very important for them. Right. So even if it's not needed by everyone for those it is needed for or buy, it can be a very important tool to helping to prevent displacement from your neighborhood, from your care provider, to your network of support, whatever that might look like. And as we discussed extensively, that's not always related by blood, that there are many forms of relationship and care that we take in our communities for each other. So I just want to thank you and the Community Planning and development team and happy to support this tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Kenny. Up next, we have council member Flynn.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. I want to wholeheartedly agree with Councilwoman Sawyer's remarks, because I was in the same position on the night of the hearing, and we voted the same way that evening. I supported the household definitions portion of the larger bill and just had continuing problems with, as the councilwoman said earlier, some of the residential care that I thought could have been more intentional had it been broken out, I too would have voted yes on this particular portion of it. But more fundamentally tonight, what we're faced with doing, as Councilwoman Kenyatta said, is is making a uniform and fair across the city because most people, when they if they look on the apartment listings or the rental listings and they move here or there, they don't know. They're moving into a former Chapter 59 site. They don't they don't think to look at that a good lord go. Some of the things we've seen in real estate that people were unaware of that this might be one of the the most obscure to walk into. I have chapter 59 former chapter 59 areas that immediately abut 2010 zoning code areas. So the house across the street I could have if we were not to pass this, the house across the street would have a different set of regulations as far as household than the ones on the other side of the street. And that's not right. And so for that reason, as stated by Councilwoman Sawyer, I'm going to vote yes on this as well tonight.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Councilmember Flynn, Councilmember Hines.
Speaker 1: But thank you. Council President. I also will be voting in favor of this tonight. I think that the discussion that the discussion about plumbing was has already happened. And this is a discussion about making sure that we provide that vote equitably throughout the city. I know that I've certainly had folks in District ten who wanted me to vote no on Group 14. Obviously I voted yes, but many of those who wanted me to vote no support this because one of the concerns that I heard from from member are my neighbors in District ten is that this Chapter 59 means that that the group living vote even more disproportionately affects District ten, because we have a lot of multi-family homes in in our district. So so I think that certainly those who support group voting support this vote tonight, those many of those who opposed group living also support this vote tonight because they want to make sure that it is a fact it affects the entire city and not just certain portions of the city. Thank you. Council president.
Speaker 0: In Council Member Hines and not seen in any other hands raised. I'm going to go ahead and weigh in with my comments as well. And, you know, I was really happy to initiate this bill to make the Denver zoning codes recently updated definition of household effective citywide, and it would include the approximately 20% of the city still under former Chapter 59 or old code. And as we've talked about tonight, the proposed legislation will allow up to five adults to live together citywide. I'd like to sincerely thank Andrew Webb, Sarah Chau, Walter Laura Ultra Thé, Sarah Brennan, Stacy Samina, Melissa Sotelo and Megan Allen's Melissa and Megan from my council office for all their help on this. This was something that we didn't have within our work plan for 2021. And we very quickly, with CPD's help and assistance after city council vote after City Council voted to adopt the group Living Amendments on February eight, we immediately turned around and embarked on a community process that included two citywide town halls one on March six , the other on March 10th, including CPD office hours. And it's simple. We need more housing for people in Denver. We've missed the over one year mark of the pandemic, and we continue to see the alarming effects it's had on housing security or our residents. And when you look at my council district, specifically in District ten, District 11 excuse me, I have over almost 34% of my council district and District 11 were under the old Code zero nine, including my own home in Montebello. And so I was really happy to lead this effort so we could create more equity and fairness across the city in regard to the household size and allowing five related or unrelated adults to now live together across the entire city. And so this is something that we heard from our constituents loud and clear, and we made it a priority in the in the interest of equity. And I'm really pleased that we're voting on this so early. We were concerned that it might be mid-summer before we were able to get this work done. And so I respectfully and humbly asked my colleagues to support this amendment. All right, Madam Secretary, or excuse me, this legislation to create a household definition across the city for five unrelated or related adults. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 213, please.
Speaker 3: Black. I. CdeBaca. I.
Speaker 1: Clarke by.
Speaker 3: Flynn.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 3: Herndon.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 3: Hines.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 3: Cashman.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 3: Can each i. Ortega. I. Sandoval.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 3: Sawyer. I. 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 Council Bill 20 1-0213 has passed our pre adjournment announcement on Monday May 3rd Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 21, Dash 0309 Changing the zoning classification for 1450 South Humboldt Street in Walsh Park.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance amending Chapter 59 (Zoning) of the Denver Revised Municipal code to administer certain provisions of Former Chapter 59.
Amending DRMC Sec. 59-2 to make the Denver Zoning Code’s updated definitions and regulations for households effective in applicable zone districts from Former Ch. 59. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 3-2-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_03302021_21-0270
|
Speaker 0: Q It has been moved and we've got the second by Councilmember Herndon. Questions or comments by members of Council. Council Member Sawyer.
Speaker 3: Thanks, Madam President. I called.
Speaker 2: These out in a block because they represent $180 million worth of uncalled.
Speaker 3: Contracts for the airport.
Speaker 2: And the only.
Speaker 3: Requirement.
Speaker 0: Or specification around them is general general construction.
Speaker 3: And like other.
Speaker 0: On call contracts like.
Speaker 3: This, we will receive quarterly reports from the airport. I have a problem.
Speaker 0: With these contracts. In general, I always vote against no when the daddy ones come through that look like this and I'm going to.
Speaker 3: Vote no on these tonight. I've talked to the airport about it.
Speaker 0: They you know, we're all on the same page. They understand that. My concern here is just around transparency and our budget oversight as a council. And so I just called them out so I could vote. No, thanks. All right. Thank you, Councilmember Sawyer. And seeing no other hands raised. We will go ahead. And Madam Secretary, roll call, please.
Speaker 2: Sawyer? No. Torres, I. Black I. CdeBaca. I, Clark.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 2: Flynn.
Speaker 5: I.
Speaker 2: Herndon.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 2: Hines.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Cashman.
Speaker 5: I.
Speaker 2: Ortega, I. Sandoval.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 2: Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce results.
Speaker 2: 1191 NAY.
Speaker 0: 11 I. Council Resolutions 20 1-0270 through 20 1-0278 have been adopted. That concludes the items to be called out. All 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 out an item for a separate vote. Councilmember Hines, will you please put the resolutions for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor?
Speaker 1: Let's get to the 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. 21 025 620 1026 920 1-029131.024831.0263310280 20 1-0199 821 Batch 019 921 Dives 024 320 1-024 420 1024 520 120261312026 720 1-028 520 1-028731021 921. Dash 023 320 1-023431017 421. Dash 0221 to going back.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved and we've got the second there by Councilmember Flynn. Madam Secretary, roll call, please.
Speaker 2: Black eye. CdeBaca. I. Clark.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 2: Flynn.
Speaker 5: I.
Speaker 2: Herndon.
Speaker 5: I.
Speaker 1: Hines, I.
Speaker 2: Cashman.
Speaker 5: Hi.
Speaker 2: Ortega. I. Sandoval. I. Sawyer. I. Torres. I. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 2: 11 eyes. Sorry. 12 eyes.
Speaker 0: All right, 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 combined public hearing on Council Bill 156 amending the Denver Zoning Code to establish a new active centers and corridors design overlay zone district, create consistency with the shopfront form
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Hensel Phelps Construction Co. concerning on-call airside facility maintenance and repair services at Denver International Airport.
Approves a contract with Hensel Phelps Construction Co. for $2,000,000 and for three years, with two one-year options to extend, to provide on-call airside facility maintenance and repair services at Denver International Airport (201952422-00). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 4-19-21. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 3-17-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_03302021_21-0156
|
Speaker 6: So a portion of a larger project would need to provide something other than residential at that ground floor facing the street. There's also a number of of more qualitative standards that get to this notion of maintaining a strong street wall and sort of main street character, but also allowing for greater flexibility and pedestrian movement through a variety of setbacks and more flexible range of where the building can actually be located, creating better transitions between the public sidewalk and private residential units when there are residential uses at that ground floor, and then supporting very highly active street levels with tall ground floors and many windows across those frontages. So this is a this is a brief summary, and I won't get into each one of these individually, but I do have some slides if anyone has questions about these going forward. But this is a summary of what's what's in the design overlay itself. You know, most fundamentally, as I mentioned, it would does have a standard to provide nonresidential active uses for just a portion of that primary street frontage on larger sized lots. Limits the building forms to the shop front and townhouse. Make some changes to the build to range. Again, sort of allowing greater flexibility for that building to be set away from that primary street zone online a little bit, provide some more space for outdoor dining in pedestrian areas. Some setbacks that I mentioned, and then limiting the transparency alternatives in areas within the overlay to only be allowed to be to meet that alternative through the permanent art. So really, we're looking for windows and we want to make sure that we get the highest level of transparency possible. And then finally, a minimum floor to floor height for that street level. And that's really sort of leaning towards making sure that these projects and future future buildings are designed in such a manner that they can accommodate those nonresidential uses at some point in the future. And I should clarify to a nonresidential use in this case and in this particular zoning district doesn't mean that it specifically has to be retail or it has to be a coffee shop or a food and beverage of some kind. It really runs the entire range of things like neighborhood services, health care services, the dentist, the dog groomer, you know, any number of things that could be considered and would be permitted as a nonresidential use. I also mentioned this design overlay and in the text amendment that will establish this and the Denver zoning code picks up an inconsistency in the shopfront form and in all of the other contexts within the zoning code, the shopfront form does not allow parking between either the primary or the side street. And for whatever reason, in the urban context, which is Article five, that was a little was inconsistent. And so we've made that change as well in all of our our X, M, X and s districts. And that parking would not be allowed between surface parking, I should say, would not be allowed between the building in the primary or the side street. So moving into the rezoning itself, we'll, of course, look at at the overview of the existing context through the zoning land use and then existing building performance scale. As I mentioned this, these areas are a range of different mixed use and main street zoned districts, they range in scale from two storey to three storey and up to five storey in a couple of locations. A few of these areas also included the UO one and two, which is the use overlay one and two that were sort of carryovers of of older zoning and older entitlements that are applied to these areas. The other one is the adult use overlay, and two is the billboard use overlay. And you can see there in the surrounding areas, generally these areas are bordered either by a two unit zone district or a single unit zone district in the urban context as far as land use. As you might expect, there's actually quite a large range of things that are happening in these various areas. They primarily there are commercial and retail. There is a mix of multi-unit residential office and mixed use type of properties. You can see in particularly the northern part of Tennyson, which is the which is the long section here in the in the middle of the of the graphic, particularly on the western side of Tennyson in that area that has really transitioned almost exclusively over to multi-unit residential. And we'll look at a photograph or two that shows that. So zooming in here, this is this is the portion of Tennyson from 38 to 46 that is being considered for the rezoning. It sort of runs the range in terms of scale from one story, traditional commercial type of non type of buildings up to three and even five story multi-unit residential structures, some new, some old. As you move further north, this is where that rapid transition has really has really happened and really raised a lot of the concerns from the neighborhood and has over the last several years about changes to add to this portion of Tennyson that did used to provide some local commercial and neighborhood goods and services, but has really rapidly transformed over to almost almost exclusively residential projects. This is the area around 44th and Sheridan. Again know it's generally going to be mixed use and commercial and retail and it's existing patterns. It also has one story more sort of traditional type of commercial buildings, but then also some more suburban type of examples where you where you see the surface parking is located generally between the building and the street. Here. This is up near Regis University. So this is at 49th and 50th Avenue. And Lowell, again, kind of a range and a mix of some convenience store or drive thru type of uses, some one story traditional commercial buildings and then portions of this section have also transitioned over to multi-unit residential. 44th in Lowell. Again, sort of a mix of things, the one and two storey commercial buildings and then some other more suburban type of development where the buildings are set away from the street. And then finally, this last section along the north side of 38, which is just east of east of Sheridan here, again, sort of a mix of lower scale, lower scale commercial and some residential components here as well. So the overall outreach has has been ongoing for a number of years now. CPD has been involved directly with with Berkeley, Regis United Neighbors, which is the local registered neighborhood organization since at least the fall of 2017. So this goes back to even to former Councilman Espinosa for this area. And those initial conversations about what what kinds of things an overlay might include. Really, it took it took on a lot more momentum once once Councilmember Sandoval got got into you know, got into her position. And her office has really taken on the bulk of the of the public outreach through a number of different mailers and fliers, media advisories and town halls that were that were held in the spring of last year. Unfortunately, right around the time that the pandemic started to started to take shape. And so they they did a lot of additional direct conversations and outreach, really, through the spring and summer of last last year. And then finally we presented to the IMC Zoning and Planning Committee back in November of last year. Process has similarly moved through the standard protocols and procedures. The informational notice of both the text amendment and Map amendment were in November of last year and the planning board meeting was noticed in January and the hearing was in February. Moved on to council committee. And then here we are this evening on a Tuesday instead of a monday. As far as public comments, we have received a letter of support from from the R.A. from Berkeley, Regis for United Neighbors. They submitted a letter of support to the planning board. And I believe we're also going to submit a direct letter to the council members as well. We've also received 24 letters of support from from various various neighbors and really speak to and cite this desire to maintain and enhance the walkability of these these areas and ensure the continuation of commercial activity is provided by local small businesses. One of those letters in support was actually conditional, recommending that we didn't go far enough and that there were some additional strategies they would like to see to strengthen that overlay. And then we have also received four comments in opposition, generally citing concerns relative to the timing and the applicability of the new overlay potential increase in construction costs. And that residential uses really should be the focus for these locations. Moving into the review criteria, there are three. For this rezoning, we'll be looking at consistency with adaptive plans and then uniformity of district regulations and furthering public health, safety and welfare. So we'll start with adopted plans and move directly into a comprehensive plan. 2040. I do think it's important to call out there's there's a number of different things that speak to this notion of complete neighborhoods and a mix of uses. But I really do want to highlight a couple that come from the strong and authentic neighborhoods strategy. You go one strategy and to build a network of well connected, vibrant, mixed use centers and corridors, and then to encourage quality infill development that is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood and offers opportunities for increased amenities. Moving on to Blueprint Denver then and looking at the urban context, mapping this entire area falls into the urban context. Generally, development should be compatible with the existing neighborhood character and offer residents a mix of uses with good street activation and connectivity. Future place type. All of these rezoning areas, except for one very small site, fall into the local corridor and center categories, characteristics of these of these types of areas in the future that they primarily provide options for dining, entertainment and shopping. They could include some residential and employment uses. The scale is intimate with that focus on the pedestrian. The one area that does fall into the residential low category actually has an existing commercial use on it currently. And that's something that the neighborhood and the councilmember was interested in reinforcing and perpetuating into the future. The, let's say, future street types, both 44th and lower fall in the mixed use collector category. And then Tennison is a main street collector and then 38 falls in the category of Main Street Arterial. Generally, these have similar descriptions of a varied mix of uses, including some residential. They are typically multi-story with high building coverage and a shallow setback. It is within the all areas of all other areas of the city as far as growth strategies. So that means that roughly 10% of the jobs and 20% of housing by 2040 should be absorbed into these types of areas. And then getting into some specific strategies that Blueprint and Denver directs and really establishes some policies that are supportive of this of this rezoning is that in in the general the land use and built for general policies policy number 11 is to implement our plan recommendations through citywide legislative rezonings and text amendments. So that's exactly what we're doing here this evening. And then more importantly, on the qualitative side, in the design, quality and preservation policy, number four speaks to ensuring an active and pedestrian friendly environment that provides true mixed use character in our centers and corridors, and specifically strategy A speaks directly to what we're what we're doing here this evening of requiring strong street level, active use standards for local centers and corridors. And this may include a prohibition on residential units for a portion of the street level building. As far as the equity analysis overall, these areas in Berkeley and Regis relative to access to opportunity are rated as having moderate access. This is a result of having relatively lower access to transit and grocery stores, but higher access to existing local centers and corridors. So I want to make sure that we're supporting supporting that and helping to, you know, ultimately provide additional access. The proposed overlay in the rezoning, we think, will further increase that access to opportunity by encouraging walkability within these areas and ensuring that new development is including those nonresidential uses that could contribute to jobs and services and other amenities. So we find that the rezoning application would have a net positive impact on the area's access to opportunity. As far as vulnerability to displacement, the Berkeley areas are indicated as low vulnerability to displacement, while the Regis has a slightly higher moderate vulnerability. The region's score is is partly due to a slightly higher percentage of the population that has less than a college degree. The proposed overlay is not anticipated to significantly impact vulnerability to displacement. However, it may actually help with some employment displacement because, again, by ensuring that nonresidential space continues to be offered in the future and new development , it will open up and provide space to be available and hopefully more affordable to local businesses. So we find that the rezoning would not have a negative impact on this measurement and that housing and businesses would not be displaced as a result of the rezoning. Housing. Housing diversity. Both Berkeley and Regis areas are indicated as low to moderate housing diversity. They're generally diverse in terms of their home size, but not necessarily diverse in terms of middle density housing or homeownership opportunities compared to rental. We found that looking at the rezoning because there is a limitation on the residential uses at the ground floor, there may be a very slight impact on overall housing diversity. Just just because there may be slightly fewer units that are generated because of that requirement to provide some nonresidential use of the ground floor. And then finally, jobs, diversity. The subject areas within Berkeley and Regis generally have low to moderate density in terms of in terms of the number of jobs overall, they sort of fall in the category of retail innovation, jobs near the university and lower and manufacturing diversity. And we think that the proposed rezoning may have a positive impact on job diversity in the neighborhood. Again, sort of going back to the notion of having more commercial or nonresidential space available and the opportunities that that may present to new businesses and local, local employment. So we think that overall, we find that the rezoning application would have a positive effect on the area's job diversity. We also find that the requested rezoning would meet the next two criteria. It would result in uniformity of district regulations and would further the public health, safety and welfare primarily through the implementation of our adopted plans. So staff recommends that City Council approves the Denver Zoning Code Text Amendment Number nine and establishing the active centers and corridors design overlay. Finding that all of the applicable review criteria have been met and we also recommend approval of Map Amendment Number 2020. i-200080 rezoning these areas of Berkeley and Regis neighborhoods to apply the new DOJ finding again that all applicable review criteria have been met.
Speaker 5: Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Well, thank you. Christopher, when I saw the 40 the the 40 slides in the deck, I wondered how quick you're going to be able to go. And so great job doing that.
Speaker 6: You're welcome. There's a lot to cover is a lot of information. So I'm happy to answer questions.
Speaker 0: All right. Right on. Well, tonight, counsel has received one written comment on counsel Bill 157 There are no submitted comments in favor of the application and one submitted comment in opposition of the application. No written comments have been received for counsel Bill 156. All members of counsel that are present have certified 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. Seen none. Council secretary let the record reflect that all written testimony, both in favor and in opposition of Council Bill 157 have 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 the combined public hearing for Council Bill 156 and 157. We have two individuals signed up to speak this evening, and our first speaker is Bill Killam. And Phil, you're unmuted. And so we'll go ahead and let you introduce yourself and tell us your city of residence and go ahead.
Speaker 5: Great. Thank you very much. My name. My name is Bill Killam, and I've been a resident.
Speaker 4: Of the Berkeley neighborhood in.
Speaker 5: Denver since 1986. I am a member of Berkeley, Regis, United Neighbors.
Speaker 1: Zoning and Planning.
Speaker 5: Committee since 2006, and I'm also currently serving on the Brown Board of Directors as a long time resident. I've seen the destruction of much of the retail aspect of Tennyson Street as developers took advantage of mixed use loopholes, specifically by building LA homes and apartment buildings. The brand's zoning and planning committee has been working to rectify this situation as long as I've been a member, and the effort actually began much earlier. The Zoning and Planning Committee has been working with Councilwoman Sandoval, her staff and city planners since her election in 2019. Run has kept the neighborhood informed through social media and in-person meetings.
Speaker 4: We shut down and affected.
Speaker 5: Landowners have been contacted directly by the councilwoman to office. Tonight, I urge council members to approve these text and map amendments to help preserve street activation and the commercial character of the neighborhood. Directly read This neighborhood has been severely impacted by changes in our commercial districts over the last few years, and we believe that instituting this amendment and overlay will help preserve the neighborhood's character to the extent possible. So Graham, thanks the council members for their consideration of this matter. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Mr. Killam. And we have another speaker. Rafael Espinosa. And we're going to go ahead and ask former Councilman Espinosa to unmute himself, please.
Speaker 4: Good evening. Thank you. Council president and city council former colleagues. This has been a long time coming.
Speaker 5: The. I remember.
Speaker 0: Jefferson.
Speaker 4: Park, my neighborhood was first meeting in 28, 2008 for the 2010 adoption. Here we are. We spent the better part of nine months or more in actually more during my time in office. And now we're nearly just a couple of months from midterms on. You're on this next term. So it's actually taking longer to make the tweaks that the. That the zoning code always anticipated. I do urge. CPD director LG Reddy and others to figure out a way to expedite this process because it really the community effort and the amount of data points and meetings and time and effort that went into producing. What seems to be a very rational approach has taken an inordinate amount of of of effort, both by the city and the community. That said, I do want to thank Tom Mobley in the members of the community, specifically CBD staff Andy Dalton, Mr. Dalton, Abe Christopher and Brad for their continuing efforts to shepherd the community to get to this point. So thank you for taking the time to consider the matter, and I'm looking forward to hopefully celebrating the adoption once all this COVID stuff is over. So thank you very much.
Speaker 0: All right. Well, thank you for joining us, former council member Espinosa, and good to hear from you. All right. That concludes our speakers this evening. On this combined hearing questions from members of Council on Council Bill 156 and or Counsel Bill 157. Council member, Flynn.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam President. I Christopher. Or maybe Councilwoman Sandoval, either one of you, please help me out a little bit with let me go over to the staff report and the presentation on Slide 12, where I talk about the proposed standards for design overlay aid and then where there were more specifics on it. On page 22 of the staff report, I'm trying to visualize how these setbacks and minimum heights, etc., will contribute to the outcome that you're that you're desiring for more shop front, townhouse oriented environment. So maybe talk a little bit about increasing the build to range from from 0 to 5 feet to 0 to 10 feet. What does that do for you as far as encouraging outdoor dining? Talk a little bit about the and the minimum two foot primary setback. Primary street setback in the shopfront form. How does that conflict with the build to it? There's so many measurements in there. I'm just trying to I'm trying to get a picture of what a street that is that has this overlay will eventually look like when these regulations are all adhered to. Christopher or Caroline, if you care.
Speaker 6: That's what I'm do. Do you want to start? And then I'm happy to. German.
Speaker 3: I'll defer to you, Christopher. Okay. Yeah.
Speaker 6: Perfect. So yeah, that's a that's a great question. So I'll start with let's see why not. I'll start with the with the two foot setback. Part of the reason that we we made that determination is that the current Department of Transportation and Infrastructure, the standard for the amenities are sidewalk along Tennyson. And most of these areas is actually an eight foot amenity zone and only a five foot sidewalk. That's that that's the minimum standard. So we wanted to make sure that there was, at the very least, potentially an extension of that sidewalk that could be accommodated to allow for a greater intensity of pedestrian movement and activity in this particular location. The other thing that actually that helps with is that typically in situations where there is a zero foot setback in the building, as is built right up to the property line, and then what is essentially the back of the sidewalk, if there's ever a table chair and railings permit, which is the permit that you need in order to encroach into that public right of way that all goes through. Dottie and CBD doesn't have an opportunity to directly be able to sort of oversee and weigh in and provide comments on those kinds of those kinds of factors. So having that small setback means that now that encroachment covers both a portion of the private property and then extends into the public right of way. So now we've got at least two people, two agencies that have some have some oversight of how that gets how that gets applied, increasing the bill to range from 0 to 5 feet and going now it would actually be from two feet to ten feet. So we accommodate for that initial setback and then going up to ten feet, basically that allows for a building to be set a little bit further away from the public sidewalk, still meet our standard for having buildings close to, you know, close to the street, close to the sidewalk to create that that main street feel from it from a design perspective. But it allows for a lot more flexibility for those outdoor dining or outdoor retail type of experiences that is not encroaching into the public sidewalk. Not in.
Speaker 5: But we just interrupt. Christopher, I apologize. But say what you're saying is that an outdoor seating area at a cafe could be set back from where the people are traversing the sidewalk, going to walk around, etc.. That's exactly right.
Speaker 6: I guess that's right.
Speaker 5: And one other delight that I think I brought up, the 14 foot minimum height for the ground floor, even for residential. Is that in my reading.
Speaker 4: That correctly.
Speaker 6: So. So the way that that works is that that that standard would apply to projects that that are large enough to have that have that nonresidential requirement. And so the way that that's measured to clarify is that it's a floor to floor height. So it's not necessarily the interior volume, the floor to ceiling room. So, you know, there's there's a lot of architectural improvements on the interior of the building where you can have drop ceilings and other things. So in a residential context, that interior volume is probably going to still be more in the 0 to 10 or 11 foot range, which is a very comfortable, comfortable height for it for a residential type of of of use. The good thing about having that full 14 feet Florida floor is that then in the future and over time, if those uses are modified and changed, we haven't precluded the fact of for them the opportunity to have a non residential or a commercial component in in that ground floor. So if the project was designed with a very limited and short first ground floor height, you potentially create challenges with those uses ever transitioning back into a into a nonresidential type of use. So we're trying to account for that. You know, and there's also a lot of research and data out there just in terms of the viability of commercial spaces that generally those taller floor to floor heights and those those, you know, those larger spaces, interior tend to actually lead to people spending more money.
Speaker 5: Mm hmm. One last thing, Madam President, if I could. The transparency requirement says eliminate the alternatives. Transparency requirements, except for, I think, art. Let me take a look at it. Except for permanent art to encourage more windows at street level. Does that apply to the townhouse, the townhome form as well? And in other words, a person's residence on the street would have to have. What are we talking about as far as windows?
Speaker 6: Yeah, the residential the residential requirement for transparency in the townhouse form and I can double check this, but I believe it's only 40% in the shop front. Form, it's 60%. So it's a much higher standard for building forms that are intended to have a mix of uses. There are there are several other alternatives, transparency alternatives that exist in the code today. And some of them have been used, I'd say, to less success than others. And so that was that was the determination that we wanted to make sure that if there was going to be an alternative to transparency, to a window, we wanted to make sure that that was actually something that's contributing back to back to the street. And permanent art is is something that is actually reviewed also by Denver arts and venues to determine if it is actually a work of public art. And so that's, again, sort of gives that an extra layer of quality.
Speaker 5: Mm hmm. Thank you. Thank you very much, Christopher and Madam President, all have.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Councilmember Flynn. Councilmember Torrance. Thank you so much. I'm looking at some of the early slides that you have, obviously. Christopher Councilwoman, we've talked about this being considered for Santa Fe by some of the community there for for that corridor. Now it's being applied to Mex and S and there's language in the in the slides about its use generally four stories, 2 to 5 stories. But as a as a as an overlay, can it be applied to any district more beyond X 2 to 5 or more? 2 to 5.
Speaker 6: Yes, it could be. It's written to apply to really all of our ah mixed use districts within the Denver zoning code. So that could be a, we have our districts the residential mixed use then we have and we have mixed use. It is not specific to height, so it could be applied to an eight storey district. I would say the only component about the overlay that does have a reference back to height is that through this process we're also looking at potentially or we've had other neighborhood stakeholders approach us in two story districts and there are some two storey districts actually that are being proposed for the rezoning and District one. And there's been a lot of concerns or questions raised about the viability of providing nonresidential uses in a two story project. Once you get up to three stories, five stories, it's a lot easier to financially make that work. But in a two story district, it is difficult. So in the overlay, the nonresidential use standard. So that standard that would require nonresidential uses of the ground floor does not apply to two storey districts. It would have to be a three storey or above.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 0: And then the other the only other question that I have is if adopted this evening, projects in queue, who becomes affected by these versus projects that maybe have not applied yet for the permits to construct? Kind of what's the what's the bright line?
Speaker 6: Sure. Yeah. That goes back to what we call the effective date and then the applicability of the of the zoning code change. So in this case, and really what the what the default is for really any zoning code amendment is that it becomes effective as of the date of that of the hearing and of the adoption, in that it is applicable to essentially all projects that have yet to be approved. That is that was determined to be the case here. We had a lot of conversations with Councilmember Sandoval and some of the neighborhood advocates as well, and actually reviewed a lot of the projects that were in that are in the process of the permit review. And there were there were some examples that raised a lot of concerns that they were not going to be consistent with the intent of the overlay. And and really then, you know, the intention of the neighborhood for these corridors. And so Councilmember Sandoval made the determination that this zoning code change should be effective immediately and should apply to all projects that are still that are still under review. And so essentially, anything that has not received approval, these were these would retroactively apply.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you, Christopher. Thank you, Councilwoman. Thank you, Councilwoman Torres. Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 2: Christopher and Councilwoman.
Speaker 3: Sandoval, thank you so much for working on this. I'm really, really impressed. I'm just going to ask a question publicly that I've asked both of you in private. We had a couple of people reach out to us who were unhappy that they were sort of caught in the middle of this, that they were already engaged in some sort of financial transaction, and they didn't know about this.
Speaker 2: And I've talked to both.
Speaker 3: Of you about it a lot. And so thank you very much. But I just thought I'd give you an opportunity to talk a little bit more about all of your outreach. I know you had a fight about it in the presentation. And then Councilman Sandoval, specifically, I know you said that all of the property owners were aware of it and.
Speaker 2: That if there were parties.
Speaker 3: That weren't aware of it, it was perhaps because the property owner had not revealed that. So if you could just publicly comment on some of those things, I'd appreciate it. Thank you. Yes, sure. Thank you for the question. Outreach is essential in these type of projects of the utmost importance. So when we created the town hall notification, I went to the assessor's office in January of 2020 and I asked our assessor to in all of the areas that are mapped, so not the text of the amendment, but the mapped areas of the amendment, which is the second bill on reading to send me every property owner on the Denver Assessor's list. So I got that. We got those property records and we mailed them a flier in by U.S. mail notifying them about this survey that my Naomi and my office put together, and about two upcoming town halls that we held at Skinner Middle School. So we sent that out the US mail that my office paid for, and then we went back through and we fired. Because a lot of times what I've learned in roads, especially in retail areas and residential, not everybody who not all property owners live on site, but it's important that tenants know about it as well. So we went back through and fired all of the properties before the town halls happened. And unfortunately, our last town hall took place, I want to say March 12th or March 11th. And the city did get shut down with COVID on March 13th. So during that transition time, when the city was shut down and we were all virtual and trying to figure things out, we Naomi and I compiled a list of property owners that we didn't think we heard from. And I individually researched our houses to court people to make sure that they were aware of it. And any time that we saw something come through a transaction through business then or any other, because properties do have transactions during this time. I personally reached out to all new property owners, but within this amount of time to make sure that they knew about the overlay and we gave them the summation of it. And to date, I hadn't heard anything except for right before a planning board. And this past year did I hear from two property owners that they were aware. And for the record, they're not property owners. One of them is under contract, and the woman who lives in the home said she was not aware of it, which there's been signs and several notifications that have come through. So I hope that answers your question. And then the other slide, once it was an active application, community planning and development sent one mailer out and by accident they forgot to include something, which is why these two tax amendments are here on the same evening. And they got a second mailer. So not only did they get one mailer, they got two mailers notifying them about planning board. Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Black, for the question and Councilmember Sandoval for the answer. And seen no other hands raise. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 156 and or Council Bill 157. Councilmember Sandoval.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. Well, working for Councilman Espinosa, the community came together with a lot of different concerns regarding Tennyson and the transformation and something the quarter was changing into, something different than they had envisioned while working on Blueprint Denver 2020 or 2002 and the 2010 zoning code update, many residents of the Berkeley Regis community were task force members who volunteered their expertize and time to the zoning code. Update the zoning 2010 update and as we see development occurred along along the corridor, new forms. We're out of context and we're taking cues from the surrounding neighborhood. We would not be here today if it weren't for numerous advocates in the neighborhood who spent years and hours and dedicated to this overlay. So in 2010, the zoning code established Main Street and mixed use zoning along Tennyson, which historically had been one of our streetcar nodes. So we have some areas of Denver where commercial is embedded within a residential neighborhood. So many corridors like Tennyson, like Law got their life from having mixed use, residential mixed use among the residential neighborhoods. These historic areas show a pattern of small acts and pedestrian friendly design suitable for strolling to and from street car shops. The 2010 zoning code reflected the Berkeley community's desire to maintain and enhance these commercial corridors while also making room for new residential density that would support businesses. Unfortunately, long standing main streets like Tennyson have experienced a loss of commercial space new due to new developments. At a time when we are facing such a crisis and housing needs in our city, it is easy to forget about the lack of spaces for small businesses when we desperately need new housing. We also need places to work, shop and everything else to create a vibrant, walkable, compact city. Our businesses are suffering immensely right now, and not just from COVID, but from an entire system of land use and other forces. These businesses are what make our neighborhood such a great place to live and deserve to be protected. The loss of tenants in character is incredibly painful. Yet with so many wonderful, creaky spaces are gone, there is much to preserve on Tennyson and throughout Berkeley Regis and as I keep in mind, planning for the next seven generations. I am also heartened to know that this design overlay can help preserve the commercial nature of historic Main Streets throughout Denver. I would like to end by thanking everybody who spent years seeking my predecessor, Councilman Espinosa, for his steadfast leadership who I call often and ask for advice. For Naomi in my office, for who goes above and beyond to do community outreach, attend late night meetings. I'd like to thank Christopher for attending numerous meetings in the evening and his ability to go back and forth with design efforts with Naomi and I. It was rewarding and it was a great experience the whole time and everyone else at KPD. And I'd also like to thank my staff, Gina and Naomi. A lot of times we go, We can't do this work without our staff. I'll just say that to Gina. Naomi, many thank you all for supporting me and this crazy idea of moving forward, all these overlays during the time of COVID. And with that, it would be an honor if I were able to get all of your vote tonight in support of something that my community has desperately been wanting for the last ten years. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Sandoval. Up next, we have Council Cashman.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Council president. I want to just offer my thanks to Council Councilmember Sandoval and all the folks that work on this. What I consider.
Speaker 6: Extremely.
Speaker 5: Important pair of measures are embedded. Commercial districts are such a have such a rich history and such such an important part of our community fabric to lose them to to add a few more housing units just I don't think would be the trade off we're looking for. I'm really excited to support this and I hope to see it implemented further around the town. So thank you. Thanks a lot, Christopher. Thanks for the presentation and for your hard work.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Cashman. Councilmember Flynn.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam President. I just want to piggyback on what Councilman Cashman said and congratulate Councilwoman Sandoval for addressing something that even before I got on council six years ago, I think had been a source of a lot of anxiety among residents of Denver, fearful of losing what is Denver? This allows growth, but it allows it to occur in a way that is complementary and absorbs that growth in a way that maintains the look and feel of neighborhoods. And particularly up on in northwest Denver, where I don't spend a whole lot of time. But I have been up there. I was up there with Councilman Espinosa when he was in office, taking a look at what he was describing, exactly what was needed here. And so I just wanted to congratulate Councilman Sandoval for following through on that and seeing it come to fruition. I'll be happy to support it. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Flynn. And it looks like Councilman Cashman, we have you back up in the queue. But if it's okay, we'd like to go to Councilmember Ortega since you've been up. All right. Thank you, sir. Councilmember Ortega. Thank you, Madam President. I just wanted to add my accolades to everyone who worked on this. I have seen so much of the transformation that has occurred in northwest Denver. Having lived here most of my adult life, and I think these changes are not only welcomed by the neighborhood, but really can be utilized across neighborhoods throughout our city and will benefit from the incredible hard work that everybody put into these changes that are moving forward tonight. So to Councilman Espinosa, Councilwoman Sandoval, to the Brennan neighborhood, for all of their commitment and dedication and many meetings, and to Christopher and Naomi.
Speaker 6: For your.
Speaker 0: Work and all of the other folks at CPD in helping to make this happen, because it's not always easy to get support from CPD staff with the kinds of changes that we often, you know, try to bring forward. And the fact that it really came across as being a genuine partnership in making these changes happen is is really exciting to see. And so I just want to congratulate you all, and I'm happy to support this tonight. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Ortega. Councilmember Torres. So much, just looking forward to being able to have kind of the next conversation with my district in Lima, Lincoln Park. Something like this was a work that had been generated by neighborhood residents and advocates along the Santa Fe Corridor, which is currently zoned for Main Street five stories and Main Street eight stories in some cases, and just starting to witness some of that growth begin. Folks were, I think, justifiably worried about the kind of active street use that would or would not come with that. And so I'm excited to support this and and bring the conversation to Santa Fe to see if this this brings the desired effects to that corridor that that they would like. So thank you so much for all the hard work. Thank you, Councilmember Torres. Councilmember Cashman.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Council President, quickly. I did not want to forget, especially, you know, put a smile on my face, too, to hear our colleague, former colleague, councilman, the Honorable Rafael Espinosa. I want to thank him for his work on this. But I also wanted to just mention quickly another subject that Councilman Espinosa was very interested in, that I hope we can move further down the road is the appropriate use of design review in our commercial projects. I'd seen in my own district some examples that they're just doggone shame to just, you know, you don't need to keep everything exactly the same. But I think it's important.
Speaker 6: That we show.
Speaker 5: Respect for the context and the history.
Speaker 4: In.
Speaker 5: All of our areas. So, again, I want to do I tip my hat to Councilman Espinoza and mentioned that part of his work that I hope we can carry forward. Thank you, council president.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Cashman, and appreciate that, Councilmember Flynn.
Speaker 5: I'm impressed. Just a quick note. I should have made mention of this that I found it ironic. Councilwoman Sandoval, you might want to look into this. Why? The Regis neighborhood had a high rate of residents without a college degree. I think you need to ask the Jesuits what's going on up there. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Well, I think we just heard a plug for some scholarships for the neighborhood out there. Well, I'll go ahead and chime in here. Last seen no more hands raised. A very happy to support this this evening. Councilmember Sandoval, and thank you for all of your intentional and authentic work that you always do within the community and always been so responsive to the voice of your community. And know that when you say years, you really mean years on this. And it was great to hear a little bit from former Councilman Espinosa as well. And so thank you for all of the work by yourself and your council office and Christopher as well. And so appreciate that and I will be happy to support both Council Bill 156 and 157 this evening and seeing no other hands raised. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 156 and 157.
Speaker 2: Sandoval.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 2: Sawyer. I. Torres, I. Black I. CdeBaca, I. Clark.
Speaker 5: All right.
Speaker 2: Flynn.
Speaker 5: I.
Speaker 2: Herndon.
Speaker 5: I.
Speaker 2: Heinz. Cashman.
Speaker 5: I.
Speaker 2: Ortega, I. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced the results.
Speaker 2: 12 days.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance amending the Denver Zoning Code.
Approves text amendment #9 to the Denver Zoning Code to establish a new Active Centers and Corridors Design Overlay zone district (DO-8), create consistency with the Shopfront form across contexts, and make other associated amendments in Articles 5, 9, and 13. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 2-16-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_03302021_21-0158
|
Speaker 2: 12 days.
Speaker 0: 12 Council bills 20 1-0156 and 20 1-0157 have passed. Councilmember Hines, would you please put council bills 158 and 159 on the floor for final passage.
Speaker 1: Of the council bills 20 10158 and 21 that 0159 be placed upon final consideration. And you pass in a black bag.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. It has been moved. And I think I heard that second from Councilmember Ortega. First there. So we got that the combined public hearing for Council Bill 158 and Council Bill 159 is open. Speakers may offer comments on either or both items and may we go ahead and have a staff report. And we have Brad Johnson with us this evening.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. We. My screen shoot here. Seeing that. Okay.
Speaker 0: You got it, Brad.
Speaker 4: Okay, thank you. One more thing. You. All right. So Brad Johnson, senior city planner and urban designer with CBD. I'm here to talk to you about Tech's amendment number ten to create a bungalow conservation overlay or scope six and the MAP Amendment 2020 899 to apply that conservation overlay in the Harkness cites portion of the Berkeley neighborhood . It's. Okay. This is sponsored by a councilwoman, Amanda Sandoval, of course. And the big idea here is to ensure and modify the zoning design standards in this area to ensure that development that occurs out here into the future is more compatible visually with the existing character of the neighborhood. So to the text amendment, we would actually create a bungalow conservation overlay C of six. We would make some supportive associated small amendments in articles 11 and 13, and then we'd do some minor kind of cleanup work to conservation overlay CO four, which is the Potter Highlands land just for clarity and consistency, nothing substantive there. And then again, a map amendment, tourism properties in harness heights from us, you see. And us you see. One to us you see z06 six and us you see 106. So we're in Council District one in the Berkeley neighborhood, Zoomin, just west of federal so so areas generally bounded by federal low 44th and 41st. There is this one hole in the middle of the rezoning area, which is pad which is not proposed to be was the overlay would not be applied to. So I'll talk about the text to amendment first. So very in 2010 when the zoning code was was updated. You know, when you're doing a zoning code update of that scale in a city the size of Denver, you have to come up with some manageable number of zoning classifications to apply to the to the thousands of acres of single unit residential areas around the city. And in doing so, you have to, to some degree, take a sort of a broader approach while still trying to be mindful of context sensitivity. And so they did do that. And our zone districts are set up to be context sensitive when it comes to predominant lots sizes, building coverages, the location of garages and things of that nature and driveways and such. But they knew the authors of the zoning code at that time, and maybe many of you that worked on it, and those in the community knew that they weren't going to get it all right. And so they they saw that ahead of time. And they put in place this mechanism, which is a conservation overlay, which allows council members, community members, the city, to to come in and essentially write custom zoning for specific areas to to right size that zoning to the character of a specific neighborhood. How it works is that the conservation overlay overlays or sits on top of the underlying zoning regulations, those baseline regulations stay in place and new or modified standards are also put in place through the conservation overlay where there's any difference between the two. The conservation overlay standards are those that apply. And then as you heard in the last presentation, the conservation overlay cannot modify permitted uses in the underlying districts. This would be the sixth conservation overlay in the city. So in ten years, really not that many have come online. So. So this bring us to a total of six. Just to quickly mention and I'll come back to this in more detail, but we do have a very specific and clear support from Blueprint Denver for the use of conservation overlays to enhance and retain the existing character neighborhoods. So I'm trying to give you a feel for what this neighborhood is like. If you go and walk this neighborhood and you look around and try to try to take it all in, I think mostly what you're going to see is you're going to see a. For the most part, you're going to see one story sort of bungalow as you would think. A bungalow neighbor, a bungalow, a building forms. You're going to see a mixing of two story forms as well. Throughout the neighborhood, buildings typically have pitched roofs, pretty modest footprint sizes and home sizes overall. As you look down the street, kind of taking in the streetscape, you'll see this sort of rhythm of traditional front porches that predict project from that front facade of the building. You also see that the first story or that street level story is typically raised after the grade a bit. And then here you'll see pretty generous side setbacks compared to some of our other neighborhoods in Denver. And then something really unique here in Harkness Heights is that you'll you'll know it. And then the data sort of backs this up, is that the setbacks from the South Side property line are typically more generous than those from the . So as a council district in the neighborhood came together and started thinking about this tool and the appropriateness of it for hurting as high as they want to first understand what could be built under the existing baseline regulations. So what you're looking at here is a graphic that indicates in the middle, sort of a typical bungalow house that you'd see in Harkness Heights, and then on the left and right, a couple of different styles of buildings that maxed out what you could do under the existing zoning. And so through those types of exercises, they identified a range of compatibility concerns that they wanted to address, which are summarized here in the slide. And they sort of landed on a series of key objectives to go into the development of this overlay, one, to ensure the development is compatible in scale and massing with the existing character of the neighborhood to ensure that the siting of buildings in this neighborhood reflect prevailing side set back patterns, as I just spoke about, to ensure that there is a maintenance of that, that a rhythm of one storey elements in this case projecting front porches and to mitigate potential impacts of upper level outdoor spaces on adjacent property within the adjacent properties. And within the context of those overlay objectives, they, the neighborhood and council also wanted to maintain a certain degree of design flexibility to allow for contemporary design or different materials maybe that were were typically or traditionally used in the neighborhood. So really focusing on form and not details like style and materials. So when I walked through some of the, the through all the conservation overlay elements themselves. So if adopted, this conservation overlay would reduce building height both in feet and in stories, and it would do so more significantly in as it pertains to feet for structures with what's called a low slope roof and as defined in the code that has to do with the pitch of the roofs. If you see the graphics over here, anything that's at three, 12, 3 to 12 pitch or less is considered a low slope roof, but for all intents and purposes is basically a flat or almost flat roof . And so that's a move to try to allow flat roof forms and almost flat roof forms that weren't really traditional to this neighborhood. But if if constructed, a certain height can still be compatible with the existing character. The overlay would put in place upper maximum or excuse me, minimum and maximum height for the upper surface of that street level floor of 12 inch and 36 inch respectively, to ensure that development in the area is scaled in terms of its first floor to fall within the range of what's typically seen in the neighborhood. The overlay would incrementally constrict the boat plane, which is a zoning code word, which essentially means the building envelope or volume within which a building can be built. Under the zoning code, some some some small tweak there to bring the scale and masking down a bit. It would put in place gross floor area maximums for the primary structure of 3000 square feet and allow additional flexibility for larger lots. And I just want to note here that again, this only applies to primary structure and it also only applies to above grade floor area. So if you have basement space or something like that, it wouldn't count against this. Oh. The overlay would also put in place what's called a lower slope, upper storey step. And what that says is that if you have a portion of a building that has a low slope roof greater than 15 feet, that that portion of the building above 15 feet must be set back from the primary. The lower portion of the primary street facing facade, a minimum of ten feet. I talked about citing the overlay for most lots out here would increase the minimum interior side setbacks incrementally and it would also require this setback to be staggered. So, again, a larger setback from the south sides on line than that from the north. The conservation overlay would require front porches be provided in development and that those front porches meet specified design criteria. And it would the overlay would prohibit rooftop and or second story decks that are on or above the second story or that are projecting from the building above the street level. You know, talk about the map amendment. Existing zoning, as I mentioned, was as you as you see and you as you see one, there's this 1c1 property in there that zoning was approved for that, I think, back in February. That's relatively new. And then you also see the zoning in the surrounding context. This map shows existing land uses in the rezoning area and then first round in the immediate context. Some more pictures of existing build, form and scale both within the neighborhood. And then some of those uses and forms an immediate context. The public outreach for this project was really amazing, both on behalf of her, as done by Councilwoman Sandoval and led by her and Councilman Espinosa before her time in office. And I would also say that the work by the residents of this neighborhood themselves and helping with the outreach was also nothing short of amazing and very, very rigorous. This display certainly doesn't do it justice. But I did want to highlight some of the some of the key outreach elements that were undertaken here. I'm in terms of public comment, we got a letter of support from the Heritage Sites Neighborhood Association, R.A. And we got as of the publishing in the staff report, I had received 25 letters of support and three in opposition. I think you have received a couple more letters of support since the publishing and the staff report. To my knowledge, the letters of support should be up to 27 at this point, although maybe you may have received others that I'm not aware of. Most of the letters in support are are in support of this because it is again, maintaining the character of the neighborhood as an overlay is intended to do. Some of the letters in opposition were generally in opposition to additional regulation, but just at an overall level, not a lot of specificity about specific points, the overlay that they were in opposition to. We followed the process for a text map amendment as as we were required. And that brought us here to the city council public hearing. For the review criteria, we have to look at both the specialized review criteria for a conservation overlay and also the typical legislative texts and map amendment review criteria. So we'll start with the conservation overlay. So what the zoning code says is that the area to which a conservation overlay is applied shall have one of the following distinctive building features or distinctive siting features. So I went over those already in the previous portion of the slide show. But suffice to say, staff certainly found that this overlay and and the area needs not just one but both of these criteria. So now I'll move into the adopted plans. The text and map amendment mean any number of of policies and can't plan 2043 of the ones that we found to be most relevant we've shown here for your reference. Moon to blueprint Denver. The future neighborhood context is urban, calling for residential areas, a single unit and two unit. This text and map amendment would not change the permitted uses in the area, so we're just simply maintaining consistency with your neighborhood context. Feature place type is low residential calling for predominantly single and two unit uses. Again, since the text and map amendment wouldn't change, the permitted uses of this action would just maintain consistency with a blueprint. Denver feature place type features, street types or combination of residential street types. Although most of the streets in the rezoning area are actually local on designated streets. But for those that are designated, what they call square is primarily primarily residential uses too. So but those streets and that those used to be modestly stepped back are sorry have modest front setbacks that would vary by neighborhood. In this case, this text and map amendment wouldn't change anything about the allowed uses or modify the front setbacks. Therefore it would just maintain consistent and see with future street types. And then growth area strategy. This is designated as all areas, all other areas of the city, meaning it's meant to accommodate incremental change. Over time, the tax amendment will continue to allow that incremental growth over time. So we maintain consistency with the future growth strategy. Excuse me. Couple other policies to point out. Again, the one I showed you earlier where Blueprint Denver specifically encourages to use conservation overlays in areas where there is a goal to retain the unique character of a neighborhood. And then also, there is a clear policy that supports this type of large scale legislative rezoning and text amendment, provided that there is a robust outreach. And certainly this text map would be consistent with both of these. As a large Texan map amendment, we need to do our equity impacts analysis. And so if you look at access to opportunity, this area is scored as having average access. The TEX Amendment and MAP amendment would not change the uses that are permitted. So wouldn't and would also not increase transit service or result in any specific development project. Therefore, it's likely to have no impact on access to opportunity. Involuntary displacement is area scored as not vulnerable. The text ma'am amendment. Excuse me. The text and map amendment would not change the permitted use as out here or increase the development potential in terms of the number of units that are allowed on a lot and therefore is likely to have no impact on involuntary displacement. In terms of housing diversity, the areas scored as having less diversity. For most measures, we think that for some of the same reasons I've been mentioning that that that the tungsten map and women are likely to have no impact on most of those measures. However, you look at home size diversity, which is one of the measures that may have some minor impact on that, and that it does place limitations on square footage which would result in smaller homes if new homes were to come along and may also have an effect of reducing the likeliness that a home would be demolished and replaced with a very large house because of the delta between what's on the ground and what can be built would be somewhat reduced here. Then for jobs, diversity, the the the area within the rezoning area that sort of made it on the board here. Half of the area didn't get it make it make the cut in terms of this measure at all. But the Western portion did and that block group scored is having more retail. And again, since this text and map amendment wouldn't change, the permitted use was like introducing other nonresidential uses than than what the underlying zoning already allows . It's likely to have no impact on jobs diversity. We also found that this rezoning would result in uniformity of district regulations, and there would also further public health, safety and welfare of the community, both by implementing adopted plans, but also maintaining this very walkable, pedestrian friendly area into the future. And so with that, CPD recommends approval of Denver Zoning Code Text Amendment Number ten, establishing bungalow conservation overlay CO six and associated amendments finding that the applicable review criteria have been met. And secondly, staff recommends approval of MAP Amendment 2020 999 rezoning USAC and USAC one zoned properties in the rezoning area to apply the SEAL six overlay zoning district, finding that the applicable review criteria have been met. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Well, thank you very much, Brad, for a concise staff report. We appreciate that. And tonight, council has received four written comments on Council Bill 158. There are four submitted comments in favor of the application and no submitted comment in opposition of the application. No written comments have been received for Council Bill 159. All members of Council that are present have certified that they have read each of the submitted written comments to 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 158 have been read by each member of Council and all written testimony will be submitted to the official record of the hearing this evening. We have seven individuals signed up to speak, and we're going to go ahead and get started with our first speaker, Tom Mobley. All right. Well, we had. Tom, we've got you here, Tom. We're going to need you to go ahead and unmute, please. All right. We're going to try to figure out what's. Going on with Tom's audio here. And in the meantime we'll. Go ahead and move to our next speaker and see if we can get Tom back up in the queue. Jonathan Tobacco.
Speaker 1: Yes. Hello? Can you hear me?
Speaker 0: Go ahead, John.
Speaker 1: Hey, thank you for having me tonight. My name's Jonathan Stokoe. I live in West Colfax, 802041. To make a couple of comments on this specific overlay and some concerns I have with the way it is, the language in the overlay and very supportive of overlays in general. Appreciate what you've done with the active transportation overlay and I do recognize the value of design elements here. But but I, but I sincerely worry that we have sort of gone too far with some of this language and restricted out some types of forms that would generally promote some of the city's goals around affordability. And particularly, we have and we also have some elements in here that are inconsistent with the reality of the neighborhood as it stands today, one of which is about the front porches. The guidelines say that a front porch must exist and cannot a lot more than exterior wall. This despite the fact that many of the original homes that are in this neighborhood right now are in violation of this rule. Wraparound porches are really common porches facing a driveway, in some cases, porches facing a side of a building. That is particularly true for the multi-family, the currently multi-unit spaces, and will restrict further development that makes multi-unit spaces attractive. My understanding from a discussion with a planner was this was not the intention. This did not intend to forbid wraparound. This was a mistake. But when I raised this feedback was told it was too late to make any changes because it had already gone, had been submitted, dilutive in some way. So we're passing something that doesn't actually meet the intent of of what the planners had designed. I'm also noting that there is this sort of apparently arbitrary and arbitrarily large figure of 120 square feet for front porches currently. Again, 100% of the multi-unit properties between 41st and 42nd are in violation of that. Their board sizes are too small. And I did learn that this square footage came from a meeting from neighborhood submitted measurements, neighbors who wanted to submit measurements. I'm assuming that folks with large, large porches are the one that submitted measurements to create an average, because looking around the neighborhood, most of the homes in the neighborhood right now violate this overlay criteria because their porches are too small. So in both of these cases, we were creating standards that don't actually match the reality. What we see today and again, I'm concerned. Put together a standard that encourages the creation of the most expensive housing type. Large single family bungalows with excessively large porches and space, etc. and will discourage affordable development here. Otherwise. I think that's that that's about it. I'm a little worried that there's a few stated intense here. Affordability is not one of them. And we we are doing things that may damage that city goal. And I'm concerned we haven't addressed that here. Thanks.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Jonathan. And Mr. Mobley, if we're not able to get you into the queue here, we see you, but you might need to log out and log back in. And our central staff will be looking for you in the attendees. And so we hope that we can get your audio and camera up working if you log back in again. And our next speaker is Roberta Anderson. And you're going to have to unmute.
Speaker 4: I'm unmuted.
Speaker 0: Okay, great. Mr. Mobley, if you can hold on. We'll get you up next in the queue. We've got another speaker ahead of you right now, sir. All right. Miss Anderson.
Speaker 2: Good evening. My name is Roberta Anderson, and I'm president of the Harkness Heights Neighborhood Association. And I would like to thank the council for taking the time to entertain our monologue conservation overlay. Before I come to you as the President of HRH in a my residence as a resident, my ties to the neighborhood go back 63 years or generations of my family have lived or now living in the neighborhood. My parents bought their home in 1956, raised myself and three siblings. We purchased our home in 1998. I raised two sons and now my granddaughters are residing in the neighborhood as well. With that being said, as president, I come before you with confidence to let you know that our board of directors of Harkness Heights supports this approval by voting ten in favor, zero against and one abstention. You'll hear in the testimony of Mr. Mobley and Greg Sader that we've worked endlessly and for many years and have reached out , reached and solicited feedback from the entire neighborhood. Keeping them up to date on the entire process. In July of 2019, counsel Amanda Sandoval and her staff took over the continuation of the overlay process from Counsel Espinosa. She brought on board Naomi Grundfest, who was invaluable resource in enhancing our overlay. So we were able to bring it back to the entire neighborhood for their review in March of 2020. Councilwoman Sandoval invited all property owners to two different town halls where she discussed herself, as well as her staff and the CDC representatives and our zoning chair after these two meetings. Every property owner was invited to share their thoughts and opinions on every component of this overlay via an online survey. If anyone had difficulty, we contacted them by phone or socially distanced them in person and helped them fill out the recent survey. I spoke I personally spoke with an 83 year old resident who had no computer or Internet access but wanted her opinions highly in favor of the overlay. With the survey, we reached 200. We had 211 responses six with a 62% response rate. Over 80% supported the overall overall overall overlay and shared comments on the specific elements. The task force, along with CBT and Amanda's staff, made adjustments to the sentiment of community. It was then turned over to CBT staff for formal drafting. Throughout this time, we kept the neighborhood abreast of the situation. As plans were finalized. We posted these on our web page as well and we emailed the hearing notifications to our residents as we see them. At this time, we would like to thank former Councilman Rafael Espinoza, Councilwoman Amanda Sandoval, their staffs and numerous volunteers for the endless hours of support they put into this overlay process to keep the unique, unique character of our neighborhood. Thank you very much. And please take this into consideration.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you so much for your comments. And next up, we have Tom Mobley. I see we've got your video and audio, sir. So go ahead, please.
Speaker 5: I apologize.
Speaker 4: I was using my laptop, which is the first time I've used it on a zoom. And halfway through it just said, you can't talk on zoom on your laptop. No worries. I blocked my iPad into India, so I'm back on. My name is Tom Mobley and I live at 4191 Irving Street. As a resident of hardness heights, I'm here to support the approval of City Council bills 20 10158159. The bungalow conservation overlay will ensure excuse me will ensure that Harkness Heights will retain its historic bungalow character as it continues to grow and thrive. My wife and I moved away from Denver in 1992 for employment offers. We relocated back to Denver in 2011, knowing that we wanted to find an individual vintage home in northwest Denver. We quickly discovered Hart inside, falling in love with his sense of community and small neighborhood feel. We purchased a wonderful 1923 crescent bungalow, of which we are only the third owner. In 2016, I was elected president of the Harkness Heights Neighborhood Association during my first year in that role. There were discussions among the Harkness House neighbors about the increasing amount of tear downs and new construction in nearby neighborhoods that were felt to be having a negative impact on the character of those neighborhoods. Those concerns motivated the Hhn eight to begin exploring what could be done to protect the unique character of our small enclave of 360 houses. We initiated discussions with Councilman Rafael Espinosa and his then aide, Amanda Sandoval, representatives of historic Denver, as well as members of the Berkeley Beach's United Neighbors, about our concerns and our best options. In March 2018, Councilman Espinosa and Denver CPD hosted a community town hall session for Brunt and Hhn, 31 of the total 51 residents attending were from Harkness Heights. Even though Harkness Heights comprises only 360 houses compared to approximately 4000 in Berkeley. Following discussions with Amanda, Rafael and CPD, we decided to not pursue a joint overlay with Brun, but pursue our own heart and insights overlay. We formed a task force of 31 residents who had attended the Joint Town Hall and in May 2018 with the assistance of Amanda Sandoval. We hosted the initial organizing meeting of our Art and Insights Task Force from the beginning and throughout the entire process to develop the conservation overlay for heart insights, we committed to to engage the entire neighborhood in the review discussions, crafting and final approval. We maintained frequent and open communications with the neighborhood through the entire process. Our effective outreach effort utilizes direct mail in all property owners, town hall and annual membership meetings. Numerous newsletter email, nextdoor notices and hand-delivered fliers. We are confident that we met our commitment to keep the entire community engaged and informed along the way.
Speaker 0: That's the time we have allotted for each speaker this evening. Glad we got you backed up into the queue. Our next speaker is Gregory Sader. Go ahead, please.
Speaker 5: All right. As you can all hear me.
Speaker 0: Mm hmm. Go ahead.
Speaker 5: Greg said earlier that 41, 85 Irving Street Farms, neighbor of our zoning committee, asked me to play a role, and I. I accepted that. And. Subsequently advised the task force committees. I am an I'm a resident of Northwest Denver since 1994, living in Eileen's, then Sunnyside, and then moving here to Harkness Heights in 2012. So I've seen all the grit and I've seen all the growth and all the all the, you know, all the changes that have occurred.
Speaker 4: In the neighborhood over the years. And, you know, listening to the.
Speaker 5: And street overlay, you know, I think in Harkness Heights, we have we have those concerns that were expressed there as well. And so we ventured into this this effort to try to preserve our neighborhood character. I'm an architect. I've been practicing for the past 20 years. And so that's I think that's why I'm tapping you to to to advise the group. And so my my effort was really focused on helping the neighborhood residents understand from these codes and to help us navigate and really try and just help people to understand the language of the code and how the formal based code, you know, affects that character of the neighborhood. And so really, I think the task force efforts were were were very productive, very engaging.
Speaker 4: And.
Speaker 5: You know. Rocio Espinosa Huntsman started that process. Brought on a consultant for us that did an amazing an amazing effort of of surveying the neighborhood and sort of defining characteristics of the neighborhood for us that we were able to incorporate into the overlay. It was very vibrant, active workshop.
Speaker 4: Style meetings that led to some really good discussions.
Speaker 5: And I think furthered and bettered the outcome and. I hope you all support our efforts. And thank you, too.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Mike Corden Day.
Speaker 4: Thank. Thank you. Council President. Distinguished Council members. Can you see me? Can you hear me?
Speaker 0: We can hear you. We can't see you, Mike.
Speaker 4: Okay. Sorry about that. My wife and I reside at 4269 Julien Street in Denver. Having is operator two and one. I've heard the testimony that preceded my own or excuse me prissy my. I'm delighted to hear the passion that we all share about the special neighborhood. I come at this from a slightly different angle.
Speaker 5: I'm a past president of.
Speaker 4: Harken cites circa 1994, a 29 year resident in my education, training and experience includes both undergraduate and graduate degrees in community and regional planning. My undergraduate degree having an emphasis on historic preservation. My graduate degree being from the University of Colorado.
Speaker 5: At Denver and also the principal.
Speaker 4: Of a small land planning consulting firm based in Evergreen. My having had some 38 years of combined public and private sector experience, and I've been on the overlay task force for three years since its inception.
Speaker 5: In an effort.
Speaker 4: To conserve time and avoid repetition. I think my message is simple. We as a neighborhood pulled together, along with the competent guidance from Councilman Sandoval and Councilman Espinosa before her. Her staff and the staff of CPD to try and create something that reaches beyond the typical protections that traditional zoning achieves. And rather than get into that discussion about the nuts and bolts language, about the overlay that CPD's Brad Johnson summarized so eloquently, I wish to share a story with you.
Speaker 5: Shortly before a February 3rd planning board hearing.
Speaker 4: A good friend of mine who just retired from his landscape architecture practice and I met in our back yard for a socially distant year due to COVID. We had not seen each other in a very long time.
Speaker 5: Shortly after we.
Speaker 4: Settled in for a visit, I asked him how his trip was. He came from Race Street on the east side of Washington Park. And while I don't mean any disrespect for the owners of the many beautiful homes that exist in that area now, my friend responded that it was a rare treat to visit our neighborhood, where much of the original character has remained unaltered.
Speaker 5: He added that the house south of him and on the corner.
Speaker 4: Was recently raised and replaced with a big black box, adding that he is tired of living in the shadows and that they will likely sell their family home and that same teardown and replacement template will likely be repeated. In fact, both he and his wife are avid gardeners and he said This is the first year where they will not be planting due to their loss of solar gain in sunlight.
Speaker 5: Madam President and council members, that is sad.
Speaker 4: But today we have an opportunity to take a different approach. We have an opportunity to supplement the existing zoning within Harkness sites with a largely community driven bungalow overlay initiative. And we respectfully.
Speaker 5: Request your support. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mike. Our last speaker this evening is Amber Carrasco.
Speaker 3: Hey, Lenny. There's my video. Okay.
Speaker 0: Go ahead.
Speaker 3: Hello. A sincere thank you to each one of you for taking the time to be present at this hearing. A special thanks to the city councilman, especially Amanda Sandoval, for sponsoring sponsoring this overlay and also Brad and Amy for their hard work. I truly appreciate the efforts to help ensure this changing city maintains much of what makes it unique. I am asking for your wholehearted support for zoning change 20 10158 and five nine. I am a Colorado native with a deep love for this state in all of its beauty. My husband and I moved to Harkness Heights in July of 2019. We looked at around 120 homes before deciding on our 1911 craftsman charmer. As a realtor in Colorado for 14 years. We were able to move quickly on our dream home. A large part of the appeal to this home was the neighborhood full of charm, mature landscaping, beautifully maintained older homes with few scrapes. This is what we wanted a neighborhood where owners were preserving the character and not tearing it down. As a member of the younger generation living in Harkness Heights. The charm of the bungalows that make up the streets in this area is something I want to be a part of keeping and not changing. We are one of the 20 larger lots in the area and there was no way I would ever knock down our home to build a larger home with less land. In fact, I ripped up over 800 square feet of sod and now grow a vegetable garden. Although the time I have lived here has been shorter than most, the love for the area neighbors and charm runs deeply in my veins. After reading through the 200 plus survey responses, there were two concerns a few residents had. One is regarding values, and the other is property rights. As a realtor, I wanted to see if the concerns about an overlay negatively affecting value was true. I heard the data from the MLS and this is what I found. I use the Potter Highlands overlay boundary for this data. It went into effect in November 2015. I used sold home values in this area and then compared it to the entire metro area for the same time period. What I found where the values went up 46% in the metro area over the last five and a half years. The value increase in Potter Highlands was 43%, just in line with the Metro average. These numbers are very few any cause for concern with overlays negatively affecting value. The other concern some had on the survey was about property rights. No matter when you purchased your home, you bought a home that had some type of limitation on what could be built or changed. Billing constraints have been a part of the city since 1925. So over the last 95 years, there have been limits. This overlay is seeking to refine those limits to ensure this neighborhood keeps the energy, esthetics and character it has maintained for over a century. As the results from the survey indicated, the large majority of residents are in favor of this overlay. With over 80% of the respondents in support. This overlay is also in line with Denver's comprehensive 2040 plan. Striving to celebrate architecture, keeping smaller, more affordable homes, and maintaining the character and vibrancy in this area. I kindly ask for your support to vote in favor of this overlay to preserve the charm of Harkness Heights. Thank you for your time, and I appreciate having the opportunity to speak on behalf of our wonderful neighborhood.
Speaker 0: All right. Well, thank you, Amber, and to all of our speakers this evening. And that concludes our speakers questions from members of Council on Council Bill 158 and or Council Bill 159. And we've got a couple of members up in the queue. Councilmember CdeBaca, your first.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Just wanted to ask Brad a little bit about.
Speaker 0: The list of.
Speaker 3: Building features or site features that qualify under the criteria. I'm really excited.
Speaker 2: About this.
Speaker 3: And want to thank Councilwoman Sandoval for her work on this.
Speaker 2: And I'm interested in it for some parts of.
Speaker 3: My district, but also a little bit worried.
Speaker 2: Because it seems like the.
Speaker 3: Features might be associated with people.
Speaker 2: Who might have had more.
Speaker 3: Money when they were constructing their homes.
Speaker 2: And so I want to know, like, what are the things that could count as the building features or the siting features?
Speaker 4: Yeah. I appreciate that question. I'm trying to bring up the section so I can give you a very clear answer, but I would while I try to find that, I'll just say that it's typically about the form of the buildings in the area. And so a typical process would be to do an analysis of a certain area to determine, you know, what the data and what's actually on the ground is telling us. It could be roof form, it could be the presence of porches, it could be the siting of the building, it could be materials, it could be a lot of different things. And so the key is that it focuses on sort of the physical form of of both building and siting features. So I think there's a quite a bit of flexibility actually in terms of of. Well, what can be on the table for what constitutes what's appropriate for a conservation overlay? And it might be completely different in one area versus another, and a neighborhood might have a different view about what compatibility means in one area versus another.
Speaker 2: And what is the process for inferred catalyzing? Is there a decision involved?
Speaker 3: So I'd like to chime in on your first question. So there's an important piece of documentary. It's called Discover Denver. So Discover Denver has done it works with historic Denver and community planning and development. And they did an analysis of this area. I want to say that this analysis came out in 2015, and it talks about some of the characteristics that you mention. And so that is how we got a lot of the report done, is if you go into them, discover Denver, they've done some of Globeville, various ones here. Jefferson Park mine is called the 1920s, small, lot, small homes. And so actually it was these homes were not associated with people who had more money. It was actually a group of architects who founded an association in 1914 to come up with homes so families could move into them. But they were it was nationwide and they were constructed so that they could be affordable for families moving into this area. So I can share that with you. But I just wanted you to know that there's this amazing resource out there that started this work. And I found that when I was working for Councilwoman Monteiro to help figure out where it should go next. And we pointed it, directed it to Global in Swansea because of the gentrification and change in the built environment. Thank you.
Speaker 2: And Brad.
Speaker 3: Can you catch.
Speaker 0: The other.
Speaker 2: The other question.
Speaker 3: About how how many people you need or how many blocks you need to catalyze this process? And is there like a petition involved.
Speaker 2: Where homeowners have to approve it?
Speaker 4: No, there's no formal homeowner approval. I think typically the council district representative is the one that sort of leads the process. So of course, you could talk to to Councilwoman Sandoval and she could tell you about her experience in doing that. We have developed some basic guides in CPD that we could provide you just for what the typical process might be to develop a conservation overlay. But again, this is sort of just guidance, understanding that every every case is different. And and there's no hard and fast rule about, you know, you need this many votes, etc., etc.. What we would be looking for to make a recommendation for a conservation overlay and CPD, of course, would be that there was adequate outreach, that it seemed like there was a consensus that this was in a direction that people that own property in the neighborhood wanted to go. But it's not like, you know, must be 60% or anything hard and fast like that. And if I can, just to your other question, I found that piece of of code says to apply a conservation overlay to the district should contain distinctive building features such as a period such as period of construction style, size, scale, detailing, mass color and material or the design or distinctive site planning and natural features such as light cladding, building, light coverage, street layout, setbacks, alleyways, sidewalks, creek beds, parks and gardens. So I mean, I just read that to give you a sense of how how broad and flexible this tool is.
Speaker 3: Awesome. Thank you so much. You'll be here for me. That's it for me.
Speaker 4: All right. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Up next, Councilmember Hines.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Council President I have a question about Slide 15, the scale and massing, specifically the upper surface of the floor on street level. I, I understand there was a bit of a conversation in your, in your process about the, you know, ensuring that there on grade was not allowed and that that meant the minimum surface was between 12 and 36 inches. Specifically with regards to the disability community. And actually, I want to thank Councilmember Sandoval and your office for for providing this again today. So I just I it sounds like you had a rich engagement. You had some conversation about that. So. So, Mr. Johnson, perhaps you can you can talk about that, that engagement process.
Speaker 4: Oh, happy to start. And Councilman Sandoval and or Naomi may want to jump in after. So, yeah, we struggle with this one a little bit. On the one hand, this is such a character defining element in the neighborhood, right? I mean, when you think of a bungalow form, that's what you think of. The porch is like a little bit a and you're sort of hanging out in the porch above the street level. Right. And so the the importance of that physical characteristics of the neighborhood was was clear from the beginning. On the other hand, we did want to be mindful of accessibility issues. So we did a couple of different things. So we we did ultimately decide in coordination with the council district in the neighborhood to keep the rule about, you know, minimum 12, maximum and 36 inch for that first floor and place. But we did a couple of other things to build in a little bit more flexibility. So first thing we did was we. So in the existing code, in the baseline regulations, you are allowed to to have an ADA around that that encroaches into the setback area for an existing building only and only if you exacerbated all other options beyond the front set back first. So the first thing we did with this overlay was we said, forget about that, we're making this new rules, so let's build in more flexibility. So we said no, in this overlay, you you can encroach into any set back regardless of whether it was your best or third or second option or whatever. So you can do that period. And we also made it so that you could do that for an existing or a new building. The other thing we did was we made that rule so that it only applied to the front 40% of the zone lot depth. So it's really just the front part of the house. So that would allow perhaps a little bit more flexibility, you know, in the rear portion of the lot or even the middle portion of a lot to gain that access.
Speaker 1: And it is. Oh, sorry. Go ahead.
Speaker 3: Yes. So just wanted you to know that as soon as this got brought up about ADA Access, we immediately reached out to the Division of Disability Rights for in Denver and talked to Dr. Russo, Aisha, and talked to her about concerns or different issues that we had heard. And so we vetted this several different times in several different ways. So I know exactly what you're talking about. And ultimately, what is a character defining feature in Harkness Heights also is to have a higher ceiling so that people can have basements because we have the Denver Hill and the topography so strange and the water table has gone up a lot of times is people aren't having as big basements. And in northwest Denver, especially in Harkness Heights, you can actually have some apartments, like you can have an attached accessory dwelling unit basement or accessory ground unit in these units. And so that was a character defining feature that we found in our analysis that we did do extensive outreach to the Office of Disability Rights. And if needed, you can always go to the VOA to buy right to bypass the standard of the overlay if needed, because it is in the church itself. It's a hardship.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you for your your thoughts and context. And we were all and actually so one other question this actually does it apply to it applies to new construction, but also existing construction is is that right? So the whole construction. That really changes in the FDA requirements. And you said 40%, and I think I heard you say that that also can apply to existing dwellings, that they also have additional flexibility should they want to make accessibility improvements.
Speaker 4: That's correct. And that's allowed in the baseline current.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you. Council President.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Councilmember Hines, Councilwoman Sandoval, we have you up.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. I just would like to call up one of our speakers, former Councilman Espinosa. He worked on a lot of the part that Councilman Hines is talking about. So I just wanted to bring him up to see if he has any clarifying thoughts or any anything else that he can add to the conversation.
Speaker 0: All right. Sounds good. We've got him moved up into the queue. And I have to say, a couple of these slides I think I've seen in the past, not just in the recent committee, but from way back when, when we were talking about the scale and massing. So welcome back, former Councilman Espinosa. And if you wanted to address the councilman's question.
Speaker 5: Yep.
Speaker 4: Thank you for the opportunity again. Council President.
Speaker 6: The yeah. So as a.
Speaker 4: At the time this started, I was a licensed architect and I just want to be very clear that federal ADA does not apply to privately owned homes. It is only for public facilities. And so the right of way, you know, public buildings and whatnot. And so this was something we were super cognizant of. But at the same time, if you lose, if you know the topography of this neighborhood, the only way to to access a new construction home would be to basically to demolish the historic Denver Hill and build a form that is completely antithetical to the neighborhood. So what we were pursuing was a conservation overlay, which is a very specific tool in the Denver zoning code toolbox, not unlike, say, the Cris, the park conservation overlay that we approved in prior council. So it's, it's, it's addressing unique features to this specific community. And among them is the elevated ground floor level. That being said, being mindful of the topography changes the alleyways most of most, if not all the blocks are accessible through alleys. And so if you have the resources to build a new construction project and excavate out the hill and bring your building down, you probably would have the resources as an architect. It would be far simpler to to enter level from from your an accessible garage into an accessible home. And the rest of the tools and rules in the overlay district do allow for a fully accessible unit to be built. It's the it's the front porch access. That would be a challenge, but it would be a challenge nonetheless, mostly because of topography. So it is something we were mindful of. But again, ADA itself, federal ADA rules do not apply to single family homes.
Speaker 5: That are built with private dollars, I should say.
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Former Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Sandoval, did you have any other questions for the councilman? All right. Well, might just keep you up here, because I see Councilman Hines has has raised his hand again. And so we're going to go ahead and go to Councilmember Ortega and get her question asked, and then we'll go back to you, Councilman Hines. Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. I wanted to ask a question about the the size of the porches. One of the speakers raised the question about the fact that some of the porches are actually smaller than what the language calls for. And clearly, we're not saying that they have to go build a larger porch. This, I'm assuming, applies to any new construction that would happen in the neighborhood that would require a larger porch. So can either Mr. Johnson or Councilman Sandoval just clarify that that point.
Speaker 3: Yeah. I'm happy to take this and grab a minute by myself. Feel free to come. So when the speaker Jonathan from my facts met with my staff, Naomi, three things were inaccurately portrayed in those comments. It specifically this overlay specifically made it clear which is Naomi made it clear that the wrap around purchase in no way are prohibited. We wouldn't want to create anything that's not prohibited now and that the standards are merely their minimums. So it's just a minimum standard to have a porch and you can go above that minimum as much as you would like to, and you can have a wraparound porch if that's something that you would like to. About the comment above the duplex form having side porches. There are seven duplexes in Harkness Heights and only two of them have had entries on the side and that's due big to the corner. It's a corner unit and they're in trees on the side. So the other duplex has its newly built and it's not an original building. And so the data on the porch was collected not not by name, not by the neighborhoods it would come from. And Espinosa hired Helena architecture from from Boulder, and they did all the data collecting and all of the information gathering. It wasn't just neighbors putting together information. It was it was I wouldn't do that. It was very meticulous and very thoughtful. And then Naomi vetted it and vetted it and vetted it time and time again. So I hope that answers your questions.
Speaker 0: Yeah, that's very helpful. I'm trying to understand they know there was some comparison to the Outer Highlands conservation overlay in Potter. Highlands is also a historic district and I'm just curious why overlay versus historic districts? For this area.
Speaker 3: So the Potter Highland overlay, that's a two unit zoning. So it's different zoning and that was for the infill development that was not they didn't feel like was taking cues from the Potter Highland Design Review Board that is there. So that one was for infill development and it was the Harkness Heights Association voted prior to us getting involved. And they decided that they didn't want to do a historic district. They wanted to pursue the conservation overlay. And that was when Tom Mabrey talked about the conversation with historic Denver. That was when they decided that they didn't want to pursue a historic district, that they would rather pursue the conservation overlay.
Speaker 0: So it was the neighborhood that made that decision.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 2: Great.
Speaker 0: Those are all the questions I have.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Ortega and Councilmember Hines, we got you back up.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Council President So I don't remember. ESPINOSA Absolutely not. But but not that he needs aid. Nobody needs affirmation from me. Excuse me. The Honorable Espinosa is absolutely right. It doesn't apply to single family units. And so that's why I mentioned accessibility as opposed to specifically ADA, you know, and I also totally get that, that we should retain some of the neighborhood character. I think that if we destroy neighborhood character for I mean, the whole idea of this is to create more neighborhood character, not just, you know, McMansions or whatever. So I, you know, personally, I'm a fan of universal design. And so if I cannot access an entrance the same way as everyone else, then I wouldn't live there. But that that's my personal choice. That's not a choice that we should make as a, you know, as a deliberative body for every every place in the city or in this you know, in this overlay. But but here's an interesting observation. Since my crash, I haven't seen it where my friends live or the people I've dated. I don't know if they keep a clean house or a messy house or they have pictures on their walls or whatever. And and it's I try to create neighborhood. It's been really amazing to have you in in my time on council. A lot of those a lot of those properties have elevators. And it's partly because they know that we're aging as a as a state, we're aging as a society. And and so more and more people will have accessibility concerns. But but I think, you know, something that's interesting to me is being able to visit where friends live. And so. I get the idea of the Denver Hill and I get the idea that that we shouldn't steamroll what is amazing, you know, in in a particular neighborhood that makes that character of the neighborhood. I guess you mentioned the early access, though, and that's interesting to me. And I wonder, because I had my hands full with District ten, I didn't know this, you know, this area as well. But I wondered if the that alley access you mentioned that was agreed. Is that what you're saying, that that's an aspiration or is it generally that the homes in this area are at great? In, Ali.
Speaker 4: And I love to speak.
Speaker 0: Well, I. I was sort of waiting for Brad to chime in there or counsel one of our. But if you know the answer, Councilman Espinosa, please go ahead and chime in.
Speaker 6: These homes, you know, built.
Speaker 4: In the twenties and stuff and whatnot, they are not they are not without obstacles when entered from the rear, that's for sure. But the I was saying from a technical standpoint on a new construction project.
Speaker 5: The Delta, the.
Speaker 4: Great difference between the alley and the first floor is is basically the six inches that you would build a foundation that would be the only requirement. Whereas the great difference between that same floor level and the street level is typically well in excess of 30 inches. It's probably closer to 60. But and that's without.
Speaker 5: The additional the additional floor level that we're in, that datum that we're.
Speaker 4: Establishing. So it is it is just the nature of the nature of the topography, that.
Speaker 5: It is.
Speaker 4: A much closer I mean, a much shorter rise.
Speaker 5: Over a longer run from.
Speaker 4: Alley to rear entrance.
Speaker 5: Than it is from front entrance.
Speaker 4: To street.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. I'm sorry. Go ahead. Go ahead, Councilman Hines. I didn't know if Councilman Sandoval wanted to to answer as well.
Speaker 3: Yes. Thank you. So, as Rafael mentioned, this is for new construction or for anybody who wants to age in place. And we have a lot of people in this neighborhood who are looking to age in place. And this has been in discussion. And a lot of the I've lived across the street from this neighborhood. I live on the other side of 44 for almost 20 years now. And aging in place, I think, in Denver is a big conversation. And so we when we were talking about this with the Office of Disability Rights, we did talk about that. And that's why we brought in the ability for them to go to the. And oftentimes, you will see in this neighborhood, not throughout all northwest Denver, but the topography changes so drastic in this neighborhood, you can start on 44th and go down to 41st in the cities in the Seattle area and probably drop 50 feet, if not more. So many times homes as people have had hip replacements or knee replacements, major surgeries. They do end up having bigger garages in the back and they do usually access their homes through the back. I've seen it and they've entered some houses that you bring up great points about the fact that you're not able to go visit your friends. And that's something that I have thought about without aging in place for sure.
Speaker 1: Yeah. And and I don't mean that. I mean that it needs to be built for me. I'm just thinking as we be personally Christians, but you know, just as we as we do get older as a as a society, I think having a way to to break bread with with your friends or neighbors that helps us with community. And so that I with new construction, you know, just be nice to have that that consideration of that if if it's effectively grayed through the alley. I think that that's a reasonable accommodation to use an 80 term. Again, 88 is not quite but it is a to use the term having that, that ingress and egress maybe not through the front and um, and so, but anyway, that really the main reason why I brought it up is to think, you know, the District one office for, for your fourth art and I say the District one office because I know, I know all of us, but knows it was also thinking about it. So and I. But Councilmember Sandoval, thank you for for continuing that that deliberative process. So that's that's what I think you council president.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Council Member Hines, and thank you, former council member Espinosa for also joining us this evening. And the public hearing is closed. Comments from members of Council on Council Bill 158 and or Council Bill 159. Councilmember Sandoval.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. When I think about the classic timber brick bungalow, I instantly think of partner sites. I love that type of original neighborhood architecture and my change is constant. It is so important to fight for what you love and what makes Stender distinctive. The rapid rise of out of scale and out of character infill and redevelopment in surrounding Berkeley neighborhood after the 2010 overhaul of the citywide residential zoning code spurred Harkness Heights to action. Not only did this neighborhood come together to get involved, but they have done it in such a thoughtful and thorough way. Home is where the heart is. And as we've had tough and important conversations. The discussions at the meetings were wide ranging, including the potential effect on property values and demand for homes, and the potential impact on homeowners planning to undertake additions or renovations to their properties. The task force has work with two objectives in mind to encourage preservation or partial preservation of existing homes instead of scrapes, and to have new buildings enhance the character of the neighborhood. The result of these community conversations is a strong proposal that balances the need for change and growth with the with the preserving with preserving what the community values most about their unique neighborhood. The neighborhood engagement for this effort has been inspiring. It started as as when I was a council aide. There have been countless small meetings of dedicated community volunteers. Numerous large task force gatherings and four community wide town halls. Harkness Heights Neighborhood Association went door to door, making sure everyone's voice was heard and had one on one conversations with anyone who had not participated during the survey. At each step of the way, we've gone back to multiple levels of stakeholders to vet new information, carefully considering unintended consequences, and voting together on a path forward. I would like to thank everyone who has participated in this process, starting with my predecessor, Councilman Espinosa, who brought me Naomi McLendon, who goes above and beyond, has taken phone calls about the overlay and worked really diligently and methodically on this. I would love to thank Brad for numerous hours he spent working with Naomi and myself, vetting information back and forth. And I would like to thank Tom Mobley, who led this and has been a champion of this over May for a very long time. Roberta Anderson, who is now the president and everyone on the small task force and the large task force. And most of all, once again, I'd have to say, I just have to thank my staff. Thank you, Gina, for setting up the meetings. Thank you for going above and beyond. Thank you, Manny. And just my staff. I can't. None of this would be possible if I didn't have a staff supporting me and all my crazy zoning ideas that I say, let's make a difference. But it makes them work even harder. And I just have to say that the last overlay I mean, this overnight, we had to pivot. We had to pivot due to COVID. We did this while people were losing their family members. We did this for people. We're experiencing something that no generation has ever experienced, a great pandemic. And we moved virtually. And I just want to say thank you to my community for pivoting and being able to move virtually. And thank you to my staff supporting me on long nights when I didn't know what to do. And you always just had confidence that we could figure it out together. And with that, I would ask for everyone's support. Thank you so much.
Speaker 0: Well, thank you, Councilmember Sandoval. And thank you to the CPD staff and Brad and all of your staff as well. Council member Sandoval and the speakers who joined us here tonight and shared their perspective. I'm happy to support both council bills 158 and 159. And Madam Secretary, roll call on both of those bills, please.
Speaker 2: Sandoval.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 2: Sawyer. I. Torres. I. Whack. I see tobacco. I. Clark.
Speaker 1: All right.
Speaker 2: Flynn.
Speaker 5: All right.
Speaker 2: And then.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 2: HINES.
Speaker 1: All right.
Speaker 2: Cashmere.
Speaker 5: Hi.
Speaker 2: Ortega. Hi, Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced results.
Speaker 2: Well, I.
Speaker 0: 12 Ies Council Bills 20 1-0 158 and 20 1-0159 have passed. Congratulations. Council Member Sandoval. On Monday, April 19th, Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 257, changing the zoning classification for 4735 North Equipment Street in Berkeley and a required public hearing on Council Bill 258. Changing the zoning classification for 4345 excuse me, 4530 North Wynona Court in Berkeley and 4345 North Bryant Street in Sunnyside. Any protests against council bills? 257 or 258 must be filed with the council offices no later than noon on Monday, April 12. And there being no further business before this body, this meeting is adjourned.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance amending the Denver Zoning Code relating to overlay districts.
Approves text amendment #10 to the Denver Zoning Code to establish a new Bungalow Conservation Overlay zone district (CO-6), make associated amendments in Articles 11 and 13, and amend the Potter Highlands Conservation Overlay (CO-4) for clarity and correctness. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 2-16-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_03222021_21-0233
|
Speaker 1: Yes I move that council bills 20 1-0233 and 20 10234 be ordered published in a black bag.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded the combined 30 minute courtesy public hearing for Council Bill 233 and Council Bill 234 is open. Speakers may offer comments on either or both items. The Office of Human Resources has previously presented these items at our Finance and Governance Committee, and they are available to answer questions after the hearing . And it looks like we have.
Speaker 1: Three folks.
Speaker 0: Signed up to speak this evening. And our first speaker is Mike McKee.
Speaker 2: Good evening, council members, and thank you for taking my comments. I while I had to make a choice, when I signed up to speak as to whether I was speaking for or against the bill I chose against, although I am not generally opposed overall to the proposed changes to the pay and classification plan. However, I do have one area of particular concern which has to do with the proposed method for handling positions that fall more than 10 to 20% behind the market, behind market pay. It has those two different thresholds depending on the length of time that they were behind market. And unless I'm missing something, it appears to me that and I'd like to say, first of all, I guess I to step back that with my group at the airport did and I'm sorry, I didn't fully introduce myself. My city of residence is Aurora, but I'm a city employee and I work at the airport. So but I do have to first thank the group of employees that are who met with us two different times to help answer our questions and help us to understand the proposal. They were very helpful and really kind in spending significant time with us to try to understand. But I still have that one aspect, as I said, that I'm not clear on and I'm concerned about because it appears that from the plan, unless something has changed in the interim, that there isn't a methodology that I see for bringing a position that falls more than 10% below market. Back up to market or closer than 10% below. It looks like the plan is designed to only bring those positions back to 10% below. And I know there are some complicating factors. There's lag in a survey data, and sometimes you can overshoot and end up actually on the other side of the equation where it can be higher than market. So I know there some buffer that they're trying to build in there. And they they indicated when we discussed that that there may be other mechanisms that can be used to bridge that gap. But I'm not clear on what those are and haven't heard a concise explanation of what an alternate method might be for for addressing that. So I'm concerned that that the plan might leave a number of positions over time, at least 10% behind market for a length of time. Thank you. That's all I had.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you very much, Mike. And next up, we have Annie Christianson.
Speaker 1: Hi, counsel. How are you today? Thanks for letting us speak on this. Um, you know, to reiterate what Mike McKee was saying, you know, we're kind of worried about, you know, how what mechanism that they're going to be using to, you know, get people up to their market rates. It's not clear in the Gallagher consultation package. And, you know, without and also without a pay survey, you know, the 2020 pay survey did not get approved as well as, you know, the other the pace or even for 2021 potentially not being approved as well. You know, while leaving people 10%, you know, behind the market all the time, there might be quite, quite a financial burden once the pay surveys start up again and, you know, leaving employees behind. By so far, it'll be two years, three years before employees are caught back up to market pay. So I think, like Mike McKee was saying, you know, there's really nothing in this presentation that really explains how what mechanism they're going to be using to, you know, get people up to market pay. And yeah, that's a bit worrisome and. While I think it's a good idea to make the processes more efficient and easier to do the survey to help classification and compensation to, you know, make sure that employees are being paid what they're supposed to be being paid. Yeah, I just worry that there's not a good enough explanation on how that will come about. So thank you so much for your time.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Annie. And our last speaker is Jesse Paris.
Speaker 2: Yes. Good evening. Members of council, those watching at home. My name is Justin Muschamp Pierce and I'm representing for Black Sox and War for Self-defense Front line, Black Nose Unity Party of Colorado. And I will be the next mayor of Denver in 2023. My question. In regards to this bill oh and I reside in District eight and Councilman Emergence District in regards to this bill tonight I had a few questions. I wanted to know if this pertains to all city employees or if it just applies to so-called service providers, front line responders. Exactly what categories of employees does this apply to all city employees or just a certain segment of city employees? So somebody could please answer that question. I would greatly appreciate it. All right. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak tonight.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Jesse. And that concludes our speakers this evening. Questions from members of Council on Council Bill two, three, three and or council Bill two, three, four. Councilmember Hines.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. Just is it true that that many cities are opting out of pay surveys for South excuse me, salary surveys in 2021? I think that's all right.
Speaker 0: Thank you for the question. We've got Karen Parco on the line and Nicole as well. And so we'll go ahead and ask Karen. You can go ahead and unmute and answer Councilman Haynes question or Nicole, whichever. Hi. This is Karen Parco, Office of Human Resources.
Speaker 1: Yes. First of all, thank you very much, Counsel, for your consideration of this bill. And thank you so much to Mr. McKeon, Mr. Paris and Ms.. Christiansen for their questions. Nicole is on the line here, and her her team is the one that has put considerable amount of work into these proposals and has met with several of the agencies answering employee questions. So I'm going to ask Nicole if she would mind addressing each one of these questions directly. Hi. Good evening.
Speaker 0: Go ahead and call.
Speaker 1: Good evening, council members. I hope you can hear me okay. I can answer these questions for you for sure. To address Mr. Parrish this question. The consolidated pay tables and the new streamlined processes to address position audits and of cycle pay adjustments and market adjustments. And the many sundry components of these proposals will apply to all city employees, with a few exceptions. So they will not apply to elected officials, to appointed charter officers, to the uniform, collectively bargained employees. So it's not applying to every single cohort of employees. So but but most it will apply to most. So that is the answer to that question. And I think Councilman Hines was asking if other cities were not doing pay survey types of of adjustments and processes. And from what we are seeing in the literature, that is absolutely true. We saw a very recent compelling survey from World of Work that showed that market adjustments were down significantly. Organizations are just not in financial straits to provide those or lack the data to support such adjustments. And then the other questions that Mike and Annie were were addressing, and I did meet with Mike and Annie, and so thank you guys for acknowledging that we did meet with you and spend time with you. So their question was around the market adjustment methodology and getting employees to within 10% of market. And the reason for the 10% plus or -10% of market median pay is considered market. That's a leading practice. You'll find that in almost every organization. And so when we're trying to close the gap to get within ten plus or -10% with that 10% number, I mean, that's kind of a it's it's a bit ephemeral, right? Market data is it's just market data. It's one one it's one piece of data. And, you know, we don't want to as I think Mike McKee, Mr. McKee mentioned, we don't we don't want to, you know, overshoot the mark. We don't want to undershoot the market. We're trying to find the sweet spot to move employees to the central tendency of market median pay. And that is what these recommendations are indeed designed to do. And the new proposals will create the market adjustment based on the classifications degree of led to the market. So not all classifications lag the market by the same amount. So this process is much more nuanced than what we've done in the past, which was very broad and may have over or underpaid, whereas this this approach is much more sophisticated and will be more precise moving forward. So I hope that helps a little bit. And the other final thing I'll just say is that the market adjustments do typically apply to a small select number of employees. And I think people have this misconception that it can apply to many. And what applies to many is the annual merit increase program, which of course we didn't have in 2021, and many organizations didn't have those because of the pandemic. And, you know, like I said before, many organizations are not doing market adjustments again because of the pandemic. You know, our economy was was very different before COVID 19 came into our lives. So we're.
Speaker 0: Hoping that we.
Speaker 1: Are able to unwind and recover from this pandemic and able to have a merit increase program in 2022, which would impact on all of our employees. But for example, the 2020 pay survey that did not get approved last year would only have affected 130 employees, and the city has about 10,000 employees. So just to give a little context there, so I hope that that helps a little bit. And thank you. Thank you for the questions.
Speaker 0: Oh, definitely. Well, thank you, Nicole and Karen and Councilman Hines, I was going to come back to you to see if you had additional questions.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. So the first question that I asked was, is it true that many cities are emptying out of the city pay survey in 2021? It sounds like they are. The follow up question is, does that mean that it would make it difficult to compare data in 2021, even if we were to like one of the one of the concerns is that we're opting out of a theoretically assuming we were to vote on this, opting out of a salary survey in 2021. I guess the nature of the question that I'm trying to get at or the answer the information I'm trying to get at is even if we wanted to find the survey , would we even have relevant data? That's I mean, I would hate to.
Speaker 1: And that's that's that's the question. That's that's a great question, Councilman Hines. And the answer is there's no, we don't have the data. That is a big reason why we are proposing to not run the 2021 market survey. Most of our data is pre-COVID. We are in the process of participating in salary surveys now for 2021. We'll get that market data over the summer. We plan to run the next survey in Q4 of 2021. We'll bring it forward for socialization in Q1 of 2022 and bring it to council for approval into the Career Service Board in Q2 of 2022. That is our game plan because we need to have market data that is true up to 2021. So right now what we're dealing with is a real mixed bag. I've got a lot of data that's pre-COVID, which, you know, is not reliable. And then I've got a couple of vendors which ran refreshes to their survey in the fall, and we tried to run a pay survey for market adjustments just on two surveys. We would miss hundreds and hundreds of benchmarks. So we would the analysis really couldn't be done. So that is a big piece of it is because of the market, the lack of reliable market data. So you raise a very, very good point. But the data is coming and we really are anticipating getting enough data over the summer to propose moving the tables on January 1st , 2022. And we are also intending to run a PACE survey in Q4 of 2021, like I said, for socialization and approval in early 2022. So I hope that helps.
Speaker 0: All right. Well, thank you, Nicole and Councilman Haynes. Looks like you're all good. All right, wonderful. Well, seeing no other hands raised, the public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 233 or 234. Right. Seen no comments. Madam Secretary, roll call on council bills. 233 and 234, please.
Speaker 1: Wow. I.
Speaker 3: CdeBaca.
Speaker 1: I. Clark.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 3: Flynn.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 3: Herndon.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 3: I. Cashman.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Can I?
Speaker 3: Sandoval.
Speaker 1: I. Sawyer. I. Torres.
Speaker 4: I. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce results.
Speaker 3: 12 Eyes.
Speaker 0: 12 Eyes Council bills, 233 and 234 have been ordered published. And thank you to Karen and Nicole for joining us this evening. And the questions by the public are pre adjournment announcement on Monday, April 19. The Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 211, changing the zoning classification for 2017 North Colorado Boulevard in South Park Hill. Any protests against Council Bill 211 must be filed with council offices no later than noon on Monday, April 12. There being no further business before this body, this meeting is adjourned.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance amending the classification and pay plan for employees in the Career Service and for certain employees not in the Career Service.
Amends the Classification and Pay Plan by abolishing the City’s twenty current pay tables, replacing the City’s current pay tables with three proposed pay tables, and reassigning the city’s current classifications to the proposed pay grades table and amends Sections 18 and 14 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code to reflect the streamlining and modernization of the pay tables and pay ranges, maintenance of the pay tables and market adjustment allocations, and certain associated terminology. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 3-9-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_02222021_21-0212
|
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Sandoval. We have a late filing this evening and we are going to need a motion to suspend the rules of council to allow for the introduction of the late filing.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. I move that the rules of procedure be suspended to allow for the introduction of Council Resolution 20 1021 to extending the declaration of local disaster. Filed with the Kirkham Recorder March 22nd, 2021.
Speaker 0: Thank you. We've got it moved and we've got the second by Councilman Herndon comments from members of council. I will comment first. This item miss the filing deadline. And in order to extend the emergency declaration, we are requesting permission to file this resolution late. And not seen any one else with hands raised council members. Just a reminder that we will need a unanimous approval for this motion to pass, which would allow for the late filing. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 2: Black I. CdeBaca, I. Clark.
Speaker 3: I. Swin I.
Speaker 2: Herndon.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 2: Hines, I. Cashman.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 2: Can each I. Ortega, I. Sandoval.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Sawyer. I. Torres. I. Madam President.
Speaker 0: Hi, Madam Secretary. Please announce the result.
Speaker 2: 13 Eyes.
Speaker 0: 13 eyes resolution to 12 may be introduced. Madam Secretary, please read the resolution title for us.
Speaker 2: A City Council directed file 21 to 12 A resolution extending the declaration of local disaster filed with the clerk and recorder to March 22nd, 2021.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Council Members This is your last opportunity to call out an item. Council Member Sandoval Would you please make the motions for us this evening?
Speaker 1: Yes. Council President.
Speaker 0: All right, thank you. I'll do a recap under resolutions. Councilmember Flynn has called out Council Resolution 109 for a vote under bills for introduction. No items have been called out under bills for final consideration. No items have been called out and under pending. No items have been called out. The first item up is Council Resolution 20 1-0109. Council Member Sandoval, would you please put Council Resolution 20 1-0109 on the floor for adoption?
|
Resolution
|
A resolution extending the declaration of local disaster filed with the clerk and recorder to March 22, 2021.
Extends the local disaster emergency declaration. Councilmember Gilmore approved direct filing this item and approved its late filing on 2-18-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_02222021_21-0109
|
Speaker 0: No items have been called out. The first item up is Council Resolution 20 1-0109. Council Member Sandoval, would you please put Council Resolution 20 1-0109 on the floor for adoption?
Speaker 1: I move that council resolution 20 1-0109 be adopted.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved and I'm going to give that second to Councilman Flynn there. Councilmember Flynn. Your motion to amend.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. I move that council resolution 20 1-0109 be amended in the following particulars on line one. I'm sorry. On page one. Line five, strike Colfax and replace with West Colfax. And on page one, line nine, strike Colfax and replace with West Colfax. Okay.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved and I believe I heard that second councilman Herndon. All right. Questions or comments by members of council. Councilmember Flynn?
Speaker 3: Yeah. Thank you, Madam President. Basically just a typo in the title of the resolution that needs to be corrected in order for it to be completely proper. It simply said Colfax Business Improvement District, and it's actually the West Colfax bid. And I believe there's one also in East Colfax. So when I was prepping over the weekend for this, I noticed that the omission was there and I didn't know if it needed to be amended or if we could just substitute it. The city attorney recommended that we do this by amendment. I thought it was ironic that when I emailed the city, our legal counsel over the weekend, that my email itself was also full of typos. So it's you know, it happens like.
Speaker 0: It does happen to the best of us. Thank you, Councilmember Flynn. All right. Seeing other hands raised. Madam Secretary, roll call, please.
Speaker 3: When I.
Speaker 2: Turned in.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 2: LB i cashman. I can. I. Ortega. I. Sandoval.
Speaker 1: Hi.
Speaker 2: Sawyer. I. Torres. I. Black. I say the burqa. I. Clark. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. And I don't think we got Councilman Clark was muted when at least from my end did we get his.
Speaker 2: I now. I'm sorry. I thought he was gone. Clark.
Speaker 3: Hey, can you hear me now?
Speaker 2: Yes. Thank you. You have 13 eyes.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. 13 eyes Council Resolution 21, Dash 0109 has been amended. Councilmember Sandoval, we need a motion to adopt as amended, please.
Speaker 1: I move that council resolution 20 1-0109 be adopted as amended.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. It has been moved and I believe that second came from Councilmember Hines. I think that's where I got it from. So questions or comments by members of Council on Resolution 109. Seeing no hands raised. Madam Secretary, roll call, please.
Speaker 2: Black. I see. Tobacco. I. Clark.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 2: Flynn.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 2: Herndon.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 2: Hynes. I. Cashman.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 2: Can I. Ortega, I. Sandoval. I swear. I. Torres. I. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce results.
Speaker 2: 13 Eyes.
Speaker 0: 13 Eyes. Council Resolution 20 1-0109 has been adopted as amended. 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 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 regulations be adopted and bills and final consideration be placed upon final consideration. And do passing a block for the following items. 21 Series 20 10123012700810110011901200122013300720124. 012501280087021200790094 and 0068.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded. The only way I saw who it was was the speaker. The little glow thing went around. So Councilman Herndon has seconded it. Madam Secretary, roll call, please.
Speaker 2: Black I. CdeBaca, I. Clark.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 2: Flynn.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 2: Herndon.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 3: Hynes I.
Speaker 2: Cashman I can each i. Ortega, I. Sandoval. I. Sawyer.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Torres. I. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced results.
Speaker 2: 13 eyes.
Speaker 0: 13 eyes. The resolutions have been adopted and the bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass. Council will not take a recess. There be no further business before this body. This meeting is adjourned.
|
Resolution
|
AS AMENDED a resolution approving the Mayor’s reappointment to the West Colfax Business Improvement District Board of Directors.
Approves the Mayoral reappointment of Tomas DeFrancia to the West Colfax Business Improvement District Board of Directors for a term effective immediately and expiring 3-31-23 or until a successor is duly appointed. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 2-9-21. Amended 2-22-21 to clarify that the appointee is appointed to the West Colfax Business Improvement District Board of Directors.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_02162021_21-0084
|
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. The next item up is Council Resolution 21, Dash 008 for Council Member Cashman. Will you please put Council Resolution 20 1-0084 on the floor for adoption?
Speaker 1: Yes, Council President. I move the council resolution 20 1-008 for be opted.
Speaker 0: Against and moved. Thank you, Councilman Herndon, for the second questions or comments by members of council. Council members say to Barker.
Speaker 2: Thank you. I'd like to go on record with a vote for this one. This contract is to pay for the ongoing maintenance and perhaps replacement of Halo cameras throughout our city. We've had several instances of cameras that did not detect crime over and over.
Speaker 3: In.
Speaker 2: Specific locations, and I have consistently requested data showing us the return on investment with our Halo camera systems and have yet to receive that. And so I would like to make sure that there I vote no on this because there is no data proving that we should continue with this mechanism for deterring crime in our neighborhoods. And until we have specific data in our high crime areas proving they're effective, I think we should be considering alternative technologies. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman CdeBaca. Not seen in the other hands raised for comment. Madam Secretary, roll call, please.
Speaker 2: CDEBACA No. Black. I. Clark.
Speaker 4: All right.
Speaker 2: Flynn.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Herndon.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Cashman.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Can each.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 2: Ortega. First I Sandoval. I. So you're. I. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced results.
Speaker 2: Ten Eyes. One Day.
Speaker 0: Ten Eyes. Council Resolution 20 1-0084 has been adopted. The next item up is Council Resolution 20 1-0088. Council Member Cashman. Can you please put Council Resolution 20 1-008 on the floor for adoption?
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Fourth Amendatory Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Hitachi Vantara, LLC to increase compensation, extend the term and amend a provision regarding the Denver Police High Activity Observation (HALO) video and surveillance system.
Amends a contract with Hitachi Vantara, LLC by adding $144,200 for a new total of $2,447,569 and one year for a new end date of 12-31-21 for support and maintenance of the Denver Police High Activity Observation (HALO) video and surveillance system (POLIC-202057090). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 3-8-21. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 2-3-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_02162021_21-0088
|
Speaker 0: Ten Eyes. Council Resolution 20 1-0084 has been adopted. The next item up is Council Resolution 20 1-0088. Council Member Cashman. Can you please put Council Resolution 20 1-008 on the floor for adoption?
Speaker 1: Yes. Council President and I moved that resolution 20 10088 be adopted. I get.
Speaker 0: All right. You've got to attend the fair. Friends of family member Ortega. Thank you, Madam President. I asked for this to be called out for a vote because I am on the board of one of the organizations that is not an actual signatory to the contract with the city, but they're a subcontractor. And so just to be completely transparent, I want to abstain from the vote on this particular bill tonight. All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. In other hands raised. Madam Secretary, roll call. Ortega abstained.
Speaker 2: Sandoval. I. Sawyer. I. Black. I see tobacco. I. Clark.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 2: Flynn.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Herndon.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 0: Cashman.
Speaker 1: Hi.
Speaker 2: Hi, Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 2: One abstention tonight.
Speaker 0: Ten I's Council Resolution 20 1-008 has been adopted. The next item up is Council Resolution 20 1-0090. Council Member Cashman, will you please put Council Resolution 20 1-0090 on the floor for adoption?
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Northeast Denver Housing Center, Inc. for administration of the Temporary Rental and Utility Assistance (TRUA) Program.
Approves a contract with Northeast Denver Housing Center, Inc. for $1,533,600 and through 12-31-21 for administration of the Temporary Rental and Utility Assistance (TRUA) program (HOST-202157450). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 3-8-21. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 2-3-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_02162021_21-0090
|
Speaker 0: Ten I's Council Resolution 20 1-008 has been adopted. The next item up is Council Resolution 20 1-0090. Council Member Cashman, will you please put Council Resolution 20 1-0090 on the floor for adoption?
Speaker 1: Yes, Council President. I move that council resolution 20 1-0090 be adopted. Second.
Speaker 0: It's been moved and seconded by Councilman Herndon. Second, questions or comments by members of Council. Council Member Sawyer, you're up.
Speaker 3: Thanks, Madam President. I call this out for a vote because I would like to be a no on this. That's something I've struggled with and gone back and forth on for months. And I want to just be really clear. Everyone deserves a home, especially one that's safe during COVID. But more than 80% of our voters in May 2019 said they don't want urban camping. And I don't understand why we are spending our time and money defending urban camping ban in courts on the one hand, and then funding urban camping in direct contradiction to the will of our voters on the other. To me, that doesn't make any sense. So the lack of a cohesive plan, I think, is a failure of our leadership. I think we're sending mixed messages and breaking the trust of our voters while all the while causing confusion for our most vulnerable citizens. Our population of residents experiencing homelessness deserve better. To start with, they deserve heat and a roof and a door. We think we have around 2000 people sleeping on our streets every night. In addition to those who are using our shelters. And in addition to those who are couch surfing, this contract is a Band-Aid that covers about 5% of the need at a huge cost and pays a private provider for services that we as a city already provide when it comes to social services. That money can be spent on so many other things that could help stop the cycle of homelessness upstream before it starts, like eviction protection or drug rehabilitation or mental health services. Once again, we councilmembers are being put in a no win situation over which we have very little input. This contract fronts 100 tents with for almost $900,000, where 60% of the budget is directed at a site that has yet to be determined where residents have not been engaged or even know that this might be coming to their neighborhood. And the two pilot SS sites were private sites with private funding. And that makes sense. But this is very different from what we're talking about here. This is taxpayer money. And that requires a process that I don't see has happened in this case in the same way. I saw this last week, and I find it ironic that I'm saying it again tonight, a week later. This is not the only solution to this problem. This is the only solution that we're being presented. And once again, councilmembers are left to be the voice of our residents, asking for a rational explanation that isn't coming. I don't believe that this is a responsible use of our tax or our city tax dollars. So I'm going to be a no on this one tonight. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Sawyer. Councilwoman Connie.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. I appreciate that. You know, colleagues can respectfully disagree about different approaches, and I respect anybody's right to vote against, you know, any contractor approach that they are not comfortable with. But I do want to just clarify some of the facts on the record, because I think some of the concerns that have been shared might be confusing to members of our community who may be watching this meeting. And I think it's important if we're going to debate these things, that we get all those facts out there. So I would like to ask if Cole Chandler could please be promoted as one of the individuals receiving this contract. And then I see Angie Nelson is here. So I'd like to start maybe with a question, a couple of questions for Angie, if I may, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Mm hmm. Go ahead.
Speaker 3: Angie, can you clarify, please, how much private funding was being leveraged along with the city dollars involved in this contract? And you should introduce yourself as well, please. Hi, everyone. My name's Angie Nelson. I'm the acting.
Speaker 2: Deputy director.
Speaker 3: For Homelessness Resolution and Housing Stability within the Department of Housing Stability. And your question about how much private funding is leveraged, I am going to have to get back to you with that. Well, why don't we have Callie answer it, then, perhaps. There you go. Thank you. Thank you. And please introduce yourself. Call.
Speaker 4: I am Cole Chandler, executive director of Color Village Collaborative. I live in District nine. So the answer to that question for 2021 is that this contract would provide 86% of the funding that would fund both of these programs through the entirety of 2021. Now that being said, we have been operating one of these sites since December 15, 2020, and we did that as well as opened a site at First Baptist Church of Denver, utilizing about $300,000 worth of private funds. And so those are not coming into that figure that I'm sharing with you. But 86% of the funds to operate this through the end of the year would be provided by this contract.
Speaker 3: Okay. So $300,000 for a first site and then about 16% of this contract, private funding. Kim Kohl, can you please describe several of the differences between the safe outdoor spaces and encampments that are subject to the urban camping ban that has been raised? Can you just describe those differences?
Speaker 4: Absolutely. So I think it's really important that we state that safe outdoor spaces are not what was on the ballot when Initiative 300 came forward. Those are two entirely different things. Initiative 300 would have given people the right to sleep in public space, essentially wherever they choose. That is absolutely not what this is. This is a resource rich service rich encampment model that's fully managed by staff 24 hours a day and intends to do three things. First and foremost, to prevent the spread of COVID 19, which we have done to date, 0% of folks that have been tested have tested positive. Second, it intends to connect people to long term housing resources and case management. So we have connected five people to the beloved community, tiny home village. To date, we've had two people connect to vouchers. We've had five people entered into the one home system. Eight people in our program are currently receiving ongoing case management. So you've seen those kinds of things as well. Third, it intends to reduce the impact on neighborhoods of existing unsanctioned camps. So if you're a council member that is getting calls about unsanctioned camps, if you're getting calls saying, hey, I call 311 all the time and nothing ever happens if you're getting those kinds of complaints. This is intended to be a solution to that precise issue. So I want to create that differentiation. This is not the same issue that was voted on in 2019.
Speaker 3: Thanks. And then, Angie, I just want to ask, is there a supportive housing home available for every individual? Well, first of all, let me ask. There was a claim made that there are 2000 people sleeping on the streets right now. We have imprecise data to count things, but we had both a point in time study as well as some community studies. So do you do you have an estimate or what? What's your thought? Is that the right ballpark figure to be using today? You know, the ballpark figure, just like.
Speaker 2: You said, there are a few different data points.
Speaker 3: One being the point in time, but in the other, there was.
Speaker 0: A community led.
Speaker 3: Point in time count that happened over the summer, which inflated that number tenfold. And so we are still getting our hands around what that ballpark figure looks like right now. And I think we need to to get back to you on what the the best precise estimation is right now through our street outreach teams.
Speaker 2: And some of.
Speaker 3: Their understanding. We probably won't get a great number for this, and it's part of the challenge, and we'll have even less data in the coming year than we have now, unfortunately. But let's just go with 1000 from the point in time or 2000. Do we have a supportive housing unit available in Denver for each of those individuals today?
Speaker 2: No, we don't.
Speaker 3: We are absolutely working to build that pipeline. And in interventions like safe outdoor space, help give people a platform of stability.
Speaker 0: That.
Speaker 3: Meets them where they're at so that they can work towards those longer.
Speaker 2: Term.
Speaker 3: Solutions that Coleman spoke to. But, you know, unfortunately, the availability.
Speaker 0: Of a.
Speaker 3: Permanent housing is the thing that we're we're driving towards but don't have enough of for everyone in need today. And then call can I just ask for the folks who are staying in the safe outdoor spaces now? Do you have data or anecdotal information about where they were sleeping before and whether or not they were? You know, I would I, too, would like everyone to sleep in a heated building with a bed and a door. But I'm not sure that's where the people you're serving were sleeping prior to this.
Speaker 4: Thanks, Councilwoman. 100% of the people that were serving were sleeping outdoors in tents or worse prior to move in. When we opened our site. 32 of the people that originally moved in were in an unsanctioned camp directly across the street. That camp is now gone because of this solution coming in place. And so people that are coming in are coming from outdoors. When they come into our site, they have a tent that's rated for subzero temperatures that's on a platform that keeps them out of the snow. And they have electricity to every single unit, as well as warming tents available on site as well.
Speaker 3: So. Well, I appreciate that additional background. I'm just going to add a comment, Madam President, before I turn it back to you, which is that, you know, I think full disclosure, I was one of the folks who worked with the community to help to bring this idea and develop it and bring it to the city. And I think that in that process, I both heard from numerous neighborhoods, including, you know, not just folks that experienced camps every day, but I you know, Councilman Cashman and I were at a Westwood Park neighborhood meeting where I was asked, why can't the city find a safer, more orderly place for people who are not going inside to be more safely and to get the help they need? These ideas, they didn't use this language safe outdoor space. Right. That's language that we invented. But they talked about this concept. You know, we did massive outreach around to be an overwhelmingly you know, more than 50% of folks were supportive of this in scientific surveys as well as informal surveys. There is really strong support for this model. And I will just say I heard a lot of mixed feelings. You know, I have a 10,000 plus person email list. And when I sent an email out specifically about this model, I heard lots of questions, consternation, some, you know, some concerns. But I did not hear widespread disapproval. But I will tell you that when I shared that, it was then open and folks were seeing the news coverage and seeing the sites. I have had no complaints from folks saying we should close this, we should stop doing this. So I just you know, I knew that we all have different constituencies and districts and we hear from different people. But I would just say I've got none of the to see that the community does not support this model and does not want to see it. And therefore, you know, to vote against it, I think is just misstating the massive, you know, you know, again, polling, surveys and others that show that a majority of residents think this idea is worth trying. It is an interim measure. This if this is our destination, we're in big trouble, but it's not our destination. We just doubled down on our supportive housing pipeline to accelerate it and to generate more homes. And so if anyone thinks we're going to address this crisis only with long term solutions and no emergency solutions, then the lives that will be lost in the interim, whether it's to hypothermia or hopelessness or what other ways that people die when they're on the streets unprotected, I'm not willing to make that sacrifice. So I will continue to advocate for doors and roofs and individual keys to homes for everybody. I'll continue to be an advocate for supportive housing, but I will be strongly supporting this contract tonight, not just because I believe it is the more humane harm reduction alternative to sleeping on the streets without the heated tent and without the service provider and without the food that these sites provide. But also because I have heard from massive numbers of my constituents that they think this is the direction that would be better to go than what we've had with unregulated camps. So for those reasons, I'll be supporting it tonight, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Canete. Councilwoman. So I see your your back up. I'm going to go ahead if it's okay to go to Councilwoman Ortega and then we'll circle back with you. Councilwoman Ortega, go ahead, please. Madam President, I just wanted to ask Cole or Angie a question about some of the data that we were provided. There was some information that showed that some people had secured vouchers. And I'm just trying to understand if those are going through the one home process with MDA, try to get people into the pipeline to secure those vouchers. And if they've been successful in finding housing, because we've heard in the past that just because somebody has a voucher doesn't mean it automatically provides them a unit.
Speaker 4: Yeah. Thank you, Councilman. I'll take that one. And Angie, if you want to jump in, feel free. So those are our data points from CBC Internal Data. Just so you know, every single person that's enrolled in the safe outdoor space has been enrolled in the HMS Homeless Management Information System. That's all that's also really important because that means people that weren't previously connected with services are now connected to this greater system. So an outreach worker working for St Francis Center, working for an urban peak, can find literally where this person that they used to have to go try to meet in a different encampment, find where they're staying every single night and see where they are. So the two people that have now, as I stated, been connected to housing vouchers. It's because they previously had come up on a list, but their outreach worker had not been able to connect with them. And they were able to do that because they found that they were within our space and they were able to let them know that they have come up and that their name is up for a voucher. Now, they have not yet connected to your housing unit, but that work is ongoing through the process with the outreach workers
Speaker 0: . So can you tell me if any of the client population that have ended up in any of these locations have come from areas other than downtown Denver? So, for example, as you know, we've got a lot of people that live outside along. I think it's Sanderson Gulch near the MDH facility on Florida and Federal Boulevard. I know that we've had people living along same creek in Council District 11. The Santa Fe Corridor is another area. And so just wanted to ask about how people are getting plugged into that pipeline because I know a lot of the homeless outreach tends to be right in the downtown, but we have chronic homeless people who have been, you know, living along the South Platte River and other areas of the city that don't seem to have the same entree, if you will, into the MDH pipeline, because it's based on the street outreach workers helping get them connected to that resource and get them into the system so that, you know, when their name comes up and a unit comes up, they get priority over, you know, people who are not in that system. So can you speak to that?
Speaker 4: Yeah. So our strategy for filling this site and I'll speak specifically for the CBC operated site at Denver Community Church was to identify people that were camping within a four block radius of the site and help bring them in. And the reason for doing that was in order to deliver on that third goal that I shared, which was to reduce the impact of unsanctioned homelessness in the neighborhood. So our specific outreach efforts are for people that are in that Capitol Hill area. And what I would say is that the points that you're making are reasons to be advocating for this to exist in other areas of town. We need these kinds of solutions to pop up all around the city so that people that are in unsanctioned camps can come in to a resource and service rich environment. And it shouldn't just be located within the downtown core. But right now, those are the only options that are available to us.
Speaker 0: Yeah. And I think the Street outreach piece is a critical part of being able to ensure that people across the city are being able to get plugged into the same pipeline, because that's that's been sort of a a missing link, if you will, where, you know, unfortunately, we've got more people on our streets than than what we would like to see. And, you know, through lots of different mechanisms. I mean, people don't realize who who come here every Monday night that we've spent, you know, upwards of $50 million on providing overnight sheltering for people in our motels and at the Coliseum and National Western, as well as the shelters that are owned by the city of Denver and run by other folks. But at the same time that we've had more shelter beds than ever, we also have more people on our streets. And so I am supportive of this tonight. I just wanted to make sure that and this really is a conversation for Britta as well, because, you know, that's where our our homeless services are. And we always want to make sure that we're not just concentrating everything downtown, which is important, but we also want to be addressing the needs of people in other areas of our city at the same time. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Councilman Ortega. Councilwoman Sawyer.
Speaker 3: Thanks, Madam President. Just wanted to point out that I attended committee and don't need to do committee work on the floor. Our job is to approve contracts or not approve contracts based on what we think is appropriate for tax expenditures, based on our constituencies. And I have made my point and I don't need to continue the conversation any more. I'm ready to vote. Thanks.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman Sawyer. Madam Secretary. Roll call.
Speaker 2: Sawyer. No, black I. CDEBACA Yes, of course.
Speaker 3: Clark.
Speaker 4: All right.
Speaker 2: Flynn.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Herndon.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 2: Cashman.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Kenny.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 2: Ortega, I. Sandoval. Yes, absolutely. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce results.
Speaker 2: One eight and I's.
Speaker 0: Ten I's Council Resolution 20 1-0090 has been adopted. That concludes the items to be called out. All bills for introduction are ordered published. Council members remember this is a consent or block vote and you will need to vote I. Otherwise, this is your last chance to call out an item for a separate vote. Councilmember Cashman, would you please put the resolutions for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor?
Speaker 1: Yes, Council President, I move that resolutions be adopted and bills on final consideration be placed upon final consideration and do pass in the block for the following items. All series of 2020 10051005200750077006900990121012200 30 700 60 700 70 300 70 40000 80 500 90 500 90 700980 100 zero zero 50 400 80 600 80 900 92 and 0059 second.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and I heard Herndon first councilman oh.
Speaker 1: In a way.
Speaker 0: You've got three more hearings in their.
Speaker 1: Calendar. The second. Can we vote on that? Let's go to the tape.
Speaker 0: Got to keep eye on it. Madam Secretary, roll call, please.
Speaker 2: Black. I see tobacco. I. Clark.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 2: When?
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 0: Herndon.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 2: Cashman. I can eat. I. Ortega. I. Sandoval. I. Sawyer. I. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results. 11 eyes. 11 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 20, Dash 1424, changing the zoning classification for 753 South Downing Street. A required public hearing on Council Bill 20, Dash 1561, changing the zoning classification for 925 South Pennsylvania Street and a required public hearing on Council Bill 21, Dash 0006 Changing the Zoning Classification for 2112 South Emmerson Street. Anyone wishing to speak on any of these matters must go online to sign up during the recess of council.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Colorado Village Collaborative to fund two Safe Outdoor Space sites with amenities and services that provide outdoor accommodation for up to 100 households.
Approves a contract with Colorado Village Collaborative for $899,569 and through 12-31-21 to fund two Safe Outdoor Space (SOS) sites, with amenities and services that provide outdoor accommodation for up to 100 households (HOST-202157407). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 3-8-21. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 2-3-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_02162021_20-1424
|
Speaker 1: Yes, Council President. I move the Council bill 22 1424 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded the required public hearing for Council Bill 20 Dash 1424 is open. May we please have the staff report? And I believe we have, Fran.
Speaker 2: I think it's James.
Speaker 0: Is it James? Oh, sorry, James. My start up. I had you down wrong. Go ahead, James.
Speaker 4: Not a problem. Thank you, Madam President. And thank you, Fran. Members of Council. Are you able to hear me and see my presentation? Yes. Thank you. Before you today we have a requested rezoning at 753 South Downing Street. The request is to go from UCB to UCB one to allow for the detached edu building for. Property is located in Council District seven in the Washington Park West neighborhood. The site is approximately 55, 20 square feet or 0.12 acres and is a single unit residential use. The rezoning from UCB to UCB one would allow the Urban House and detached accessory dwelling unit building for the max building. Height for an ADU is 24 feet and the minimum lot size is 4500 square feet. Existing zoning is also being surrounded by other U.S. B properties as well as U.S. U.S. to the north and OSA in the form of Walsh Park to. The East. Existing ladies is single unit residential surrounded by other single unit residential as well as to multi-unit residential and park and open space. Some photos of the existing context. The photo in the top left is the existing house and some other homes in the area and the intersection of Exposition and Downing Street. Perhaps a slide. We've received an R.A. position statement of our position, as well as nine letters in our position and six letters in support of this proposed application. Council will need to find the application consistent with the five reset with the five criteria from the Denver zoning code to approve. This proposed rezoning will begin with criteria. One Consistency of the adopted plans for this site. We have Top Plan 2040 Blueprint, Denver and the West Park Neighborhood Plan. This proposed rezoning is consistent with a number of planned 2040 goals, including equity goals and climate goals. Moving on to Blueprint Blueprint Denver This property is located in the urban neighborhood context. Urban. The urban context is characterized by a high degree of walkability and bike ability with good access to transit and less resilience, less reliance on cars. Typically, one and two unit residential areas with small multi-unit, residential and mixed use areas embedded like patterns are generally regular. There's a mix of alley uses in the urban context. This property does have alley accidents. Future place type is low residential, which is predominantly single and two unit uses. And so accessory dwelling units are appropriate in this context. Future Street type Downing Street is a residential arterial and there is a bus stop almost directly in front of this property. Blueprint, Denver Future Growth Strategy, all other areas. The city which anticipates seeing 10% of jobs and 20% of housing growth by 2040. Its application is also consistent with additional policies in Blueprint Denver specifically policy for diversify housing choice throughout the expansion of accessory dwelling units throughout all residential areas. And consistency with the West Washington neighborhood plan. This is a plan that was adopted in 1991. It is silent on Haiti specifically. However, staff does find that the proposed data use consistent with residential land use. Recommendation number four includes including compatible setbacks. The detached data building form was developed specifically to take these types of concerns into consideration and provides for appropriate setbacks between structures. Review criteria at number two. Uniformity of district regulations and proposed rezoning will result in uniform application of zoned district building form, use and design regulations. No waivers or variances are being sought here. Criteria for furthering the public health, safety and welfare staff finds this application consistent with this criteria, principally by implementation of adopted plans and by providing an additional housing unit in the neighborhood that is competitively integrated. Justifying circumstances. Again, we are looking at the specific implementation blueprint, Denver, which specifically recommends the city diversify housing choice through the access, the expansion of accessory dwelling units throughout all residential areas. And that plan was adopted after the date, the date of the approval of the existing zone district and therefore is appropriate justifying circumstance for the proposed rezoning. And Criteria. Five Consistency with Neighborhood Contexts Zone District Purpose and intent. Again, going back to the urban neighborhood, context primary consists of single unit and two unit. Residential uses the residential districts that are intended to promote and protect residential neighborhoods within the character of the urban neighborhood. Context building form standards, design standards and uses work together to promote desirable residential areas. In the U.S., you be one single unit district allowing the urban homes and detached accessory dwelling units, a minimum zone wide area of 4500 square feet. And the setbacks in lot coverage standards accommodate front and side yards similar to us hub and allow while allowing the detached accessory dwelling unit in the rear yard. Staff recommends council approved the application based on the finding that all review criteria have been met.
Speaker 0: Thank you, James. Counsel has not received any written testimony on Council Bill 20, Dash 1424, and this evening we have 13 individuals signed up to speak and we will go ahead and kick it off with our first speaker, Janet McIntyre. Might have to go ahead and unmute, Janet. You can go ahead.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Yes. My name is Janet MacIntyre and I live at 824 South Corona Street, which is one block south.
Speaker 0: Of.
Speaker 3: 753 Downing. And I've read the opposition letter by.
Speaker 2: West Rush Park Neighborhood Association.
Speaker 0: And Mr. Torres's rebuttal to that. And I thank the council.
Speaker 3: For hearing me tonight.
Speaker 0: I do want to point.
Speaker 2: Out that.
Speaker 3: This is relatively unknown in our neighborhood, although there was some canvasing done.
Speaker 0: This was a tough year to canvass and talk with people, I'll say.
Speaker 3: Mr. RACI talks about the benefits.
Speaker 0: To the community.
Speaker 3: But my view is it's 90 plus.
Speaker 8: Percent beneficial to him.
Speaker 3: And second.
Speaker 0: Point is, I believe.
Speaker 2: There's strong opposition in the neighborhood.
Speaker 3: I'm familiar with a few folks in the 700 block.
Speaker 2: Of South.
Speaker 0: Corona Street that are right behind Mr. Powell racist property. And I walked that alley.
Speaker 3: I would not like a second storey building looking down into my backyard as.
Speaker 8: This setup.
Speaker 3: Entails. I do believe it really.
Speaker 8: Disrupts the privacy of.
Speaker 0: The surrounding neighbors and.
Speaker 3: I think that is a significant concern.
Speaker 2: Let's see. He also makes points about.
Speaker 3: Having the community flourish.
Speaker 0: And I'm.
Speaker 3: Well aware of our housing shortage and.
Speaker 8: Homelessness. I'm quite.
Speaker 0: Involved with the S.O.S. site at the First Baptist Church that Cole Chandler was talking.
Speaker 3: About.
Speaker 0: Earlier. And this sort.
Speaker 2: Of housing I.
Speaker 0: Just don't think.
Speaker 3: Helps low.
Speaker 0: Income people find a place to live. And in my block.
Speaker 2: 800 South Carolina Street.
Speaker 3: I can name 14 or 15.
Speaker 0: People strongly opposed to this.
Speaker 3: Set up and.
Speaker 0: This approval.
Speaker 3: And. Concern about proliferation of this type of thing in the neighborhood.
Speaker 0: And I guess that's all I have to say. Thank you for your time. All right. Thank you, Janet. Our next speaker is Kirsten Michele.
Speaker 3: Hi everyone. My name is Kirsten.
Speaker 2: Mitchell and apologies to.
Speaker 3: Not sure quite how my camera on your computer. But anyway, I'm a resident of the Sphere neighborhood and a member of the West Park Neighborhood Association. I am here to support the application for rezoning of 753 South Downing and ask that the City Council vote yes on build 20 Dash 1424. I am here for two reasons. First, I believe City Council's role must be to support and part of a path for the future of this city, which includes planning for the growth of the Danvers residents and housing needs. Please do not subvert plans that the city has made in favor of its use based on faulty assumptions that a neighborhood must never change. Its use are another tool in the housing supply toolbox and affirmed in Blueprint Denver. I've heard comments in opposition to this particular rezoning because of how the aid may or may not be used. But the reality is that's not relevant. The property could be sold as soon as the ADU is ready and the new owners may have a different use for it. That's the whole point. This is flexible housing that has many potential uses for different people. Now, before my husband and I bought our home, we looked for a rental where we had some control over the heat and a little outdoor space for our dog. It was really hard, if not impossible, to find rentals that allowed pets that weren't in large buildings. But we were hoping to find a new place to live that was in a converted house or some other multi-unit structure and where we were fortunate and at the time we were fortunate to be working with a comfortable budget in 80. You would have been perfect for us. Perfect. They are smaller and we don't need a ton of space. But we couldn't. We couldn't find we couldn't find one, not a single one. Instead, we found a half duplex for nearly $3,000 a month four years ago. The point of this story is not to make you feel bad for.
Speaker 0: Me, but instead.
Speaker 3: I'm trying to convey a clear example of the need for different housing types across all neighborhoods in this city. Had we not been able to battle this ridiculous housing market? Who knows where we would have ended up? My final point is just that there are 380 youths in the alley behind my house. None of these have any measurable impact in my life. And to the contrary, having more folks around means more eyes on the street, which I consider a safety benefit. Someone who's always out walking my two huskies.
Speaker 0: It's 380.
Speaker 3: Use a perfectly fine on the block in which I lived, and they are perfectly fine in other parts of the city, too. We have to stop this approach of limiting housing type to limit who our neighbors are. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Q Our next speaker is Chris Miller.
Speaker 4: Thank you. My name is Chris Miller. I live in the Sphere neighborhood for disclosure. I'm a member of the West Park Neighborhood Association, the zoning board who abstained from voting on this item. And tonight, I am speaking only on my personal behalf. And I'm here to speak towards approval, not because of the merits of this specific project, but because they feel it important to speak up on behalf of the rule of law. Any just order really society. Blueprint Denver unambiguously states that any use should be approved in residential districts, and the city zoning code lays out how to incorporate plans newer than the code itself. This is a residential district. All other 20 plus previously submitted 80 applications since Blueprint and Rules passed in 2019 except for one withdrawn, have been approved as well, all with generally similar justifying rationale in reports from city staff because the same zoning code and comprehensive plan and broad balance of evidence apply to all of them. City Council passed a blueprint over after extensive public outreach. And we should respect and give way to the comments that led to Blueprint Denver. Being a nation of laws is worth little if we do not hew to them. And after January 6th, I believe that understanding and defending the rule of law and justice is more important than ever, both on the big things and the little things. I will concede that not all laws or enforcements are just. But there has been no indication that approval of this project would be an injustice. I additionally urge that City Council move towards amending the zoning code to implement and recognize the reality of Blueprint Denver which is that ideas are encouraged in all residential zoning districts. Given the zoning code criteria and our comprehensive plan, I do not foresee a circumstance where a conforming to you would be disallowed in a residential area according to our criteria. This will provide additional clarity for all residents about what changes will happen and give all of us time back to focus on matters that actually require substantive discussion and are not foregone conclusions under a city code, city code and comprehensive plan. And I would like to note that this same comment also applies to the next hearing about nine 2925 South End as well. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is John Ferguson.
Speaker 1: Hi. My name is John Ferguson. Thank you for letting me speak tonight. I'm speaking in favor of the EU being allowed. I think that that having an avenue in our neighborhood. I live a block and a half away, by the way. I live at 901 South Downing Street. I think having a great EU gives us to sort of a moderate, very moderate increase in density. And by the fact that the ideas are smaller, it may force has to be a lower cost housing and so that'll lead to some economic diversity in the people who are living in our neighborhood. So it's a positive thing, I think, for our neighborhood to have it. I decided to speak tonight when I saw the weapon it was was opposing. It was sending a letter to oppose it. And I had I had seen pretty much the same letter sent to the planning board and planning board pretty much shot it down . One of the things that that keeps coming up in their opposition to ideas is this idea of having people looking down into your backyard and not allowing that to happen. Well, they don't have any problem with writing. People know three storey pop ups and mine in my neighborhood, in my block, looking down into my backyard. And somehow there's a bias towards people who are living in single family houses, who have a lot of money. So I decided because of that that I just had to speak tonight. So thank you very much for letting me buy.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Roy Penny.
Speaker 1: I. Hopefully I made it. Hi, everyone. It's Roy Penney. And I'm. I live one block to the south of where this is. So I'm on Corona Street. And this is actually the first time I've ever participated in one of these. I've lived here since 1989. And the thing that struck me about the presentation from the person from the.
Speaker 4: Zoning board.
Speaker 1: I guess, was that it really didn't seem to capture what's really going on here. What we're talking about here, if you've ever walk by it, is an alley house. So there's there was it was mentioned set back. There was no setback whatsoever. This property abuts right on the property line. It showed a picture from the front, but it didn't show from the back. So what's going to happen here? This is going to be a. An Airbnb is what this is going to be used for. So if you I'm sure everyone here has alleys in their neighborhood. We have them here obviously in our neighborhood and our alley. If you just drive up, go across the street, you're in the alley where this is. So it's exactly the same for that block is for our block. So what you have is there's probably only. Maybe two or three places in the alley where two cars can pass. And all of these Airbnb people are going to come up the alley and park by their Airbnb. And there, you know, the alleys are already hugely crowded as it is. It mentions that there's a bus stop somewhere nearby. Nobody from out of town coming in and going to go to a Bronco game or whatever. They're not going to use public transit. They're going to take their car and they're going to park it in the alley, or they're going to call Uber to come down the alley and pick them up. So forcing all of this traffic down the alley is completely unrealistic. And it's, you know, kids can't can't even play in the street anymore. So the kids that are within two blocks of us, they play in the alley, Jack and Kate, and they shoot hoops. If you're going to route all this traffic through the alley, it's going to completely change the character of the neighborhood. So I and I understand what people say about, well, it's going to be you know, there's going to be more housing and stuff for people. But these are Airbnb people. And so, you know, really, you're not you're not providing housing for anybody. You're just taking from a motel or a hotel and putting them in the alley. If everybody did this, what this guy's trying to do, it would completely change the character of the neighborhood. So I understand 20 of these have come up and 20 have been passed. This one should not be. This is this is a really bad idea.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Carolyn Diana. Go ahead. Hi. So, yes, I'm Carolyn. Diana and I live in West West Park. I am. So this is my neighborhood.
Speaker 2: I live on South Penn at the corner of Virginia. I have read the letter from the neighborhood association. I have so I'm I have.
Speaker 0: Familiarized.
Speaker 2: Myself with this this whole thing. And. Basically. I wanted to say that.
Speaker 0: If anything, COVID has brought up the reason we need.
Speaker 2: More flexibility.
Speaker 0: In our in our housing arrangements.
Speaker 2: So I want to speak in favor of approving this. Everybody else will bring up the.
Speaker 0: Details of.
Speaker 2: Arguing one point or the other. But I wanted to keep it simple and just say if it was my neighbor, I would be for it. If it was my neighbor across the alley, I would be for it. This is my neighborhood. I am for it. So I would encourage you to approve. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Gary Grant. Go to, you're probably going to have to unmute yourself. Sara. My name is Grady Grant and I thank you council members for the chance to speak. I live at 242 South Lincoln Street, Denver in Council District seven, and I'm here on behalf of the West Park Neighborhood Association Board who voted to oppose this rezoning. Wapner opposes this rezoning for several reasons. The neighbors who responded to a flier opposed it. We distributed fliers door to door to three blocks on Downing in Corona last June, asking for email feedback. Because COVID prevented our usual neighbor in-person meeting of the ten responses to the zoning committee, two supported it and eight opposed it, including the two neighbors on Corona, right across the alley from this existing uphill two story garage studio. This structure is a garage expanded in the 1980s and is taller than anything else on that alley. It peers over the single storey garages of the downhill neighbors across the alley. Most of the houses on this part of the block are on. Both Downing and Corona are one and a half stories tall. Then a neighbor led an almost successful effort to get enough signatures for a protest. Made more challenging here because Washington Park takes up almost half of the area from which to approach signatures. The petition wasn't sent in the end to avoid putting neighbors at risk who would sign thinking it would change the required number of votes to pass. There is also a feeling of hopelessness because the certainty that the zoning code was supposed to provide is no longer there. The code doesn't protect neighbors from short term rentals. The concern about strangers peering into their backyards and unpredictable noises at night, night from partying vacationers in the EU. Furthermore, the new design standards provide some privacy protection to neighbors, but would be improved by imposing on the property owner the loss of privacy burden created by the ADA, requiring windows on the property facing side and skylights or clear story windows on the lot sides and alley facing sides of the adu. What else? The neighborhood does not fit the description of neighborhoods vulnerable to displacement, where blueprints vision encourages ADA use. Unlike many Denver neighborhoods, the housing stock is built in. This part of the neighborhood already is far from homogenous. Even within areas zoned single family, there are duplexes and more dense housing on corners. Wapner values this existing diversity. We already have gentle density in our neighborhood and use uses. Short term rentals do not necessarily provide affordable housing. There is as there is a zone because there is no zoned district allowing ADA use for prohibiting short term rentals. I urge you to vote no on this rezoning, but in the next ADA you were zoning before you tonight. Wapner supports the rezoning. Thank you very much. Thank you, Gertie. Next up, we have Greg home.
Speaker 1: Evening. My name is Greg Home. I've lived on a 30 hour block in South Vietnam for 32 years, and I fully support this rezoning and urge city council to approve it. Use our most effective tool for immediately adding to the supply of affordable housing 80 user consistent with Blueprint Denver and Comprehensive Plan 2040. It is essential that West Wash Park offer more cost housing options and also increase the diversity of our neighborhood, allowing avenues to contribute to reducing segregation. West Wash Park is 88% white and reducing economic inequality. As a member of Live Now, I'd like to offer an alternative view on the points raised in the letter in response to Section one. City Council's decision on this application should be based solely on whether the application is consistent with the zoning code in the city's planning documents, not on whether the zoning code is supported by other residents. It's not a popularity contest. In response to Section two, page 83 of Blueprint Denver states in 04a that the city should quote study and implement its use in all neighborhood contexts and residential zoned districts unquote and states for be that the city should quote identify strategies to prevent involuntary displacement in conjunction with expanding the allowance for free to use, unquote, unquote, in all neighborhoods in zone districts. It does not say that you should be encouraged only in areas vulnerable to displacement. In response to section three, aid use do not impinge on neighbors privacy more than other housing types. All housing types in the neighborhood are within 8 to 15 feet of one another and have windows that look into neighboring yards as well as in the houses. And you should not be treated differently from any other housing category in this regard. In response to section four, rejected using other innovating housing types because they are different is not a legitimate rationale for rejecting housing that would increase affordability and foster a more inclusive neighborhood, particularly considering the exclusionary and racist history of single family zoning. In response to Section five, short term rental is a concern for all housing types, not just abuse. It is a completely separate discussion and should have no bearing on this application. Thank you very much for.
Speaker 0: Allowing me.
Speaker 1: To speak tonight.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Greg. Our next speaker is Jim Hartman.
Speaker 1: Hello members of council and thank you for allowing me to speak. I am.
Speaker 4: Speaking in support of.
Speaker 1: The EDU. Just wanted to point out a couple of things because most people are touching on the same issues. One blueprint Denver supports this, and I think we should.
Speaker 4: We should get behind it and.
Speaker 1: Support it as well. In response to the letter that the West West Park Neighborhood Association has written. One of the things that there are two of the things that jumped out to me is one is the privacy issue that was brought up. And it's been brought up several times. There is in in. In my opinion, there is no clear definition of privacy in this area and my house is extremely close to the house next to it, which I'm sorry to state this.
Speaker 4: But I live.
Speaker 1: In the 600 block of South Pennsylvania in the neighborhood. But my there is no clear cut definition of privacy. And it can be interpreted whether it's a house that's next to me that's.
Speaker 4: Been on that same.
Speaker 1: Lot for over 120 years. Or if it's a new multi-story house built next to me, it seems pretty arbitrary to bring up privacy in these issues. And then lastly. The uses of is of a great concern. But the if you're talking about a short term rental really that can apply to any one of the houses in the neighborhood. In fact, the front of the house could be a short term rental and the owners could live in the 80. You it seems kind of arbitrary to bring that issue up. Lastly, I think that there really is only one way that we can take pressure off of the housing stock in our in our neighborhood. And that's by Audi adding more housing. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Jim. Our next speaker is David Hagan.
Speaker 4: Hi. Good evening. Thank you for letting me speak tonight. I wanted to talk about a V in support of this. I think.
Speaker 8: That.
Speaker 4: Housing is a good thing and I appreciate the gentleman. Actually, the last couple of gentlemen talked about.
Speaker 1: The.
Speaker 4: The racism that has kept people out of these neighborhoods. And I think that people should be able to move into the neighborhoods. And I if I pull up Airbnb right now, I could probably find 20 to 50 Airbnbs in the front out in front of folks houses just right now. And as far as the privacy goes, I don't think anybody wants to be looking into their windows. I mean, they've got their own stuff going on. It's not going to really I don't know. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me. The, uh, let's see here o and the gentleman who spoke.
Speaker 1: About the kids playing in the alley.
Speaker 4: I'm pretty sure this is across the street from what park is it not. So I think the kids should probably in was part of the alley so that that doesn't really work for me either. My only thing when it comes to zoning is I'm just going to for example, is when you block line of sight, like, for instance, one of the little houses you.
Speaker 1: Put out because of COVID. I got into.
Speaker 4: A car accident the other night and followed my car because it was blocking my line of sight. This is not blocking my safety, so I'm good for it. That's all I have to say. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, David. Next up, we have Jesse Paris.
Speaker 4: Yes. Good evening. Member of council. I was at home when I was just in Washington, Paris, and I'm representing or I was represented for Denver homicide loud no longer. I represent for Black Star Action more for Self-defense, Positive Action Committee for Social Change, as well as the Unity Party of Colorado and Mile High News. And I will be the next mayor of Denver in 2023. I'm in favor of this rezoning tonight. We have a housing crisis. Just in case you forgot, we have a housing crisis. We had a housing crisis before COVID. We still have a housing crisis now during COVID sources for 80 used as food dwelling units all over the state. And as David already alluded to, this area was red line. It was not accessible to black people or so-called people of color for a number of years. So what is on display tonight is complete NIMBYism, not in my backyard. And unfortunately, it is going to be in your backyard because this housing crisis isn't going to solve itself. So any opportunity that council gets to increase more housing for people throughout this city, I approve it, just like I approved that when I ran for city council at large in 2019 and I plan to continue supporting it in 2023. So I am in favor of this rezoning. We need accessory dwelling units all over the city and every single district, just like we need safe outdoor camps and tiny home villages in every single district in this town. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Jesse. Next up is Steven Tabrizi.
Speaker 4: Good evening. Can you hear me?
Speaker 0: Go ahead.
Speaker 4: My name is Steve Tracy. I am the owner at 75 three South Downing Street. The property in question for the reason. Thank you, councilmembers, for letting me speak tonight and thank you to everybody who spoke in support of this. I really appreciate it. I was not expecting actually so many people to come out in support. So I thank you. With this reason, I intend to finish an existing space, open my garage and turn it into an apartment. This structure was built in 1984, in the same styling as the existing 1909 Tudor style primary house. The space already exists, but in its current state its unfinished and unusable as housing. There has been a number of people who spoke out in opposition. That's the reason. The way I see it, it's not really about the reason. It's more about not wanting the short term rental off the really. Personally, I don't know if I'm going to use this as a short term rental or long term rental. But to those who don't want it, it really doesn't matter. Basic concerns like privacy, alley traffic. By the way, there is a dedicated spot for this apartment out of this flow of traffic. Property value, preservation of neighborhood character, etc.. Most of these arguments, though, are rooted in fear of not fact. I've got a friend in the in West Warwick Park who has an adult and uses that as short term rental number or a short roster of their tenants over the last few months. A family in town to visit their sister in the new baby that stayed at an Airbnb so they wouldn't stress out the new family. A mom helping her daughter move into her new college home in the neighborhood, wanting to help out with without encroaching on her daughter's newfound freedom. A family with a baby that wanted to experience snow for the first time, a couple on their honeymoon, a single mom and her family on a very tight budget who wanted to take a vacation that wouldn't break the bank and allowed her to buy locally while on a vacation to cook a beer. And Airbnb. There's a number of them. I don't think I need to go on. There are safeguards in place, though, rules and regulations and screens to make sure that the neighborhood and your house is safe with short term rentals. I also see what's happening to Denver in the bigger picture. Lack of housing has caused real estate prices, deaths and rents to skyrocket. Homebuilding can't keep up in the few houses that are being built are being built in the ever expanding sprawl of the front range. Denver's affordability has plummeted over the last ten years and as a result, its desirability as a lifestyle destination in decline. There's no silver silver bullet to the solution to the problem, in my view, certainly won't solve the issue. It's a drop in the bucket. But my property is two and a half miles from downtown Denver. If we can't allow a milder form of density in existing families, single family neighborhoods directly adjacent to the city, I believe we're in for more of the same. Especially in this instance where the space already exists. As I close, I urge council members to keep the bigger picture in mind. This reason is in tune with the city a comprehensive comprehensive plan blueprint 2019 and having an inclusive government. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Steve. Our next speaker is test.
Speaker 3: Hi there. My name's Tess Sturdy and I am in Council District nine and I am in support of this rezoning. I just have a couple curiosities. Aren't y'all adjacent to watch Park so. And can't kids play there? I am hearing a comment that kids can't play in the streets anymore. It just it makes me I just have to think that, you know, the gentleman was more concerned about kids being able to play in the streets. But I haven't really seen him advocating for the streets availability to those experiencing homelessness who maybe need somewhere to survive, let alone play. And then the comment is going to change the character of the neighborhood. Comments like these are coded racist sentiments and rooted in Jim Crow era racial segregation in housing policies. I heard in the city planners report that integration is key and opposition to changes in your single family zone neighborhood is racist in classes. And your comments support just that. David and I were displaced from our home this year because of an asbestos spill and fiberglass getting into our HVAC unit. And we thought we were going to be out of our house for no more than a month, and it's been since September of 2019. We've lived in 15 different places, and one of the longest standing places we were in was an Airbnb during the time that we were in that Airbnb, which by the way, was literally I mean, it was a godsend for us. It allowed us to not have to move from hotel to hotel anymore. It allowed us some stability and some sanity. And so, you know, the comments of like people coming in town to party and, you know, really mucking up the neighborhood are just not based. In fact, as the homeowner presented previously, in that time that we were there, it was in a duplex and there were family members who came for a funeral. There were family members who came for for college, which is either their daughters, and that was in college. So I think that the idea that that is going to bring that sort of thing to the neighborhood is just really not rooted in fact. And and also, I think that the the the determined or, you know, leaving the determination to the renos in the neighborhood when it was mentioned that they gathered ten responses from members through email, which is in and of itself exclusionary because not everyone has access to the Internet. And and so I think that leaning on R.A. is, is the sole source of public opinion is dangerous and and not representative of the true, you know, opinion of of the of the public. So I just would caution any reliability on that. Thank you for allowing me to speak.
Speaker 0: Thank. Thank you. That concludes our speakers this evening. Questions from members of Council. Councilman Clark.
Speaker 4: And you, Madam President.
Speaker 1: It is gurdy, Grant.
Speaker 4: Um, is there. I think it's. She's still in the attendees of Could We Get Ready, Grant? And then the owner, Steven Teresi, back in. Hi, Judy. Can you hear me? Are you back in?
Speaker 0: Yes, I can. Mr. Karp.
Speaker 4: First of all, good to see you. And thank you so much for your years and years and years of service to our community. I really appreciate that you're still at this and still, you know, so involved. You had mentioned briefly and I just wanted to ask, there are two areas in West Park boundaries tonight. This one and then the next one is also in West Wash. Marks boundaries. You had mentioned that this one you guys voted to oppose and the next one you voted to support. I think I did not catch that before. Can you just clarify if I'm catching that right and then give me, you know, the brief, what is different for you? You know, from a zoning perspective on this one versus the second one.
Speaker 0: Councilman Clark and council representatives. The difference from my perspective, and I think from West Wash Park's perspective, is twofold. Number one, the neighbors oppose this in this one. But they support it in the subsequent one. And secondly, this 80. You. Pierce down into the backyards of the neighbors across the alley. The one on South Pennsylvania does not the it fits in much more compatibly with the architecture and character of that neighborhood. But it's primarily the fact that in this one, the neighbors opposed it and gave what I consider valid reasons.
Speaker 4: Great. Thank you so much, Gary. I really appreciate it. And again, thank you for your service and all your work with your association. Stephen, can you tell.
Speaker 1: Me.
Speaker 4: This is an existing structure permitted originally in the eighties that was before you owned this property. You did not build this structure. You purchased this property with the structure already built, is that correct? That's correct. Yeah. I purchased this property in 2019 and the structure was built in 1984 as an addition to an existing single car garage . And as far as I've been able to tell, was it was it properly permitted at that time for what was built or is that unclear? Yes, I actually don't know that. Gary, you've done more research on the structure than I have, actually.
Speaker 0: Yes, Councilman Clark, it was properly permitted. It was it at the time before those of you, maybe only Paul Cashman remembers this. It was before quick wins, too, when two storey dwellings could extend all the way back to the alley.
Speaker 4: Got it. Okay. Okay. Those were my questions. Thank you both very much. And thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Clark. Not seen in the other hands raised for questions. The public hearing for Council Bill 20 Dash 1424 is closed. Oh, I'm sorry, Councilman Cashman. I did a quick look and didn't see the hand raise. We'll go ahead and pause. Go ahead and ask your question, please.
Speaker 1: Councilman Flynn has the question.
Speaker 0: Oh. Excuse me, Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. Could James, could you answer a couple of questions for me in the in this urban edge context, what are the setbacks and what are the things for addus detached to use in the rear of the property?
Speaker 4: Thank you for the question, Councilman Flynn. So it's actually the urban context, not this is urban. Urban? Yes, sir. Not urban.
Speaker 1: So what are the setbacks? Because I notice in this, Ali, I wasn't here for a while because of COVID and everything staying close to home. But I just did the Wall Street view and the camera goes down the alley and all of the it looks like all the garages are just up to the zero setback basically is that are the rules for detached to use any different do they require setbacks from the alley?
Speaker 4: They generally do. Let me I'm pulling up my code right now so that I can speak intelligently and not.
Speaker 1: Always a good thing. Yeah. Thank you. I think it was stated in the in the application also that that this is already a non-conforming structure. And in what ways is it non-conforming in in the 2010 code and I guess it was non-conforming in old chapter 59 as well. I don't know if the owner could respond to that. Why you're looking at up, James. Stevens was this non-conforming in the old code as well as 2010?
Speaker 4: You know, I'm not I'm not as familiar with the old code. What I what I can say, though, is that. As a group, as a garage. I believe this would be conforming because the back edge of the building does sit directly on the property line.
Speaker 1: Right. But there's studio space above it that that makes it non-conforming because it's habitable or.
Speaker 4: Well, it was never it was never habitable. There's no I mean, if I if I if this reason goes through, I'm going to have to go through the permitting process. And we're going to we're going to add power, water, sewer, electrical. Well, that. I think as far as the nonconference goes, I believe that the ability on the north edge of the building, on the property line and it may be outside of the the back 35% building envelope. Okay. So, you know, I still have to get through the zoning or the permitting process in order for that.
Speaker 1: Would you need a. Would you need a variance then. It's. Rob James, do you have the answer yet as to.
Speaker 4: Five foot rear setbacks or is.
Speaker 1: And in the rear 35% of the property, correct?
Speaker 4: Yes. Correct.
Speaker 1: Okay. So would this if this were a brand new if this were brand new construction, it would not conform because of the rear setback. But it is in the rear 35%.
Speaker 4: That is my understanding at this time. However, as Mr. Tracy alluded, he will have to go through all of the whole permitting process and and determine those those factors. You know, in the rezoning stage, we really you know, we're not looking at specific buildings. Right. It's you know, we could demo and build a totally new area and we would want to be comfortable that that meets the criteria as well.
Speaker 1: So, of course, we know in this case he's not going to do that because I read the application. So I don't know if that means he would need a variance from the zoning board or what. So. All right. That's why I have. Madam President. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Mr. Casey, did you have.
Speaker 4: Yeah, that's my clear clarification. Sure. The building does sit five feet off of the alley line or does. Yes. And and then it has a small apron in front of it, just as with the other garage structures in the alley, you know, there is my for example, my neighbor's fence protrudes five feet beyond the structure of the garage. And so the alley is already blocked there. Where I believe the noncompliance would be is simply the property line. And then any any potential building envelope, which I have not corrected. And those primarily stem from the fact that the building sits on the property line.
Speaker 1: Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. And we'll take another pause here. Scene. No hands raised live. We're going to close the public hearing for Council Bill 20 Dash 1424 Comments by members of Council Councilman Clark.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. And I just want to thank all of the folks from the neighborhood, from District seven who came out for this a lot. There's a lot of speakers for an 80, you and I, and I appreciate everyone coming out and and spending time and again. I want to thank Gurdy for being here and represent the Neighborhood Association's position. You know, we've had a lot of use this, the first one in this particular neighborhood. And I think that we're going to continue to grapple as these come forward in communities that, you know, have some historically we heard about, you know, some not far away, but haven't gone through this process as far as people acclimate to, you know, the new plan, support from blueprint and plan on how to use and not every community is set up the same. We had one, you know, the other day that we're talking about areas that don't have an alley. And again, this is a community that's not gone through this process before. And I think we're going to continue to hear and grapple with the issues around short term versus long term rental and about privacy in the same ways that we continue to grapple with that in communities that are historically like this community, single family bungalows where , you know, a movement started a couple decades ago to tear down and build bigger and bigger houses. And now we're getting three story houses and we continue to grapple with with those things that are currently allowed in the zoning code. But that, you know, we're trying to some some work imagined and were allowed and some were. And and there are a variety of opinions on that. And I appreciate all the folks who came out to share those opinions with that. And again, I think as we continue to look at.
Speaker 1: Short term rentals.
Speaker 4: And not license and how that's going overall, that lives in a different place and a conversation that needs to continue. At the end of the day, here, we're tasked with does this meet the legal criteria for a rezoning for, you know, for this type of use? And I believe that, as demonstrated in the staff report, it does, you know, as as we see as we'll see with the one coming next, you know, this is not the only one coming forward in this neighborhood. And one of the distinguishing features, you know, both of them are going to be existing structures and we'll look at that one coming up. So there are some some factors with that versus a new build, but a lot of it comes down to, you know, the neighborhood sentiment of what's going on in there. And that is, you know, something? I think that we're going to continue to have to discuss and work through that, relate to all of those other ancillary issues. But at the end of the day, I think that this does meet the legal criteria for zoning for a change in zoning. And so I will be supporting this tonight, and I would encourage my colleagues to do so as well. And again, with with that asked that we continue those other conversations in the appropriate places about the potential impacts, the design guidelines. And I don't think it's just the ones that were raised here tonight. But we have a lot of areas that are.
Speaker 1: In my in in in.
Speaker 4: My neighborhood in Plat Park right next door that are already zoned for a to you. But you can't do an 80 over a garage because of both plane setback rules on the sides with the smaller lot sizes make it impossible to actually do. And so we have places where it's allowed and it has been allowed since the 2010 zoning code, and you can't do it because of the building requirements. And we have other places where you know it know fits, but there are there are, you know, evolving neighborhood concerns. And so I think we need to continue all of that. This isn't just a one size a use came through with and we're getting used to them and having so many of them that go through consent in committee, there are real, you know, construction issues and short term rental issues that we need to continue to grapple with . As we look at the, you know, the recommendations in these planning documents to make a to use a building form that is more universally implemented citywide. So but again, with that, I will be voting yes tonight because it doesn't meet the legal criteria. Thank you. Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Clark. And now we have you up, Councilman Cashman. Go ahead.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. Yeah, this is one of those interesting situations where I have dear old friends and not just friends. People I respect a great deal on both sides of this debate. But, you know, I learned a while ago that I need to vote my conscience and my understanding of the legal criteria that we're charged to evaluate here. And so I will be supporting this application tonight. But there's a couple of things that have come up, some of which. Councilman Clark went into a little bit that I think really do merit more than just a drive by. I think we really need to be evaluating on an ongoing basis the effect of short term rentals on our community. You know, so many people I talked to expressed concerns about the effect of short term rentals on the housing stock in the community. And then in the next breath say, as I do when I travel, I use short term rentals frequently. You know, so there's that evaluation. But the whole subject of privacy. I think really merits a deeper dove from from this council and from CPD. As far as you know, we're building these big houses. And we're building three story houses and then we're putting rooftop jacks. On the top of three story homes. Now, I realize, especially in our inner city neighborhoods, that we gave up what some would think of privacy when we started with with five foot setbacks. Some of our older homes are even closer than that. But I still don't think we need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I think we need to take a closer look if we are going to be building regularly, one and a half or two story structures along the back alleys. Are there design techniques that we can use to minimize the intrusion? So I just wanted to bring that up a little bit. And as this discussion moves forward, I do think we need to keep those tangential topics top of mind. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Cashman. And I'll go ahead and weigh in here saying no other hands raise that. This looks like it meets all of the criteria. And I will be voting in favor of it tonight. Madam Secretary, roll call, please.
Speaker 2: Clark.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 2: Flynn.
Speaker 6: I.
Speaker 0: Herndon.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 2: Hines. Cashmere. I can eat. I. Ortega, I. Sandoval. Sawyer. I. Black.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 2: CdeBaca, I. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 2: Can I ask?
Speaker 0: Ten I's Council Bill 20 Dash 1424 has passed. Councilmember Cashman, would you please put Council Bill 20 1561 on the floor for passage? Oh, you're muted.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 753 South Downing Street in Washington Park West.
Approves a map amendment to rezone property from U-SU-B to U-SU-B1 (allows for an accessory dwelling unit), located at 753 South Downing Street in Council District 7. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 12-1-20.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_02162021_20-1561
|
Speaker 0: Ten I's Council Bill 20 Dash 1424 has passed. Councilmember Cashman, would you please put Council Bill 20 1561 on the floor for passage? Oh, you're muted.
Speaker 1: There we go. Sorry, Madam President, I move council bill 1561 be adopted. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. We've got it placed upon final consideration and do pass. And thank you for the motion and the second. Councilman Herndon. The required public hearing for Council Bill 20 1561 is open. Can we please have the staff report? And I believe we have three on.
Speaker 2: Afternoon, Madam President. Members of City Council. My name is Phil and an associate city planner with Planning Services. Today I am going to present an overview of the MAP Amendment for 925 South Pennsylvania Street. The subject property is located in Council District seven with Councilman John Clark. In the Washington Park neighborhood. The property is located along Pennsylvania Street, just west from May 25. The lot sizes around 4440 square feet and is powered by a single unit home. The property is in the urban single unity zone district and the applicant is proposing to rezone their one single unit, a one zone district with a smaller minimum zone. So lot size. This would allow to legally permit an existing accessory dwelling unit that was built before the current owner purchased the property. As mentioned before, the property is currently in the Urban Single Unit district, which allows for a minimum of 4500 square feet. As you can see on the map, the property is surrounded by property. So us you be with a historic structure use overlay district. So the north and east and us you be to the south and you are h38 with a historic river later to the west. The current land use of the site is single unit residential and it is surrounded by mostly other single unit uses and some two unit a multi unit unit uses to a west and east. In this slide, you can see the existing building 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 in the top right and top left. And here you can see a couple of images from the alley where you can see the existing structure in the rear of the subject property. Both the images are from the alley looking north. Subject properties within the Washington Park new plane, which would allow a maximum building height of 89 feet, which of course does not affect your request because the maximum height for any you in this district is only 24 feet. Speaking of the processes, information on notice of the application was sent on October 26, 2020. Planning Board recommended approval on December 16th, and to date, staff has received four letters from the public supporting the application, given the proximity to multi-unit dwellings to the west and east and two layers of opposition. One of the letters is against short term rentals. The other one actually has concerns with the fact that the rezoning is to 81 instead of B one, but does not oppose the idea. As I said, one of the leaders of opposition refers to a potential use of aid to you for short term rental. On that point, I would like to mention that the Denver zoning code and associated licensing regulations allows the resident of the primary dwelling unit to conduct a short term rental, either in the primary dwelling unit or in a legally permitted accessory dwelling unit. Basically, anyone 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 the applicant from getting a short term rental license. The other opposition expressed its concerns not with the rezoning of the district, but with the fact that the applicant is rezoning to a smaller lot size. And this could lead to a patchwork zoning or or what we call split zoning. The reason why the applicant is requesting to rezone to you as a one instead of you as you be one is because a lot size is only 4440 square feet and does not comply with the minimum so lot size of 4500 square feet. We will go over this in my analysis and we'll explain why we think it is okay to rezone to a smaller size. Denver's zoning code has five review criteria, which I will go over. The first criterion is consistency with adopted plans. There are three plans applicable to this rezoning. The rezoning is consistent with several of the tragedies in comprehensive plan 2040, and I will go over a couple of them. 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. Looking at Blueprint 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 type. These place type have predominantly single and two unit uses, and accessory dwelling units are appropriate. Pennsylvania Street is designated as a local street, which is mostly characterized by residential uses. Denver also provides guidance on when it's appropriate to rezone to US district with a smaller minimum lot size. It says that it is appropriate when a pattern of smaller loads with similar uses is present in the surrounding blocks. The blog with the subject site shows a large proportion of properties that are under 4500 square feet. Which would be consistent with the U. As a one district and a few lots that are larger than 4500 square feet, which would be consistent with the existing Southern District of u. S. U. V. One. The button east and south of the site is of smaller, lots more consistent with a U.S. A1 district, whereas on the north side of Kentucky, the lot a bit bigger and more consistent with you as you do one district. 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. Now looking at the West Washington Park neighborhood plan adopted by city council in 1991. This plan is silent on energy use specifically. However, the proposed rezoning is consistent with residential land use. Recommendation number four include compatible setbacks, significant buffering and landscaping and site plans for new moderate density residential development to ensure compatibility with adjacent low density residential uses that attach a new building for was developed to specifically take these types of concerns into consideration and provides for appropriate supports between structures. Staff also finds the requested zoning meets the next two criteria. The rezoning will result in uniformity of district regulations and will further the public health, safety and welfare primarily through the implementation of adopted plans. To justify a circumstance where this rezoning is a city adopted plan. Since the approval of existing the existing U.S. business district, the city has adopted a comprehensive plan 2040 and blueprint Denver a stated throughout this presentation, the proposed rezoning to you assume a one mid-season tent of this plans. Lastly, the proposed zoning is consistent with urban neighborhoods, context, residential districts and the you issue a once on district. Stuff recommends approval based on finding all your criteria has been met.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Fran, for the staff report. Council has not received any written testimony on Council Bill 20, Dash 1561. And this evening we have three individuals signed up to speak. And Fran, we're going to go ahead and ask if you could take down the screen sharing there, and we will go ahead and kick it off with our first speaker, Adam CAVANAUGH.
Speaker 4: Yes, I am the owner of the property and we are requesting the rezoning really for use of an existing structure. I think a lot of the points cover a lot of the discussion of the previous property applies to ours. I don't think I have anything further to add to the discussion.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Adam. Next up, we have gurdy grant. Good evening. Council members and Council President again. It's me, Gerty Grant. I live at 242 South Lincoln Street, Denver, Colorado in council wonderful council District seven. And I am here on behalf of the West Park Neighborhood Association, which I believe sent a letter of support for this ADU rezoning. And our reasons for supporting it are that the immediate neighbors, both to the north and south, one of whom is Jane Kraft, Paul Cashman. And I think you remember her and they support it. The support from the neighbors was much more in favor than against. And this the architecture of this building fits in with the character of the neighborhood. It was converted to an access to a dwelling unit illegally without permits. However, it does fit in with the character of the neighborhood and West Wash Park voted to support it. Thank you. Thank you, Gary. Our last speaker for this hearing is Jesse Paris.
Speaker 4: Yes. Good evening. Members of Count. Mm. Those watching at home. My name is just Michelle Paris. I'm represented for Black Star Action Women for Self Defense, Positive Action Committee for Social Change, as well as the United Party of Colorado and Mile High North. And I'll be the next mayor of Denver in 2023. I'm in favor of this rezoning tonight for the reasons I stated at the previous rezoning. We have a housing crisis. We have this House housing crisis before Congress. We still have it during Kobe. So any opportunity opportunities council gets to pass rezonings of this type I am a supporter of. So I support this zoning tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Jesse. That concludes our speakers questions from members of council. We're going to give it an extra second there. All right. Seeing no hands raised, the public hearing for Council Bill 20 Dash 1561 is closed. Comments by members of Council Council member Clark.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. I won't belabor this one. I think the criteria have been met, and on top of that, everybody in the neighborhood is seen as supportive and happy to this one. Just another thank you to Gertie Grant for sticking around and speaking for the neighborhood on this one as well. And that's it. I will be voting to support and would encourage my colleagues to do the same. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Clark. And likewise, I will be supporting this as it meets all of the zoning criteria. Madam Secretary, roll call like I.
Speaker 2: Flynn.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Herndon.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 2: Cashman. I can, Kimmage. I. Ortega.
Speaker 0: I. Sawyer.
Speaker 3: I. Black I.
Speaker 0: CdeBaca. I.
Speaker 2: Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce results.
Speaker 2: Ten Eyes.
Speaker 0: Ten Eyes Council Bill 20 Dash 1561 has passed. Council Member Cashman, will you please put Council Bill 20 1-0006 on the floor for passage.
Speaker 1: Yes. Council President, I move the council bill $21 0006 be placed upon final consideration. Get ready and do pass. Okay.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 925 South Pennsylvania Street in Washington Park West.
Approves a map amendment to rezone property from U-SU-B to U-SU-A1 (allows for an accessory dwelling unit), located at 925 South Pennsylvania Street in Council District 7. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 1-5-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_02162021_21-0006
|
Speaker 1: Yes. Council President, I move the council bill $21 0006 be placed upon final consideration. Get ready and do pass. Okay.
Speaker 0: Very good. The required public hearing for Council Bill 20 1-0006 is open. May we please have the staff report? And I believe we have Libby with us.
Speaker 3: Yes. Um. Can you see my screen and hear me?
Speaker 0: Mm hmm.
Speaker 3: Awesome. So my name is Libby Adams, and I'll be presenting the Third Avenue case that you'll be hearing this evening for the Wrap amendment application at 2112 South Emerson Street. This application is located in Council District six, in Councilmember Cashman's district in the Rosedale neighborhood. The property is near the intersection of South Emerson Street and Evans Avenue. The applicant is requesting to rezone from Urban Edge Single Unit B to Urban Edge Single Unit b12 to allow for an accessory dwelling unit. I'm associated. Previously, the existing zoning is ECB, which allows for the Urban House primary building form and typically has a minimum zone size of 4500 square feet. The site is occupied by a single unit residents. It's surrounded by mostly other single unit residences. There are some two unit and multifamily kind of scattered throughout the neighborhood and then more commercial uses located along Evans Avenue. This slide shows the existing building performance scale with the site of the proposed rezoning on the right hand side of your screen, and then one of the multiple units just to the north along at the corner of South Emerson and Evans Avenue, and then one of the single unit homes across the street. This map amendment was complete in mid-October. A postcard notifying neighboring property owners and registered neighborhood organizations within 200 feet of the site was sent out on October 20th. Today, we have received one comment from the Platte Park Peoples Association concerned that this rezoning will lead to spot rezoning. However, spot rezoning occurs when a proposed district does not meet adopted plan guidance and when there's no justification for the rezoning. But staff has found that this rezoning is consistent with adopted plans and that there is a justifying circumstance warranting a change in zoning and which I'll discuss in the coming slides. So we don't do that. This would enable spot rezoning. And I also do want to point out that the Park People's Association was notified of this request because they are within 200 feet of the proposed site, but they are not the R.A. that is for this site. That would be the Rosedale Harbor Gulch Neighborhood Association. The Denver zoning code has five review criteria, which I'll go over. The first is consistency with adopted plans, and there are two plans that are applicable to the site. The proposed rezoning meets the goals and strategies in the comprehensive plan by creating a greater mix of housing options in the Roseville neighborhood and allowing infill development where infrastructure is already in place. The future neighborhood context and blueprint. Denver is urban edge. These areas contain elements of both the urban and the suburban neighborhood context and are mostly single and two unit residential areas with some multi-unit and mixed use embedded throughout. Blueprint identifies the subject property as the low residential place site. These place types are mostly single unit residential uses is accessory dwelling units are compatible and can be integrated throughout the area. And then South Emmerson Street is designated as a local street, and these are most often characterized by residential uses, which is consistent with the proposed rezoning of a single unit use with an accessory dwelling unit. The growth area strategy is all other areas of the city. This is where we anticipate to see 10% of employment growth and 20% of housing growth by 2040. The proposed rezoning to allow in a view is again consistent with this, as it would allow a slight increase in density consistent with the proposed housing growth. Blueprint. Denver also identifies specific policy recommendations. So the land use and built form housing policy for strategy states that individual rezonings to allow ideas are appropriate and should be small and area to minimize impacts. And so the proposed rezoning of just a single property is consistent with this strategy. South also finds the requested rezoning meets the next two criteria. The rezoning will result in uniformity of district regulations, and it will further the public health, safety and welfare, primarily through implementing adopted plans, also providing an additional housing unit that's compatibly integrated and also providing an additional unit in an area with high opportunity. This is less than a mile from a hospital, as well as an RTD station and less than half a mile from a public park and a full service grocery store. This stuff also finds a justifying circumstance for this MAP amendment, with the newly adopted plan, guidance and blueprint Denver to allow it. And of all of our residential neighborhoods. And lastly, the proposed rezoning is consistent with the urban neighborhood context. The residential districts purpose and then the specific intent of the ESU be one zone district. So based on finding our review criteria have been met. Staff recommends approval of the proposed rezoning. And that concludes my presentation. I do know the applicants are on the call, but I did not give them the link to sign up to speak at close by the time I sent it to them. But they'll raise their hand when the time comes. And I can use my presentation.
Speaker 0: Very good. Thank you, Libby. And tonight, counsel has not received any written testimony on counsel Bill 21, Dash 0006. And we have one individual signed up to speak this evening and we are going to go ahead and get started. Jesse Paris.
Speaker 4: Yes. Good evening. Remember, for those watching at home. My name is Justin LaShawn Paris. And I'm representing for Black Star Xtreme over for self-defense. Positive. Come in for social change as well as the Unity Party of Colorado and mile high north. And I'll be the next mayor of Denver in 2023. I am once again in favor of this rezoning. Tonight, we have a housing crisis. We had this housing crisis before it, and we still have it now. So any opportunities council gets to approve rezonings of this type I am in full support of. I supported Adios when I ran for City Council at large in 2019 and I will continue to support them. We have a housing crisis while we have 26,000 vacant luxury apartments. So I am in full support of this rezoning. I believe this is in Cashman's district. Good job, Cashman. You got this. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Jesse. That concludes our speakers this evening. Questions for members of Council. Councilman Quinn.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. Let me could you clarify for me what does CPD consider? When does CBD consider a parcel to be in a transit area? When I heard you talk about this being near an RTD station, it's actually in the staff report. It says it's it's several blocks away from a bus stop and there's probably any property in the city that's several blocks from a bus stop. The staff report also mentions proximity to the Evans light rail station on the Southwest corridor and the DU Station at the university up on, I think, High Street of Bucktown. Neither of those is within any reasonable walking distance routinely for somebody who wanted to use that for transit. So could you clarify what is CPD's measurement or standard for saying that a property is near transit?
Speaker 3: So it's typically within, I would say, a half mile. So you're right, this is a little bit farther outside of that area. And this started the bus stop along. Evans would be a lot closer, but that would potentially take you to the light rail station. Or if someone, you know has a bike that could very good bike to the station.
Speaker 1: Okay. Is there an outer limit where CPD would say, well, this site is not near transit, but we recommended that name? I mean, I don't I don't have a problem seeing this as my criteria. I do quibble with the notion that it's near transit just because there's a bus stop nearby. And I say that as someone who for five years when I worked at RTD, walked a half a mile every morning to a bus stop.
Speaker 3: Yeah. You know, that is. Oh, sorry. Go ahead. Something else.
Speaker 1: Is there a limit to is there a beyond which CPD would not say this is near transit?
Speaker 3: Oh, that's you know, because most of our city is served by at least a bus line. I would say so. I think for the most part, we would say that it's now some places are closer to higher frequency transit. So a bus line on Evans is probably going to run a lot more. We're on Colorado if you're close to Colorado Boulevard or Downing Street's more frequent. Um, so that varies throughout the city. But I mean, for the most part, our city is served by our two busses.
Speaker 1: Depending on where you are. Some are greater than other areas. Certainly. Certainly. All right. Thank you. That's all, Madam President.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. I see just Hastings. The applicant is in the queue. I wonder if we can promote.
Speaker 0: Yep. Well. Get that done here.
Speaker 1: Are you there, Jesse? You'll need to unmute.
Speaker 4: Yup. I'm here. Can you see and hear me?
Speaker 1: Yep. Absolutely. Can you just tell us what your thoughts are for what you want to do on your property? Yeah. We're looking at building a.
Speaker 4: Three car garage up the alley that has a two bedroom apartment above it. We've hired an architect with a lot of experience with use, so we're being very conscious to try and match the existing buildings architecture. And there's been a lot of talk about privacy concerns tonight and we definitely agree with that. Um, you know, we've talked to both of our neighbors who were very close to the, to the south and to the north. And we're gonna make sure we take every precaution to preserve that and try and have everything fit with the neighborhood's best we can.
Speaker 1: Okay. And what? Do you have any particular use in mind at this point?
Speaker 4: Out of the gate. We're looking at either a long term or a short term rental. I think the previous two people had a couple of really good examples of how a short term rental, even though maybe it has a negative connotation, the real positive thoughts with that. I have parents who actually live in Nebraska. We have a two year old daughter who they've come out to visit quite a bit and our house is pretty small. So that's something where the flexibility of having a short term rental, if we have relatives coming to visit and stay with us and they can stay on the property , but outside would be really nice for us as well. So that's something we're very interested in.
Speaker 1: Great. Well, you're should this pass? You have plenty of options on what to do with the property. We're looking for zoning, not the particular use. But I did appreciate your sharing your plans with us. That's all. Madam President.
Speaker 4: Thank.
Speaker 0: All right. Thanks, Jeff, and thank you, Councilman Cashman. And see no other hands raised for questions of council members. The public hearing for Council Bill 20 1-0006 is closed. Comments by Members of Council. Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 1: Thanks again, Madam President. Yeah. You know, for the reasons that we've talked about tonight, I do think accessory dwelling units make a a much needed addition to our housing inventory options. And I do need to just raise the name of Bob Sperling, whom I've talked about before, who is going office to office city planning for years when no one would listen to him. And he was talking about Granny Flats at that time, and he would come to my office hours, Pete's Cafe on a weekly basis and sit and yell at me, trying to get someone to listen to him. And finally, people listened. And unfortunately, Bob passed away a couple of few years ago before this latest involvement of accessory dwelling units. So he lives on and and did more good for, I believe, for his community than he probably even realized at the time. So with that said, thank you, Madam President and I will be supporting this application and would hope my colleagues would join me.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. I will support this also, and I believe that it meets the criteria. I especially like the fact that it is on an alley and has adequate access as the other two tonight did have. But I just want to take the opportunity to urge CPD to refrain or to be a little more discreet about using the transit access. I did look up the schedules and it's 30 minute frequencies on the on the 21 and the 12. And that's by no means a high frequency at all. And I'd like to reserve that for something that truly is near a high frequency transit corridor or train station. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Flynn, and see no other hands raised for comment. I'll go ahead and chime in that seeing that this meets all of the criteria, I'm happy to support it tonight as well. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 2: Cashman.
Speaker 3: I can each write Ortega a.
Speaker 2: Sawyer.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 2: Black. I see tobacco.
Speaker 3: I. Clark.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Flynn.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Herndon.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 2: Madam President.
Speaker 0: I and on Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results tonight. Tonight's Council Bill 20 1-0006 has passed and our pre adjournment announcement is on Monday, March 14th. Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 21, dash 0083 Changing the zoning classification for 2650 Arkin's Court 3205 ten Argo Street 3218 Argo Street and 2700
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 2112 South Emerson Street in Rosedale.
Approves a map amendment to rezone property from E-SU-B to E-SU-B1 (allows for an accessory dwelling unit), located at 2112 South Emerson Street in Council District 6. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 1-5-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_02082021_21-0039
|
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Ortega. All right. Seeing their hands raised on both of those will move on to the next item. It's Council Bill 21, dash 0039. Councilmember Black, will you please put Council Bill 21, dash 0039 on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 1: Yes, Madam President, I move that council bill 20 1-0039 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved and we've got the second from Councilman Herndon. Questions or comments by members of council. Council sayed abarca.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to call this one out for a vote and go on record as a no for this one. I've been an opponent of using our dollars for the eminent domain related to this acquisition, and so just want to go on record as a no.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilwoman. So, you know, no other hands raise. Madam Secretary, roll call it.
Speaker 6: Ibaka No. Clark.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: When?
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 6: Herndon.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: HINES.
Speaker 2: All right.
Speaker 6: Cashman.
Speaker 1: I can h. I.
Speaker 6: Ortega Sandoval.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 6: Sawyer.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 6: Torres I black.
Speaker 1: Eye. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I and I'm secretary closed the voting and announced results.
Speaker 6: One night to hours.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance making a rescission from and an appropriation in the Parks, Trails, and Open Space Special Revenue Fund; transferring cash to the Parks, Trails, and Open Space Capital Improvement Fund; and authorizing an appropriation in the Parks, Trails, and Open Space Capital Improvement Fund.
Transfers $1,750,000 from the Parks, Trails and Open Space Operating Special Revenue Fund 15828 into the Parks, Trails, and Open Space Capital Improvement Fund 36050 and appropriates the transferred amount to be utilized for the land acquisition of properties along Sand Creek. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 1-19-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_02012021_20-1471
|
Speaker 1: 13 Eyes Council Bill 20 Dash 1457 has passed. Council Member Clerk, will you please put Council Bill 20 Dash 1471 on the floor for passage?
Speaker 2: Yes, Council President. I move that council bill 1471 be placed one final consideration and do pass. So I get that.
Speaker 1: All right. It has been moved and I believe. Councilman. Well, Madam Secretary, I will let you make that call.
Speaker 2: It's curtains Hines got on.
Speaker 1: The second I was going to say Hines. I thought so. So, Councilman Hines, you got the second. The required public hearing for Council Bill 20, Dash 1471 is open. May we please have the staff report? And I believe we've got Libby here.
Speaker 3: Yes. I will pull up my screen here. All right, you guys have my screen?
Speaker 1: Mm hmm. Go ahead, Libby.
Speaker 3: Okay. So good evening. I am Libby Kizer of CPD and we are looking at a rezoning request for a 3217 East Yale way. The property is in Council District six represented by Paul Cashman, and it's on the southern edge of the University Park neighborhood. The property is located north of E Steel way between South Steel and South Adams streets. It's approximately 9700 square feet and is occupied by a single unit dwelling. The property is currently in the urban edge single unit d zoned district and the applicant is proposing to rezone to urban edge single unit d one to allow for an accessory dwelling unit. The ESU. D1 requires a minimum lot size of 6000 square feet and allows for the urban house and detached accessory dwelling unit building forms. The subject property was previously zoned esu d x, which allows for the urban house and suburban house building forms. But in June 2019, the property and all other properties in the University Park neighborhood that were zoned esu d x were legislative re legislatively risen to ESU d at the behest of neighborhood residents and Councilman Cashman, as they wanted to eliminate the allowance of the suburban house form due to concerns regarding privacy, solar access and incompatible character . And this map shows the extent of that legislative rezoning that was approved in 2019. As outlined in red within the University Park neighborhood boundary and shown it in blue. The previous rezoning from east to east encompassed 183 acres and over 1000 properties. The Yellow Star represents the approximate location of the subject property. As far as the existing context, the areas land use is defined by single unit residential and McWilliams Park and Harbord Gulch Greenway. There is existing building form in scale or characteristic of an urban edge neighborhood context with a blend of urban and suburban features, including single storey , single unit homes on orthogonal and curvilinear streets with alley and front loading garages. The distinction between urban and suburban features is most pronounced at the boundary of East Young Way, as shown in the upper left photo. The subject property contains a single storey house with a parking pad in the front and an alley in the rear of the lot. The home to the west is also single storey and loaded, while homes to the east and south lack access and have front loading. Garages attached to sidewalks are public throughout the area. The public process kicked off in October of 2020. And since then, application notifications have been provided according to code requirements. As of present, six comments have been received by neighbors and the University Community Council supporting the rezoning request, stating it will increase the availability of diverse, affordable housing at space for residing and visiting family members, add value to area properties and help prevent the scrape and redevelopment of this lot. However, four of ten members of the University Park Community Council oppose the rezoning, stating it could set a precedent for short term rentals and segment of long houses. Moving on to the review criteria, it must be found that the requested rezoning is consistent with five criteria. And in this presentation, I'm going to focus only on those that require some explanation regarding staff's analysis. In regard to criteria one, there are three adopted plans that apply to the requested rezoning, including the Comprehensive Plan Blueprint, Denver and the University Park Neighborhood Plan. The rezoning is consistent with all of these plans, as stated in the staff report. But I'd like to focus on Blueprint Denver and the Neighborhood Plan specifically. So there is only request is consistent with the future place and street type and growth strategy, a blueprint number. But when it comes to the neighborhood context, there's a bit of nuance as the subject property is mapped within the suburban neighborhood context immediately south of the urban edge context. In this area, the suburban context cuts through the block and does not follow the curve of East Wayne, leaving a fragment of the block with a different recommended context than the rest of the block to the north. This also occurs on the two blocks immediately east, where east heel way curves south of the alignment of Yale Avenue. As a result, these three block fragments have a different mapped context than most of the University Park neighborhood, which is in the urban edge context. While this is not necessarily a mapping error, the subject property does exhibit characteristics more in line with the urban edge context, as it's located in a transitional zone between a rectilinear street cred with alleys and a curvilinear street network without alleys. Lots in the immediate vicinity are of a similar size. As are the blocks are generally rectangular and as I mentioned, south of Yale are generally more curvilinear. And as we often do, I'd like to just point out that page 66 of Blueprint Denver states that when a new zone district is proposed for a site, 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 map. And in this case, the rezoning is consistent with the map intent and helps further blueprint goals related to 80 years. One of those blueprint goals includes Housing Policy four, which focuses on diversifying housing choice through the expansion of its use throughout all residential areas. An urban edge neighborhood context on district is also consistent with the University Park Neighborhood Plan of 28, which defines the subject property within a single family residential neighborhood. And one of the key recommendations for this area says that housing options should be appropriate for a central city location and limited editions should reflect the prevailing pattern of 1 to 2 storey single family homes. The rezoning is also consistent with criteria two and three regarding the uniformity of district regulations and furthering the public health, safety and welfare in regard to criteria for a city adopted plan is the most applicable justifying circumstance for this rezoning. If formal application requesting the rezoning of the previous ESU de Zone District to the current ESU district was received in December 2018 and adopted in June 2019 after significant public outreach that overlapped the public processes for the Comprehensive Plan and Blueprint Denver, both of which were adopted in April of 2019. Although the citywide plans were ultimately adopted before approval of the existing zone district plan goals, promoting its use, a greater mix of housing options and infill development near a mix of uses and transit are supportive of the rezoning request to ESU of D one. As mentioned previously, a rezoning TSD one is consistent with blueprints under guidance as the subject property is on the boundary of two neighborhood contexts. In this case, the urban edge zone district is more appropriate than a suburban zone district, as it maintains the neighborhood's desire to prohibit the suburban house building form. The rezoning would also be consistent with the zone district purpose to promote and protect residential neighborhoods and with the intent as a single unit district allowing only urban houses and detached to use with the minimum zone lot area of 6000 square feet. Therefore, CPD recommends approval of the rezoning request. And myself and the applicant, Brett Houston, are available for questions.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Libby. Council has not received any written testimony on Council Bill 20 1471. And we have one individual signed up to speak this evening. It's Jesse Paris.
Speaker 2: Good evening, members of council. Can I be hurt? Mm.
Speaker 1: Go ahead, Jesse.
Speaker 2: That's when I was just in the shop. Harrison I'm represented for Denver Homicide Law, Black Sox. I'm over for self defense, positive active command for social change as well as the Unity Party of Colorado Mile High. No, I was the abolitionist and I would be the next mayor of Denver in 2023. I'm in favor of this rezoning tonight. As Libby so eloquently stated, it meets all five of the criteria consistency with adopted plans, uniformity of district regulations, further public health, safety and welfare justify circumstances, consistency with neighborhood context, zone, district and purpose. So since it meets all the criteria, then I, I'm in favor of this. I supported 80 goals when I ran for City Council At-Large in 2019 and I'll continue to support any use. We have a housing crisis in the city all while we have 26,000 vacant luxury apartments. So. Any forms of housing that people who are unhoused are on the verge of being high house could benefit from or I'm in favor of. So thank you. I'm in favor of rezoning. Good job, Cashman. You got this.
Speaker 1: Thank you. That concludes our speakers questions from members of council. Councilman Sawyer.
Speaker 5: Thanks, Madam President, and thanks, Libby. I guess I'm a.
Speaker 3: Little bit.
Speaker 5: Confused about the consistency with adopted plans because you you went into a lot of detail about the and the one piece of the, I guess, the crescent on the map and how it is. Can you just explain that to me a little a little bit more clearly?
Speaker 3: Because I understand.
Speaker 5: How it is consistent with the other two adopted plans. But I was a little bit confused about your explanation of how it is consistent with the one adopted plan.
Speaker 3: So Blueprint number two finds the neighborhood contacts. This one is right on the edge of the suburban and the urban edge. And so in those limited instances where it makes sense, we can still establish consistency with some flexibility. And so in this instance, as I mentioned, these property is just north of Yale. Do you exhibit many of the urban characteristics of the rest of the blocks that they're on to the north? Okay.
Speaker 5: Perfect. That was. Thank you for that clarification. I was just a little bit confused when you went into the explanation of what was happening there. But that is all I need to know.
Speaker 3: Thank you so much.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you. Seeing no other hands raised, the public hearing for Council Bill 20 Dash 1471 is closed. Comments by members of Council. Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 2: Yeah, thank you. Council President Libby, thanks for the presentation. I do believe this application meets the criteria, but I really appreciated your bringing up the legislative reasoning that we passed a year or so ago because it puts kind of a wrinkle into this situation. You know what the rezoning did previously this the areas allowed both suburban and urban house forms for the for the uninformed. The suburban form allows two story construction pretty much from the front to the back of the buildable area of the lot, which ends up with second stories hanging over people's backyards, blocking what is we've come to recognize as a normal view of our neighbors down, down the row and so on. And so we did rezoning to eliminate that suburban form. However, now that we're considering a reuse, there is that danger with while this particular idea that we're considering tonight, as we saw, the home on the front of the property is a very modest single storey bungalow. But many homes in the zoned area are very large scrapes and rebuilds in the four or five 6000 square foot area. So we're in danger of adding a two storey adu in the back of a lot with a large urban form home that in effect may create some of the problems that we tried to get rid of with the by getting rid of the suburban form. So we've begun discussion a couple of residents and myself with CPD just to look at what type of design review or or design modifications might make sense for 80 youths in this community that would prevent the unintended consequences of allowing ideas I do believe they to use are a critically important part of our housing stock. But I don't intend to allow it to undo what the neighborhood decided was in its best interests. So with that said, I certainly support this application while recognizing those in the neighborhood council who have concerns. And we'll do our best to address those moving forward.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Up next, we have Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. Just because I'm a math geek and because it came up in Libby's presentation, I had been studying this. Last week when it was on the agenda upcoming and read the staff report and looked at the curve and Yale that Libby brought up. And just for everyone's edification, for nothing else, the the subdivision to the north, Asbury Park was filed in 1888, and Yale went straight through. And in fact, the original Yale Avenue from 1888 has become the alley behind the houses on that curve on what is now Yale in the 1950 subdivision to the south, which is called Wilshire Hills. And and actually it is because that alley remains that I feel comfortable voting in favor of this, because otherwise, where there are no alleys, I tend to be a little more critical of of ideas when there is no alley access. But I just wanted to mention that the subdivision from 1888 and it wasn't till 1950 that that curve in Yale got put in by the Wilshire Hills filing. So thank you, Madam President. I will be voting in favor of it because of that.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. And great history lesson as well. Appreciate that. Likewise. Seeing that all review criteria has been met, I will be voting in favor of this as well. Madam Secretary, roll call, please.
Speaker 3: Cashman.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 0: Can each. I. Ortega, I.
Speaker 3: Sandoval.
Speaker 5: I.
Speaker 3: Sawyer. I. Torres, I.
Speaker 5: Black I.
Speaker 0: CdeBaca.
Speaker 5: I.
Speaker 0: Clark.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 3: Flynn.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 0: Herndon, I. Hi. Hi. Madam President.
Speaker 1: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 3: 13 Eyes.
Speaker 1: 13 Eyes Council Bill 20 Dash 1471 has passed. Councilmember Clerk, will you please put Council Bill 20 Dash 1477 on the floor for passage?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 3217 East Yale Way 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 3217 East Yale Way in Council District 6. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 12-15-20.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_01252021_20-1560
|
Speaker 0: Councilmember CdeBaca. Will you please put Council Bill 20 1560 on the floor for passage?
Speaker 2: I move that council bill 2015 six be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: It has been moved. May I get a second? Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. The required public hearing for Council Bill 20, Dash 1516 is open. May we please have a stop? The staff report, please.
Speaker 2: Evening Council. My name is Jenny Button. I'm a senior city planner in community development and planning or excuse me, community development. We share my screen here real quick with you guys. Is that coming through okay for you?
Speaker 0: Mm hmm. Thanks, Jenny.
Speaker 2: Okay, great. And tonight, I'm presenting on the proposed historic designation of the residential property located at 6400 Mt. View Boulevard in the South Park neighborhood. The ability to designate individual landmarks and historic districts. And the city and county of Denver was set forth in the 1967 Landmark Preservation Ordinance. Since then, the city has designated 351 individual landmarks and 56 historic districts scattered across the city, as you see indicated on the map. This equals roughly 7000 buildings or 4% of the city that are designated landmarks. The designation process is community driven and applications can be submitted by a variety of persons. For this property, the owner submitted the designation application. The owner is Rebecca Rodgers again. This is located in the South Park Hill neighborhood. This is Council District Number eight, Christopher Herndon. And the current zoning is U.S.. A property must meet the following criteria for historic designation. It needs to be more than 30 years old or of exceptional importance. It needs to meet at least three out of ten significance criteria, maintain integrity and be considered by the Landmark Preservation Commission for relation to historic context or theme run through each of these criteria with you this evening. The structure built in 1936 is more than 30 years old. It also makes three significant criteria that you see highlighted on the screen, made see to embody the distinctive physical characteristics of an architectural style or type, it needs to be a significant example of the work of a recognized architect or master builder, and it also represents to represent an established and familiar feature of a neighborhood, community or contemporary city due to its prominent location or physical characteristics. These criteria illustrate what makes a property a 6400 Montague Boulevard significant for historic designation, which is primarily its design excellence. And let's go through each of these criteria. More detail now. The Single Unit residence at 6400 View Boulevard embodies the distinctive, visible characteristics of the Spanish eclectic style. It possesses several identifying features, including an asymmetrical facade stucco cladding with decorative brick tile roof with multiple levels, elaborate chimney top arches above principal windows, arched front entry with decorative ironwork instances, balcony with UN railing and primary facade and second story covered porch and round tower at the rear that you can see just above the trampoline there. The Spanish eclectic style often also includes elaborate landscaping features, and this property is no exception, with its flagstone walkway depicting moon phases leading to the front entry, which you can see in the second image from the left and flagstone back patio with sun imagery. It is one of a few Spanish eclectic style houses in the South Park Hill neighborhood. Its construction occurred at the tail end of the popularity of Spanish style in the United States that spans 1915 to 1940. The property is a significant residential example of the work of recognized architect J. Roger Music and master builder Harry Bittman, often designing in partnership with his older brother G. Meredith, music and civic and religious commissions such as the Masons Stamp Theater and Library on the Loretto Heights campus, which is currently under redevelopment. This venture represents the only known Spanish eclectic style residence designed by J. Roger Music in Denver. It is consistent with his residential designs and that it is a straightforward interpretation of the Spanish eclectic style and includes a prominent main entrance, accented with a large decorative round. It differs in its use of stucco as opposed to brick or stone, which is more commonly found in music's residential designs. A graduate of the Beaux-Arts Institute of Design in New York City, music's commercial, civic and religious designs have gained more recognition to date, including the Berkeley Park Chapel that was recently designated as Denver Landmark and the Colorado State Capitol Annex. Music was a Denver based architect from the late 1920s to late 1960s. He partnered with Master Builder and property owner Harry M Bittman on the design and construction of 6400 Mathew Boulevard. Simmons career in Denver spanned from 1928 to 1967 and included both residential real estate development and construction. He served as president of the Home Realty Company, was a founding member of Quality Home Builders Inc and formed the Bittman Construction Company in partnership with Jay Roger. Music on the design of this property influenced Bittman to build a similar Spanish eclectic style residence at 4833 East Sixth Avenue in 1937 that is not credited to Jay Roger Music. This influence took place early in Batman's long lasting career, making this a significant example of his work. And lastly, for the significance criteria, the property represents and established a familiar feature of the neighborhood due to its physical characteristics as the only true two storey Spanish eclectic style residence and its prominent location along Mountain View Boulevard. Miami Boulevard between Colorado Boulevard and Monaco Parkway consists of large residences and lots designed to be prominent with more modest residences tucked into the side streets. This stretch of road and green space that comprises Mont View Boulevard is part of Denver City, beautiful movement, parkways, historic district, which you can see indicate on the map shaded in Brown . The property at 6400 Mountview Boulevard stands out among the other large residences along the Parkway that are primarily Tudor revival and ranch styles constructed of brick. Its stucco clad walls and distinctive design elements stand in contrast to its surroundings, making it a familiar feature of a South Parkdale neighborhood. In respect to change over time, the property retains a high degree of integrity and has experienced minimal alteration. It retains integrity of location, setting, feeling and association as it is in its original location, is still used as a private residence, and the surrounding residential context has been largely unaltered since original construction of the property. Integrity of design, materials and workmanship have been impacted with the replacement of the original windows and garage doors. However, key character defining features of the structure like the tile roof, decorative metalwork and brickwork, stucco cladding, arch surrounds, decorative flagstone walkway and back patio and a rear second story porch and tower are preserved so the property retains the identity for which it is significant. Lastly, the property made several historic contacts with the 1936 period of significance. A historic context refers to the cultural, social, religious, economic and or political conditions that existed during a certain time provides the background necessary to understand how and why a structure or a district may have historic architectural, geographic or cultural significance. In other words, the context is not what makes a property or property significant, but rather provides a framework for understanding what does make it significant. In the case of 6400 Montague Boulevard, the property is significant. Bruce Architecture, Design Excellence. As for its historic context, it was constructed during the Great Depression and represents residential development by the affluent that happened at that time in Denver neighborhoods. It was also built during the time when racial segregation caused by real estate development was occurring in Denver and cities across the nation due to redlining efforts that began with the creation of the Federal Housing Administration in 1934. Harthill was an overwhelmingly white, populated neighborhood. At the time, this property was developed and the building's original owner fit that demographic. The property also relates the theme of housing near Denver's parks and parkways. The Park and Parkway System is part of the city. Beautiful movement was designed to be an integrated system of stately public buildings and appealing surrounding neighborhoods. Development of the property at 6400 MATTHEWS Boulevard occurred much later than the most active years of the original design and implementation of Denver City beautiful movement in the early 1900s. However, it still falls within this context through development of Montague Boulevard as a city beautiful parkway stemming from City Park in bookending at Monaco Street Parkway. As you can see in the image on the screen. In summary, the property meets all criteria for historic designation. It is 84 years old. It meets three designation criteria. See the map? It maintains its integrity and relates to several historic contexts. Five individuals submitted emails in support of the designations and acquisition. Therefore, staff recommends approval to designate 6400 Mathew Boulevard as a structure for preservation. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Well, thank you, Jenny. And tonight, council has received four written comments on Council Bill 1560. There are four submitted comments 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? Seen none. Council Secretary. Let the record reflect that all written testimony, both in favor and in opposition of Council Bill 1560 has been read by each member of Council and all written testimony will be submitted to the official record of the hearing. We have five individuals signed up to speak this evening and our first speaker up is the applicant, Rebecca Rogers.
Speaker 2: Hi. Good evening. Thank you for considering my house for designation. My journey to designate my home at 6400. Mt. View began several years ago. In 2014, I joined the board of Historic Denver because I was passionate about preserving and celebrating the unique history of Denver. As I learn more about the history of this great city, I felt more passionate about working to preserve its unique and limited historic structures and neighborhoods. As a result, in 2015, I hosted a community meeting at the Park Hill Library to educate people in the neighborhood about historic districts. I firmly believed Park Hill was a perfect place to create a historic district and hope others would feel the same. Out of this meeting, a group of approximately ten neighbors started meeting twice a month to work towards creating a historic district. I was really hoping that we would all agree on an area to tackle for the district that would include my house. But we had voted and we had all decided that instead of that we would try and tackle the first subdivision in Park Hill. As we started our efforts in earnest to work on the district, I pledged to seek to have my home individually designated and as the neighborhood historic district has taken many turns and even even more years, I decided to move forward with work on my own designation. When I moved to Denver in 2003 from Milwaukee, I was looking for a neighborhood one like the many neighborhoods that existed in Milwaukee with the large trees, the parkways and the historic homes. I was surprised to discover not many such neighborhoods existed, and when I happened upon Park Hill, I fell in love. I would drive to the neighborhood just to take walks and a house, watch up and down the streets. Even back then, home prices were high, especially for a young, single woman. I eventually found a starter home at right off of Colfax and Jasmine. I fixed up the house and started to move to larger fixer uppers. That led me to a house on 23rd and forest, and then another one in 17th Avenue Parkway and Cherry. And then finally to 6400 Mountview. We have now been in our house at the new home since 2013. We have completed many projects in that time, including stucco repair, masonry, repair of roof restoration, electrical upgrades, replacing many missing bathroom floors, renovating bathrooms and kitchens just to name a few projects. Everything has been done in a way that we hope celebrates the home's historic character and architectural style. We want to designate our home to ensure that it is around for generations to reflect Park Hill's diverse historical architecture along Mount View Boulevard, as Jennifer just spoke about being one of the last houses along that boulevard. Our house stands out not only because of its prominent location on the southeast corner.
Speaker 0: That's the time we have allocated. We appreciate your comments. Our next speaker up is Kristi minnillo.
Speaker 1: Good evening. My name is Christy. Minnie Yellow and I live in Denver.
Speaker 2: I prepared the application on behalf of Rebecca, so I am available to answer any questions council may have.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Christy. Our next speaker is Shannon Stage.
Speaker 2: Good evening, council members. Thank you so much for having us tonight. My name is Shannon Stage and I am the preservation coordinator at Historic Denver. We are a membership based nonprofit that provides assistance and resources to help preserve places that matter to our community. Our address is 1420 Ogden Street, Denver, Colorado. We are thrilled to be here tonight to show our support at City Council for the Bittman, our House designation at 6400 Mt. View. As outlined in the preamble of our city's preservation ordinance, one reason we have a designation program is to foster good urban design, and this property is being designated for its design excellence. Has Jenny mentioned and what it contributes to our shared fabric of our city, particularly due to its location at the intersection of two of our city's notable parkways, Mt. View Boulevard and Mt. View Parkway, which are both a part of the National Register and local designation Parks and Parkway System. It reflects design, excellence and artistic merit through its strong and intact Spanish eclectic style and is the only example of this style designed by J. Roger Music, a notable Denver architect responsible for a number of high quality buildings in Denver. This house will be the first residential structure designated on Montague and only the fourth home in Park Hill to be designated, despite the fact that Park Hill has encompasses more than 10,000 homes in total. Among these 10,000 homes, there is a great variety of architectural styles, inspiring stories and historic themes. 6400 Views sits within this larger context of Park Hill neighborhood history from its early development in the 19th century through the first decades of the 20th century to the postwar boom that expanded the neighborhood to the north, to the area's role in the civil rights movement and resident and church led efforts to fight unjust real estate practices and promote integration. I want to commend Rebecca Rodgers and her family for their stewardship of their house so far and their efforts to pursue this designation with the help from many other consulting that who prepared the designation application. We hope Rebecca and her family's action will inspire others in the neighborhood to take similar action, as Parkville is home to many terrific resources, but so few designations. Thank you all. Thanks so much tonight.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Shannon. Our next speaker up is Jessie Perez.
Speaker 3: Hello.
Speaker 0: Go ahead, Jesse. I think you might have to unmute again.
Speaker 3: Uniform. Only the speaker. Mm hmm. Anyway, my name is. Just listen, Paris. I'm up against the Denver homicide law last night. Law for self-defense, positive for suffocation. It was the Unity Party of Colorado in a mile high. No, that would be the next mayor of Denver in 2020. Group. So here we go again with another historic preservation. I know historically prejudiced and racist neighborhood, but yes. South Park you. So we're going to pass this preservation because it meets all the criteria of whatever criteria is based on it's going to meet the criteria. So there's nothing I can tell you that changed your vote on this. I would just like to acknowledge the fact that the presentation didn't do any kind of justice or injustice in regards to the fact that this was red lives. And this house is one of the main houses that would put a red line in. It was involved included in that red lining. You mentioned it bravely, but then it kind of we didn't go into detail about it. So but those are going in in our home. Prior to 1970, black people were not allowed to live past Colorado Boulevard. The first black people moved to Park Hill, what is now South Park? The North Park Hill in the 1970s. So this is very recent that we were allowed to even live in this neighborhood and campaigning in 2019. And every single door in this neighborhood and this area is still pretty much a red line. Maybe a few black families stay in South Park. Majority of the black families live in North Park. You. And this is by design. So even 40, 50, 50 years later, we still see the effects of rail line in in the 21st century. So I would be doing all my people with the service if I did not bring this up and let people know the historical significance of this. As I stated previously, nothing I'm going to say is going to change. The vote on this is pretty much been bought and sold. So I just want to let people know. Redlining is still in effect in the 21st century. This neighborhood was off limits to black people for a number of years. A number of decades. And I do not feel comfortable in this neighborhood. Still to this day, like I said, I knock on doors in this neighborhood doing my campaigning for city council about large. I do not feel welcome or at home if you don't know how to start with that. This meets the criteria. So once you get past. Thank you for your time tonight. By.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Jesse. Our last speaker is David Hagan.
Speaker 3: Hi. Good evening, City Council. Thanks for having me on here. I want to just reiterate what Jessie had said. I'm assuming that the only black people that entered that house prior to 1970 worked at that house to either clean or cook. And I think that that should be stated that we're well aware of the white supremacist past of that neighborhood. And since it was brought up that the home was part of integration, I think that we should also be aware that that that home housed a whole lot of unhoused right now. So I don't know how many bedrooms and whatnot are in there, but I'm pretty sure half of downtown could sleep in that house. That's all I have to say. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. That concludes our speakers tonight, questions from members of council. All right. Going once.
Speaker 1: Going twice. All right.
Speaker 0: The public hearing for Council Bill 20, Dash 1560 is closed. Comments by members of council. Councilman Herndon.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam President. I am very familiar with this property. I take my view several times. It's a beautiful house for those who have not had the opportunity to drive it, and it certainly meets the criteria. We got a little off comment with a little bit of false information, but I'll let my colleagues, your interested, read the history of Baku when it comes to integration and the work that that community has done. So I just want to just briefly talk about that, since I don't want people to think everything that's said here during public comment is true. But I also want to commend Rebecca Rogers and her family. She's a tireless advocate for making things historic beyond just her household, as she was talking about in the park community. So I want to thank her and her continued efforts for that. I will be supporting this and I would ask my colleagues to do the same. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Herndon and I likewise will be supporting this structure for preservation. It does meet all of the significant criteria necessary. Madam Secretary, roll call, please.
Speaker 1: Herndon, I. Hines.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 1: Cashman, Ryan. Can each i. Ortega. I. Sandoval. I swear. I, Torres. I. Black eye. CdeBaca. I, Clark.
Speaker 3: All right.
Speaker 1: Flynn.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 1: Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 1: 13 Eyes.
Speaker 0: 13 Eyes Council Bill 20 Dash 1560 has passed there being no further business before this body. This meeting is adjourned. Enjoy your evening.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance designating 6400 Montview Boulevard as a structure for preservation.
Approves an individual Denver landmark designation for property located at 6400 Montview Boulevard in Council District 8. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 1-5-21.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_01192021_20-1414
|
Speaker 2: Those are things that an ordinance can't teach you. And the art that you brought to this job is part of why you were as impactful as it was the skills and the hard stuff. So I just wanted to give you the homage of those skills and those gifts that we have appreciated so much and to thank you and your family. You have two young kids. It was a lot to do this job in this era of your life. And I greatly appreciate you and your family for the sacrifices that made it possible. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. Next up, we have Councilwoman CdeBaca.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. And I don't want to be too redundant because we can shower your praise. Shower you with praise all night long. Geer one of the few people that so many of us on both sides of many issues can come together and agree is an amazing human being and someone we all hate to lose. You made miracles within a very flawed structure, and I truly wish we could have changed the structure before you left. Because I can only imagine where you would have taken us to if we had changed that structure while you were in the seat. And so I wish you well, and I'm excited to see the changes you make in your new role and always in behind you. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, we have Councilman Ortega. Thank you, Madam President. Nick, I wanted to also add my gratitude for your leadership, your steady and your steady and ethical and thorough as our independent monitor. I also wanted to extend my appreciation to your family as well for sharing you with the rest of our community. As Councilwoman McKinney said, it's not always easy to do this when you have little ones. But clearly your wife played a big role in allowing you to be able to spend the kind of time that you did in in this position. I just want to wish you the absolute best of luck in your new role in Los Angeles and just God bless. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Ortega and Councilman Hines. I thought. I thought your hand up. Did you want to chime in there?
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 5: I was going to say shame.
Speaker 3: On you, but.
Speaker 5: I realized that the proclamation was about our former monitor and not about the city of Los Angeles. Shame on you, L.A., for taking such an amazing monitor from us. Then I realized it was. I got the proclamation mixed up, so apologize.
Speaker 0: Right on. Thank you, Councilman. And thenwe their hands raised. I'll just go ahead and and convey a few words here, Nick. We didn't get to work closely together, but over your time, just hearing the the words that people use to describe you and really the legacy that you have left behind for the Office of Independent Monitor in Denver. And we are very sad and disappointed that we are losing you to L.A. but we know that you're still going to be a member of the Denver community and so know that we'll always be able to count that. I'm sure you want to stay out of our issues for sure and do your own work with L.A. But when I appreciate you for all of your work and sacrifices over the years in this position. Madam Secretary, roll call, please.
Speaker 4: ASHMAN Absolutely, yes.
Speaker 1: Can I. Ortega Hi, Sandoval. I. Sawyer.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Torres, I. Black. I see tobacco. I. Clark.
Speaker 3: I. Flynn, I.
Speaker 1: Herndon.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 5: Hines, I.
Speaker 1: Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary closed the voting and announced results. 13 Ice 13 ICE Proclamation 20 1-0050 has been adopted. We've got 5 minutes for a proclamation acceptance. And Councilman Castro, do you want to go ahead and introduce Nick or we'll just go ahead and get inside then?
Speaker 4: I would just say, you know, it's always one thing to read the proclamation and the prepared comments. It's a great personal loss. As Councilwoman Torres said, Mr. Mitchell's been a true leader and mentor and will personally be missed. But it is so. It is a bittersweet honor to introduce our second independent monitor, a still a resident of and certainly a friend of Denver and Nick Mitchell. Nick, please.
Speaker 3: You so much. Councilman Jackson.
Speaker 0: And let me say, Nick, I think we might have an echo.
Speaker 3: That if you have the heads down.
Speaker 0: We might need you to mute one device.
Speaker 3: No one going. So I.
Speaker 4: Let's. Let's muscle through it. Neck high.
Speaker 2: Maybe you're mute. Mute, mute your device. So it's not playing out loud. You can still speak to it, but turn it down.
Speaker 3: Can you give me a thumbs down if it's any better? No. Better? Maybe a little.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 5: Thank you all. Thank you so much.
Speaker 3: I'm kind of speechless anyway. So deeply grateful.
Speaker 5: To all of you. And if I'm echoing, I won't belabor the point. I'm just I'm.
Speaker 3: So grateful to all of you and the partnership that we've.
Speaker 4: Had.
Speaker 5: Together. And thank you so much for this honor.
Speaker 3: I'm incredibly honored.
Speaker 0: Well, thank you very much, Nick. And and we are certainly going to miss you and want to give you some applause for all of the amazing work that you have done.
Speaker 3: Thank you so much.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. All right. We're going to go ahead and move on here, folks. Madam Secretary, please read the bills for introduction.
Speaker 1: From Finance and governance. 2121 A bill for an ordinance extending the sunset date for temporary maximum fees that can be charged for third party food delivery services in the city to June 14th, 2021. From Land use, transportation and infrastructure. 20 1560 A bill for an ordinance designating 6400 Montague Boulevard as a structure for preservation 20 1561 A Bill for an ordinance changing the Zoning Classification for 925 South Pennsylvania Street in Washington Park. Washington Park West. 21 0006. A Bill for an ordinance changing the Zoning Classification for 2112 South Emerson Street in Roselle and from Safety, Housing, Education and Homelessness. 20 1527 A bill for an ordinance approving a proposed agreement between the city and county of Denver and School District Number one to provide funding to create a hydroponic farm at Bruce Randolph School with accompanying curriculum to help ensure students recognize food, justice and security, understand health and nutrition, and to provide fresh produce to students in their community through urban farming, food preparation and food preservation in Council District nine.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Council members, this is your last opportunity to call out an item. Councilmember Torres, would you please make the motions for us this evening?
Speaker 2: I am actually trying to call out an item.
Speaker 3: Oh.
Speaker 0: Go ahead, Councilwoman. You know, we'll go ahead and we'll get through. Well, I want to hear from Councilwoman Torres. Are you willing to make the motions for us this evening?
Speaker 1: Oops. Yes. Council president.
Speaker 0: All right. Very good. Thank you. We're going to do a recap here. But Councilman CdeBaca, you had something additional to call out.
Speaker 2: Yes, I'd like to call off the Securitas contract 2020 1-0005.
Speaker 1: For a vote.
Speaker 0: For a vote. Okay. All right. Thank you. We will go ahead and do a recap here under resolutions. Councilmember Torres has called out Resolution 20, Dash 1530 for a comment. And Councilmember Hines and Councilmember Flynn have called out Resolution 20 1-0008 for comments and a vote. And then we have Councilwoman CdeBaca has called out 20 1-0005 for a vote under bills for introduction. No items have been called out under bills for final consideration. No items have been called out and under pending. No items have been called out. The first item up is Council Resolution 20, Dash 1530. Councilmember Torres, please go ahead with your comments.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. Just a quick comment on this bill. So I know that it was pulled two weeks ago to allow more time to address some questions and concerns that had been raised that not enough local businesses were included. And I just wanted to thank Dan and the team and community for making sure that this got appropriate attention. I wanted to comment on something to ensure that's not lost in this conversation and in the future, as Dan considers either this contract for renewal or others. But that's the experience and the opinion of the workers who work at Dan and the janitorial teams have done and their experience. So I heard a number of things from them. Firstly, their excitement to work with Flagship, but we also discussed the experience with a bundled and unbundled contract at airports generally. But this one in regards to unbundling can work really well, get new small businesses in the door and elevate that playing field. But we also have to acknowledge that unbundling at the airport is a different animal terminal work in concourse work. Concourse to concourse then is an organism, not silos. And I hope that in the future with then we can have a deliberate discussion about when unbundling works and when it doesn't, because it's not just about the businesses, it's also about the workers and workers who live paycheck to paycheck, who are bipoc and immigrants. The standards, accountability, wages, safety, any number of things that were hard fought wins for labor at the airport. Just wanted to make sure that we have that as part of the conversation because it felt left out before. I did ask Andy Jacobs from SEIU to join us in the audience in case there were any questions from that perspective. But I really did appreciate the opportunity to hear from some of the employees there, just really to talk about the relationship between concourses and the terminal and how important it is to have some flexibility and fluidity there. Thank you so much. Madam Chair, those those are my only comments.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Torres. We have Councilwoman Ortega. You're up next. Thank you, Madam President. I'll be very brief. I also want to express my appreciation to Ben, to the people from flagship to the community who were engaged in this process that found a creative solution to addressing greater mwb participation in this contract. It's one of the larger ones that comes through the airport. And so it was important.
Speaker 1: To.
Speaker 0: Take this pause. I also wanted to highlight that it's important not only with airport contracts, but with contracts coming from. All of our city agencies and especially on big ones where they are looking to have mwape partners that the outreach to our DSP office in identifying who the small businesses are from our community, the local mwb is that fall within the.
Speaker 1: Next.
Speaker 0: Code categories for the work that will be done on that project, so that it's not just simply, you know, checking the box that we reached out to them and we, you know, just say.
Speaker 1: That we did that, but to actually have some.
Speaker 0: Connection with those businesses and to engage them in the process. And I believe that is a correction that will be made moving forward with the airport. I think it's critical that we do that with our other agencies as well that bring these contracts forward. So happy to support this as it moves through our process. Thank you. All right. Well, thank you, Councilman Ortega. And not seeing any other hands raised for comments. We will go ahead and move on to our next item. The next item up is Council Resolution 21, dash 0008. Councilmember Suarez, will you please put Council Resolution 2021? Excuse me. Dash 0008 on the floor for adoption.
Speaker 1: I moved that council resolution 20 1-0008 be adopted again.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Herndon. Questions or comments by members of council. Councilman Hines.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 5: I would like to thank all the workers at Dan who helped me and all people with disabilities get to the airport to their ultimate destinations. For many with disabilities, even getting out of the house is stressful, and airports are often stressful for just about anyone. So prospective employees help make that experience a little easier for each of us. To help us access the world, I also want to thank those workers, many of whom are immigrants, for your dedication to serving us the disability community. You are part of America's diversity, and I salute all of you who have come to our country to seek opportunity. I'm proud of you. And I'm also glad that that I can be I can do my part. And that then does its part to to be a vehicle that helps you give it give you that opportunity. So I had originally called out the colleagues, as you know, I had originally called this out to give a compliment to the workers at Prospect. I have heard comments from some of my colleagues and and learned a bit more about the contract. And so I will defer any additional comments until I've given colleagues their opportunity to to share their concerns with with the body. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Wonderful. Thank you, Councilman Haines. And we've got Councilman Flynn up next, because he was one of the folks who called it out and then Councilman Kenny. So go ahead, Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Madam President, I called this out for a vote because at the request of the airport staff, they are requesting that we vote no on this and kill the lease amendment tonight and let them move forward with some other issues. Those issues which I'm sure Councilwoman Kenney will be speaking to. But Diaz asked me to to convey to counsel on to the public their reason for doing this. If I may read their statement, it was recently brought to our attention meeting the airport. That prospect is no longer offering RTD Eagle passes to their employees. Eagle Pass is the Transit Pass. The Den team requests that City Council Vote No tonight to give us time to work with prospect leadership to find creative solutions to try to bring back the eagle passes to employees, then sees this as an important benefit to offer any employee who works at Dan. We appreciate this being brought to our attention. So with that, Madam President, I'm requesting that my colleagues all vote no on this. This is what this is is it's a reduction in our leasehold area for the remainder of the year. The lease actually expires at the end of this year. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Next up, we have Councilwoman Keech.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council President So as Councilman Flynn describes this bill as an amendment to a lease agreement with prospect there, a passenger service provider at the airport, as Councilman Hines described. So they subcontract to the airlines to help get individuals who need help to their flight safely protected if something goes wrong during the during the wait for their flight. So it's a very important job. And I, too, want to make sure that any prospect workers who are listening understand how important and valuable their work is. But they subcontract to the airlines for the service, but they contract directly with us as an airport for their space that they need to run their business. And I think it's really important that there are some questions I've asked about the lease that are not yet answered. So just about the nature of the space reduction and the swap of space. So I do look forward to those questions being answered during this pause that will occur by us voting no tonight. But I want to expand a little bit on the the situation with passes over the course of several years, some former members of this council, prior council and workers advocated for were employers to begin providing eagle passes. This was not a practice at the time and there was a discussion should we have a policy or should we have a conversation with employers directly? And employers were responsive in part because it was in their best interests. It's difficult to attract workers to get to the airport with the expense of the transportation, with the barriers to getting to the airport. There's a lot of lost time for workers commuting and going through security before they get paid. So the eco pass was a win win not just for workers but for employers. And that practice continued. And all of the competitors, they just want to make this really clear. There are several passenger service providers at the airport. The competitors to this particular lessee are still providing this benefit, as are all of the other service contractors, large service contractors out at the airport. So but over the course of the past several months, they first reduced and then eliminated the eco pass benefit for more than 90 employees . These are folks who cannot afford to necessarily absorb this cost. And so what that means is for us as an airport, this is a concern both in terms of workers and their ability to make their ends meet, which is always a concern for our city. But it's also a concern because if it increases turnover, which workers are already saying, why should I work for you? If I can work for your competitor and get this benefit paid for for the same wage, then we will have an increase in turnover. We will have a increase in the need to badge and screen new employees. We will have less experienced individuals providing passenger services. And make no mistake, turnover has already been a challenge for this company and for this field. So these are concerns for us as an airport owner, right, as a city, about how these types of services roll out. So I want to urge prospect during this pause, in this conversation with the airport and hopefully with the Union of Workers who are representing their needs, which is SEIU Local 105. I urge them to reverse their decision and to reinstate the eco pass as their peers are doing at the airport. I recognize that the cost of an eco pass has gone up. We can all commit to working together to try to reimagine transit, to try to reimagine past fare structure as we come out of this pandemic. There is no question that that conversation will be happening because this pandemic has upended our transit approach in our country, not just in Denver, but in our country. So we can work together on that. But to balance the books on the backs of workers is not okay, particularly when it results in turnover and risks to our airport . So please reverse this decision, work with the parties. And I'm grateful to the airport for taking this concern seriously. As we vote no tonight, I hope we'll be having a different conversation when this lease comes back next time and that all of the other questions I won't get into those details, but other questions about the least can be answered at that time. Thank you, Madam President and members of the Council for supporting this effort to vote no tonight.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Hines.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam.
Speaker 5: President, and thank you, council members of Flynn and for your for your comments a minute ago I would echo Councilmember Beach turnover is also difficult for the disability community. It takes training and education and knowledge and frankly wisdom to know how to treat different people with disabilities in the way that works best for them. I have a spinal cord injury bite, but my injury may be different than someone else who has a spinal cord injury. And knowing how to treat different people in the way that works best for them is. Is an acquired skill. So it's a that I think is one other comment that I'd make. And then the final comment I'd make about, about how this benefits workers and the city also benefits the planet. I know that the first day, my first day in office, July 15th, 2019, we were voting on the widening of PENNER and I talked about Councilmember Clark has mentioned this in the past when the first things that are said is climate change is real and and we need to break Denver and frankly our planet but but we're Denver city council we need to break Denver's dependance on cars and and I would encourage prospects to reconsider because we need to all do our part to to make sure that we preserve our habitability on this planet. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Hines. All right. Seeing other hands raised, I appreciate my colleagues working with Dan to make sure that we get this contract right. Councilmembers Just a reminder to vote no. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 4: Flynn No.
Speaker 3: Herndon now. HINES No.
Speaker 4: CASHMAN No.
Speaker 1: Kenny. Now, Ortega. So. Sandoval No. Sawyer? No. Torres. No. Black? No. See tobacco now. Clark?
Speaker 3: No.
Speaker 1: Madam President.
Speaker 0: No. Madam Secretary closed the voting and announced results.
Speaker 1: 13 days.
Speaker 0: 13 days. Council Resolution 20 1-0008 has been defeated. The next item is the Council Resolution 20 1-0005. Councilmember Torres, will you please put Council Resolution 21, dash 0005 on the floor for adoption.
Speaker 1: And move that council resolution 20 1-0005 to be adopted.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded questions or comments by members of Council. Council Member State Ibaka.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. We got a notification later on in the afternoon today about some things that are going on at National Western and we haven't had the opportunity to meet with the person giving us this information. And so I am not clear on whether it was happening at the hands of security or the staff with the national Western. So I will I mean, calcium. So I will I want to go on record abstaining on this contract.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilwoman CdeBaca. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 1: CdeBaca abstained. Clark.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 1: Flynn.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 1: Herndon.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 5: Hines, I.
Speaker 1: Cashman.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 1: Kimmich I. Ortega, I. Sandoval. I. So. I. Torres. I. Black. I. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced results.
Speaker 1: 12 eyes. One Abstention.
Speaker 0: 12 Eyes. Council Resolution 20 1-0005 has been adopted. That concludes our 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 Torres, would you please put the resolutions for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor?
Speaker 1: I mean that resolutions be adopted and bills and final consideration be placed upon final consideration and do pass in a block for the following items. 20 Dash 14 1720 Dash. 15 3021 Dash. 000 720 1-000 921. Dash zero zero 1020. Dash 1560 220. Dash 1565 and 20. Dash 1566.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved.
Speaker 2: Here.
Speaker 3: And.
Speaker 0: Now there go. I think we got Councilwoman Sawyer was our second. Madam Secretary, roll call, please.
Speaker 1: Black. I see tobacco. I. Clark.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 1: Flynn.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 1: Herndon.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 1: Hines.
Speaker 3: Hi.
Speaker 1: Cashman.
Speaker 4: Second, I just wanted to get one in. Madam President.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 3397 South Geneva Street in Hampden.
Approves a map amendment to rezone property from S-SU-F to S-SU-F1 (allows for an accessory dwelling unit), located at 3397 South Geneva Street in Council District 4. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 12-8-20.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_01112021_20-1534
|
Speaker 2: I could just jump in with a couple of well, a comment and a question. So if you could share that information with us on the schools, that.
Speaker 0: Would be.
Speaker 2: Very helpful. And it would also be helpful to know how those schools were selected. So if you could get that information to all of us, I think that would be much appreciated.
Speaker 3: Yeah, absolutely. Also note to everybody.
Speaker 2: Okay, that was it. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Very good. Sorry about that, Councilwoman Ortega. All right. Now we're on to the next item up and it is Council Bill 20, Dash 1534. Councilmember Sawyer, would you please put Council Bill 1534 on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 1: I move that council bill 20 dash 1534 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded comments by members of Council.
Speaker 2: Councilmember CdeBaca Thank you, Madam President. I just called this.
Speaker 1: One out for a vote.
Speaker 2: It's not one that I've supported since.
Speaker 1: The beginning and wanted to go on record with the vote.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Roll call.
Speaker 2: CdeBaca No. Clark.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 2: Flynn. Herndon.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 4: Hynes I.
Speaker 2: Cashman.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 2: Can each i. Ortega. I. Sandoval. I. Sawyer, I. Torres, I. Black I. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 2: One knee, a lemon ice.
Speaker 0: One, the 11 Eyes Council bill. 20 Dash 1534 has passed and I wanted to make a quick announcement. Councilman Flynn is sorry that he missed that vote. He was having computer issues and had to reboot his computer. And so he will join us momentarily, as soon as he has that done. And so, unfortunately, he missed the vote on Council Bill 20, Dash 1420, Dash 1424. But moving forward or I'm sorry, excuse me. The vote on 20 dash 1534. The next item up we have now is Council Bill 20, Dash 1424.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance designating certain properties as being required for public use and authorizing use and acquisition thereof by negotiation or through condemnation proceedings of fee simple, easement and other interests, including any rights and interests related or appurtenant to properties designated as needed for the Sand Creek Project.
Grants the authority to acquire through negotiated purchase or condemnation any property interest as needed in support the Sand Creek Project, including easement interests, access rights, improvements, buildings, fixtures, licenses, permits and other appurtenances, for the portion of the vacated North Ulster Street right of way located at 8101 E. 40th Avenue in Council District 8. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 12-15-20.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_01112021_20-1424
|
Speaker 0: And so, unfortunately, he missed the vote on Council Bill 20, Dash 1420, Dash 1424. But moving forward or I'm sorry, excuse me. The vote on 20 dash 1534. The next item up we have now is Council Bill 20, Dash 1424. Council members earlier will need a motion to take this out of order. Please.
Speaker 1: I move that council bill 20 dash 1424 be taken out of order.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It's been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 2: Back. I see tobacco.
Speaker 3: I see.
Speaker 2: Clark.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 2: Herndon.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 4: Hines, I.
Speaker 2: Cashman. I can if I. Ortega, I. Sandoval. I. Sawyer, I. Torres. I. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 2: 12 Eyes.
Speaker 0: 12 Eyes. Council Bill. 20 Dash. 1424 has been taken out of order. Council Member Sawyer. Will you please put Council Bill 20 Dash 1424 on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 1: I move that council bill 20 dash 14 and 24 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded. Councilmember Herndon. Your motion to postpone?
Speaker 3: Yes, Madam President. I move that final consideration of Council Bill 20-1424 be postponed to Tuesday, February 16th, 2021.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Comments by members of Council Councilmember Herndon.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. The notification of the rezoning that did take place on this property was not properly noticed in time, which is requiring the push back of the public hearing. So that's why I'm requesting it to be pushed back to February. Thank you, my president.
Speaker 0: Thank you, councilmember herndon and seen no other comments by members of council. Madam Secretary, roll call on the postponement.
Speaker 2: Herndon.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 2: Hines.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 2: Cashman.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 2: I can. I. Ortega, I. Sandoval. I. Sawyer, I. Torres. I. Black I. CdeBaca, I. Clark.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 2: Not sure if Councilman Flynn is back. Doesn't look like. And, Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 2: 12 eyes.
Speaker 0: 12 Eyes. Final consideration for Council Bill 20 Dash 1424 has been postponed to Tuesday, February 16th. That concludes the items to be called out. All bills for introduction are ordered published. Council members remember this is a consent or a block vote and you will need to vote I. Otherwise, this is your last chance to call out an item for a separate vote. Councilmember Sawyer, 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 on final consideration be placed upon final consideration and do pass in a block for the following items. These are all serious. 21 002215441569156815711572157315791514511310152615321533155915241535155414621478 and 1469.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved.
Speaker 2: And second to point of order.
Speaker 0: Yes, Councilwoman, I can.
Speaker 2: Hear you say 21 or 20.
Speaker 4: She did, Madam President.
Speaker 2: Okay. So I just want to clarify. They're all bills from 2020, not 2021.
Speaker 1: According to Madam Secretary, in the email I received earlier today, because they are being moved in 2021. They are all 2021. Is that correct, Madam Secretary? That's the email that you sent to me earlier today.
Speaker 2: Even though the bills say 2020.
Speaker 1: That's correct. That's the email I received today. But, Madam Secretary, could you.
Speaker 0: Can have her.
Speaker 2: Weigh in. Thank you. I think this is makhija here, council secretary and that is correct. The series actually go by the years that the items are passed, not the prefix. So while the prefix is 20, the series is 21. Thank you for the clarification. All right. Absolutely.
Speaker 1: Awesome. Thanks so much. So do you need me to say them or are we good? We're good. Awesome.
Speaker 0: I believe, Madam Secretary, we've got it taken care of here. And thank you, Councilwoman Ortega, for your question and point of order. All right. Madam Secretary, roll call, please. Oh, and I'm sorry. As we were doing that, we have 12 eyes. And the. Resolutions have been. Adopted and the bills have been placed upon final consideration. Okay. I'm sorry. The script had moved on me. Sorry. I was trying to get the script. When you're on SharePoint, sometimes it moves. And I was pointing there and so. Very good. Now we're back. Madam Secretary, roll call, please.
Speaker 2: Black. I. CdeBaca, I. Clark, I. Herndon.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 2: Hines.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 2: Cashman.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 2: Kenny. All right, Ortega. I. Sandoval. I. Sawyer, I. Torres, I. Madam President. Hi. I see Flynn is.
Speaker 0: Here to see Flynn. Go ahead.
Speaker 2: Council member Flynn.
Speaker 3: Thank you. I was watching on my phone while I rebooted after having some computer problems. Is this the black vote?
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 3: Okay. I am voting I. But I do want to observe that the bills should be 2020, not 2021. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Secretary. Close the vote or go ahead and get me in here.
Speaker 2: Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced the results. 3939 As the resolutions have been adopted and the bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass tonight, there will be a required public hearing on Council Bill 20, Dash 1456 designating 1272 column by industry as a structure for preservation. Anyone wishing to speak on this matter must go online to sign up during the recess of council. If there are no objections from members of council, we will take a ten minute recess. Council members please return. Remember to turn off your cameras and meet your microphones and we will return.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 753 South Downing Street in Washington Park West.
Approves a map amendment to rezone property from U-SU-B to U-SU-B1 (allows for an accessory dwelling unit), located at 753 South Downing Street in Council District 7. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 12-1-20.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_01112021_20-1456
|
Speaker 1: My name is Jovan Fitzgerald, and my husband's right behind me here. We live at 955 Pearl Street, which is in the Equality Hill Historic District. And we are very pleased you are considering our property at 1272 Columbine for designation as a Denver landmark, and it will be known as the Stahl House. John Stahl, as Kara told you, was a pioneering businessman with the foresight and daring to leave his family, house and businesses in Lockport, New York, and join many fortune seekers flocking to the young state of Colorado in the 1870s. He and Partners, also from Lockport, established hardware stores in the mining district from Tin Cup to Buena Vista. Within just a few years, they saw more opportunity in the capital city and moved to Denver, each pursuing his own business interests. For stall, it was to introduce a relatively new device, his typewriter business, possibly. Denver's first opened in 1885. At 16th and Tampa, it quickly transformed communications in the city. The business gave stall the contacts to gain prominence and influence in all aspects of civic civic life. Up to his death at age 90, at the Columbine Street House, the stall house was built in 1889, among the earliest in what is now the Congress Park neighborhood. He chose lots just three blocks from East High School, where all four of his children would graduate. He chose William Lang, the most popular architect at the time, to design the home. This tall family lived, married and died in the home from its construction to the 1940s. When we purchased the property in 1982, we were amazed to find such a classic example of Queen Anne architecture still standing among nearby apartment buildings, having survived for 93 years. Obviously loved by two previous owners, the home observed deserved a future life. We decided the two dwelling units would protect the architectural features and retain the historic character. Also, it seemed a better fit for the block, which was so altered by mixed use in the 1960s and seventies. We've always believed the style house worthy of landmark status, but when the Citywide Discover Denver survey identified it also as one of the few Queen Anne structures and one of the most intact of Lang's designs. We were encouraged to apply for individual designation, thanks to the help of historic Denver and the support of the Landmark Commission and staff. We are seeking your approval. We hope it might inspire other owners wanting to preserve the history and character of the Congress Park neighborhood.
Speaker 0: Thank you for your comment and. All right. Perfect. Next up, our speaker. Our second speaker is Annie Levinsky.
Speaker 2: Hi.
Speaker 1: Good evening. Thanks, but thanks so much for hearing this designation. Application tonight I am Annie Levinsky. I'm the executive director of Historic Denver. We're located at 1420 Ogden Street. And as you know, we're a membership based nonprofit organization dedicated to education and advocacy to help promote and protect our historic places and spaces. And I'm really pleased to be here tonight to support the designation of 1272 Columbine. While the home's history was well known to its owners and as you can tell, Jovan is very passionate about it. And it was not well known more broadly until the Discover Denver survey was working in the neighborhood over the last couple of years . And we were able to reconnect with the Fitzgeralds and the research team noticed the home because of its prominent and unique design features and it being a very intact example of an early Denver style, the Queen Anne style. But further research did uncover the architect, William Lang, who was the architect of our own organization's Molly Brown house, as well as the house known as the Castle Barn, another well known property in District ten. And that uncovered the story of the stall, how the stall family, which is a really fascinating story of two generations of Denver leaders who were very heavily involved and lived in the home for more than 50 years. And I think it's a testament to this house that it's had only three owners, the stall family, the subsequent owner, and then the Fitzgeralds. And they've all obviously poured a lot of sweat and energy into maintaining it in such a fine condition. And so I want to commend the Fitzgeralds for taking this action and for their patience, because it is something that they have long wanted to achieve. And we were really happy to be able to help bring it across the finish line. Jovan did a lot of the research herself about the house over the years and then our team, including interns and staff intern Scott KRATZER Shannon stage on our staff and Leslie Kroupa helped to complete the application and the Fitzgeralds have been incredibly thoughtful in their efforts to maintain and restore the House. Their choice early on to convert it into from one tiny single family home. Later it had borders and then into the two units that are there today, demonstrates the flexibility of older homes to accommodate the changing needs of our city over time. And because of this designation, the House will continue to survive and thrive there and provide for community needs long into the future. So thank you for your consideration and I can be available for questions about the application if needed.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you very much, Annie. Next up, we have Jesse Paris. Go ahead, Jesse.
Speaker 4: Yeah. Yes. Good evening. Members of Councilman erm is just in with Tom Perez, our representative for Denver of Stylo Black. It's a moment for self defense, positive action coming in for social change as well as the Unity Party of Colorado and Mile High. Knowles and I will be the next mayor of Denver in 2023. This car preservation tonight at 1275 Columbine Street. It meets all the criteria. For a designation of this kind. However, I would be remiss if I didn't bring up the historical significance of this area. With the redlining that occurred in Denver in the 1800s and the 1900s and still pockets continues to this day. This area, this family that you have brought all this praise and galore on, they were racist white supremacists. They didn't do anything to help so-called people of color in the city. They built their fortunes off the backs of them, and they probably came here from the riches they acquire from the slave trade. As well. They are beneficiaries of the slave trade. So with that being said, we all have to acknowledge this history. This was not that long ago and in 2021 we are still dealing with the same issues. So I am in favor of this reasoning despite the horrible history, because it meets all the criteria. And there is nothing I can tell you tonight that is going to change your vote on this. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is David Hagan.
Speaker 3: Hi. My name is David and I live in District nine. And so we thank you for being here. And I think it's allowing you to speak. And in the spirit of what you said earlier about preserving the voices, since I was unable to speak earlier, I have something to speak on a general comment, because I signed up at 1230 on Friday and was not given my 3 minutes. I wanted to talk about the fact that it was an atrocious act last Wednesday that happened at the Capitol. And it's not only Donald Trump that's responsible, it's every single Republican.
Speaker 0: You see, Mr. Hagan.
Speaker 3: That being.
Speaker 0: Unable.
Speaker 3: To.
Speaker 1: That because we.
Speaker 0: Don't have enough time. And so we're not going to you're going to have to speak on the land preservation, this landmark preservation tonight. I'm sorry you weren't able to be heard during public comment tonight, but if you want to use your time to speak on this landmark preservation, you may be so.
Speaker 3: I. Hello? And I still go on.
Speaker 0: You're still on. Okay. To finish your public comment on the landmark preservation we're talking about, Frank.
Speaker 3: About. I'm sorry. What?
Speaker 0: You can use your time tonight to talk about the landmark preservation of this home.
Speaker 3: I will not be talking about that. So you can either cut me off.
Speaker 0: Then we're going to go ahead and move to the next speaker. We've got Tess Doherty up. All right. We're going to go ahead and move to our last speaker, and that's Tess Dougherty. And we would just ask that, folks, stay on the top topic of the landmark preservation that we're talking about tonight. All right. Well, we'll see if we can get Ms.. Doherty into the. Meeting here. Okay. All right. Unfortunately, we had them leave tests, left the meeting. And so that concludes our speakers tonight. Questions from members of council. All right. See? No questions. There we go. Wanted to take a second. Councilwoman, can each.
Speaker 1: Madam President, just one real quick one. I heard a passing reference to being inside of a historic district, and I just wanted to ask the staff if you could clarify what the significance of being a designated individually is inside of a district and whether, you know, and whether there's any, you know, difference in terms of what happens in the future. Just any clarification on that would be helpful. So this property itself.
Speaker 5: Is not inside of a district. But I believe that John Fitzgerald, the house they currently live in, is in a historic district and I think that's the reference you are talking about.
Speaker 1: I misunderstood that. Okay. Thank you very much for clarifying. No further questions, Madam President.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Canete. All right. Going one last time for any other questions from members of council. See none. The public hearing for Council Bill 20 Dash 1456 is closed. Comments by members of Council. Councilman Hines.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. This this historic designation is in District ten endeavors. Perfect. Ten in the country's best neighborhood. And and I'm really excited about this this designation. I want to I want to recognize that we're a growing city. We should make sure that we prepare ourselves for tomorrow. But but we should also observe and celebrate Denver's rich history. I don't know if you know, but I grew up the minute that was ten inches taxes and there was actually evidence of human remains or human activity as far back as 10,000 years. So as far as, you know, American history, that's a long time. And and so growing up in a town, the oldest town in Texas, where there were a lot of recognition of history as well as, you know, obviously business people conducting business today. It helped give me a respect for for for balancing both and with 1272 Columbine, I am I am really excited to support this historic designation. I want to thank CPD staff for all their research and and a great presentation. I want to thank Congress Neighbors, the registered neighborhood organization that took out the community engagement. I want to thank the members of Congress Park who responded to the survey and and recognize the beauty, quality and significance of 1272 Columbine. I want to thank historic Denver, but most importantly, I want to thank the Fitzgerald family. I want to thank you for your interest in the homeowner initiated historic designation. My first my first brush with historic designation after I took office was with Tom Steiner. And that was not of an odor initiated. In fact, it was owner opposed. So so this is a far kinder, gentler designation. And and and I want to thank the Fitzgerald family for their willingness to engage me historic Denver and other stakeholders as they went through the appropriate process to give this designation a best chance that its best chance for success. So to the Fitzgerald family, thank you very much to my colleagues. I will support this and I hope you do as well. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Hines, and I appreciate your comments. And I will also be supporting this tonight. It meets the criteria. And I really appreciate Ms.. Fitzgerald sharing the history of the House and their work on preserving this structure for generations to come. Madam Secretary, roll call, please.
Speaker 2: Hynes.
Speaker 4: All right.
Speaker 2: Cashman. Can each. I. Ortega, I. Sandoval. I. Sawyer, I. Torres, I. Black I. CdeBaca, I. Clark.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 2: Flynn.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 2: Herndon.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 2: I see. Cashman.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 2: Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 2: 13 Eyes.
Speaker 0: 13 Eyes Council Bill 20 Dash 1456 has passed the pre adjournment announcement on Monday, February eight. The Council will hold the required public hearing on 20 Dash 088 relating to the Denver zoning code, updating household regulations, consolidating residential care uses and establishing a new congregate living use category, which is also known as the group Living Text Amendment
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance designating 1272 Columbine Street as a structure for preservation.
Approves an individual Denver landmark designation for property located at 1272 Columbine Street in Council District 10. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 12-15-20.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_01042021_20-1530
|
Speaker 1: Yes, Madam President, I move the resolution 20 dash 1530 be adopted so I can thank you.
Speaker 0: It's been moved. And we've got the second from Councilman Hines. Councilmember Flynn. Your motion to postpone.
Speaker 4: Yes. Thank you, Madam President. I move that consideration of council resolution 20 dash 1530 be postponed to Tuesday, January 19, 2021.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Comments by members of Council Councilmember Flynn.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. Airport staff contacted me shortly before the meeting and asked that this bill be delayed to that date. And they asked me to read a brief statement explaining why. So this is from DIA or Dan? I still call it DIA. Dan celebrates individuality and the uplifting of all races, ethnicities, national origins, ages, abilities, religions and LGBTQ A-plus plus communities. We support access, inclusion, equity and diversity and have worked hard to reflect that in the contracting ad. Then we understand that this contract has raised concerns in the community and wish to take time to listen to their concerns and to discuss the intent of this contract and its novel approach to not just including minority and women owned businesses in contracts, but helping them to succeed. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Madam Secretary, roll call on the postponement.
Speaker 1: When I.
Speaker 2: Herndon. I Hines.
Speaker 1: Hi.
Speaker 2: Cashman.
Speaker 1: All.
Speaker 2: You need.
Speaker 0: I think.
Speaker 2: Ortega.
Speaker 5: I.
Speaker 2: Sandoval. I. Sawyer.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 2: Torres, I. Black. I see tobacco. I. Clark.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced the results.
Speaker 2: 13 Eyes.
Speaker 0: 13 eyes. Consideration of Council Resolution 20 Dash 1530 has been postponed to Tuesday, January 19. The next item up is Council Resolution 20, Dash 1472. Councilwoman CdeBaca, please go ahead with your questions on 1472.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. We actually got the answers to these questions right before. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Okay. All right. Thank you. The next item up, did you get your questions answered on 1531 as well?
Speaker 3: No, that one. I still have questions on, so. Okay.
Speaker 0: All right. Great. If you wouldn't mind going ahead with your questions on 1531, then.
Speaker 3: Yes. Thank you very much. I believe Laura Walker's on the call and I had a couple of follow up questions from their responses. I was curious about this contract because it seems like this company has had the contract for quite a while, and we were told that they're the only vendor who can provide this service. And I'm wondering when the last time it was that it went out to bid. And what is the challenge? Why aren't other vendors able to to provide this service?
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilwoman and I on my seat here I have Joe. Separate. And I see we've got Laura walked her up as well. So whoever wants to answer that question.
Speaker 3: Good afternoon, members of Council. I will let us take both Josep Prieto from Technology Services, take the lead on answering those questions. And I believe we also have Steve Hahn on as well.
Speaker 1: Yes. This is Steve on. I'm on Joe. I'm happy to go. The question is, when was it last sent out to bid? This was a contract it was entered into in 2008. And I spoke with some people from technology services and we don't have couldn't find the records of the RFP from 2008 so. We can't tell you whether it did or didn't go out for competitive process at that time. But in the resolution request, it was designated as noncompetitive.
Speaker 3: And why is that?
Speaker 1: Why is what?
Speaker 3: Why is it noncompetitive?
Speaker 1: So it's. It's. Was marked as noncompetitive, I assume. And Joe, you might want to chime in because because records couldn't be found from a competitive process in 2008. Joe, can you confirm that? Yeah. I looked into al fresco, I believe, for notes and comments when the original contract was initiated. And I believe that it was noted as a. Professional preference or a sole source. So that's the information I passed along in the resolution request. Sexual preference or a sole source by Denver Police Department.
Speaker 3: And can you explain to the public watching what that means?
Speaker 1: That means in lieu of doing a solicitation process, the agency's subject matter experts have deemed a certain product to. Meet all the needs. That other products can't meet. I guess in essence, it's it's they deemed it as the product that meets all the needs that other other products cannot meet.
Speaker 3: And what are those needs exactly? What does this system do? So this system is explorer? Yeah, this is our records management system. So this is our system in which the police uses. It is in our vehicles. It is in our. On our iPhones. And it keeps track of all the all of our criminal records. It integrates to all of our our.
Speaker 1: It's.
Speaker 3: Out of our other criminal justice tech technologies. It integrates with our jail system. It integrates in with our court system. So it tracks all of our our police records. And so do other cities use this company or did this company come into existence just for us? Other cities do use first term. I don't know which which ones do use it. And also the Mayor Hancock, he added in in zero eight and 2012 regarding the competitive selection policy. So back what happened in 2008, I'm not sure what did happen in 2008 regarding the competitive selection process. And are they a local business? Joe, do you know where they're located?
Speaker 1: I do not know where they're located, but I certainly can find out and let you know.
Speaker 3: And so is there a plan for this to go out to bid next time, or are we keeping it a sole source contract? And what what prevents us from finding out if other people will provide this service? It's my understanding that this amendment is for three years. So through 2023 and we are currently in the process of looking at public safety technology consultants and just looking at taking a look at our CAD system or our system and just looking at how all of these systems integrate. So we'll know more and you know, in the future regarding.
Speaker 1: What we want to do, regarding.
Speaker 3: The future of arms and CAD public safety technologies.
Speaker 1: Every time we do an amendment, we ask those questions whether this should be built out. If there are other competitors on the market. And I believe if this information is in the resolution request that I submitted, we do take it. We do analyze the market. And there are other products on the market. But then we get into the expense it would cost to rebid and possibly go with a new vendor. And that gets into implementation services, data migration, training, etc., etc.. So that that is analyzed every time we do an amendment and taken into consideration before we just extend the current contract.
Speaker 3: And so real quick on this, because it came up with another safety database. Is this a data system that the independent monitor has default access to? No. The independent monitor does not have access. I don't believe the independent monitor has access to this to the system. What you're thinking of is the evidence scheme system, which we're working through. No, I'm actually just thinking generally of all of the systems an independent monitor should probably have access to. And I'm wondering why why an independent monitor wouldn't have access to police records. These are all of the criminal justice records that I can definitely look into that question and get back to. Thank you very much. That's it from my questions. Madam President.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilwoman. Next up, we have Councilman Hines.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. The. We've gotten some email about. This money is not coming from the budget. I think this was also a public comment not coming from the Denver Police Department budget. We vote on every contract that's over a half million dollars, regardless where it's budgeted. Is this in the Denver Police Department or in the Department of Safety 2021 budget?
Speaker 3: This contract is currently budgeted within the 2021 budget of technology services. And just after that I can speak more to that.
Speaker 1: I echo exactly what you just said. This is not an expansion to the tax budget. It is a current, currently budgeted maintenance payment. And it has always been since 2008 in the technology services budget. I don't know. Off the top of my head, I can find that out for you. I guess that that might be a tough question, but let's say in 2020, was it a decade in technology services at the time? It's not like we moved it out of the police department. If it wasn't in safety in 2020 and now in technology services in 2021, I guess is definitely my question.
Speaker 3: That's correct. It was never in the police department for.
Speaker 1: To my knowledge.
Speaker 3: So definitely not in 2020.
Speaker 1: And I don't I don't know the the authenticity of of Wikipedia. But they say that verse a term is a is a company based in Canada and they've got several different police departments on Wikipedia article. So I would I would certainly encourage that we have shorter periods of time between contracts like a 12 year no bid contract . That seems it seems like a long time. So I would encourage safety and technology services to to look at this before it comes up, before council again, so that we can see if we can find a U.S. or even better local vendor. And and and we can come up with a more a more detailed explanation as to why other vendors don't don't fit our needs. Thank you. Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Hines. All right. So in other questions on that resolution, we're going to move forward. The next item up is council resolution 20, dash 1482. And thanks, Joe and Laura for helping out with the previous one. But we have Councilwoman Ortega. Please go ahead with your comments on 20 Dash 1482.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam President. Rather than calling out all of the Oracle contracts, I just picked one to make some comments about. So, first of all, I want to just commend Dottie and I want to thank Jason Gallardo and some other Dottie staff who met with me last week to walk through the changes that they have made to the contracting process and to the transparency of providing quarterly reports and information on these on call contracts. As you know, if there are no EMB goals attached to any of them, we approve them on the front end and we never know what happened to them. You know how much they utilized, you know, just all those details. And so these quarterly reports will have a lot more information. We talked about some things that are missing in the reports that they're going to work on for the next quarterly report that we do get. But I think this is a huge. In addressing equity. And as you know, with the mayor now mandating every agency to incorporate equity into their work. This is a huge part of unbundling contracts, making sure that we are spreading the wealth with the vast amount of money that comes through this city for contracting and ensures that we are working with local businesses for this this work to be done. That's basically it. I mean, I could get into a lot of other things. But the bottom line is, is that we've made some pretty huge steps in correcting some. Deficiencies in the transparency of us doing our contracts. And you all know that I hate to call contracts, but I know this is a way and just for the public that's listening. You know, we've got 45 on call contracts tonight on our agenda. But what happens is there's like a mini bid process. So they're not all for the same category, the same type of work. And when we have a specific project, they'll be like a mini bid process that will be done to then figure out of the, say, ten people in this one category that got approved, they'll then define the scope of work on the project and then select one of those ten companies that would then do the work. And part of the transparency, that's important. Ensure that we don't keep using the same companies over. And those same companies keep using the same subcontractors over and over. But that. More of our local businesses into the mix and that we're far more successful in spreading that wealth and making sure that we are. Working with everybody in our community. So thank you, Madam President. Those those are my comments on this. I don't intend to call it out for a vote, but just wanted to make those statements. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman Ortega. We have Councilman Sawyer up next.
Speaker 3: Thanks, Madam President. I think, you know, many people know I agree with Councilwoman Ortega's statements. I absolutely cannot stand the giant blank check contracts that have come through and vote no on them every time. It really concerned me. And just because from a transparency and accountability standpoint, we don't know where that money goes. We get quarterly reports on them and that's great. And I very much appreciate that. But, you know, it's it's very hard to track. It's very hard to kind of to keep track of where that money is going. And so this is a lot of extra work on the part of our staff, and it's a lot of extra work on the part of the Dismas staff that pulled this together for them. So I really want to thank Adrina and her team for the work that they did, as well as Jason and Ulysse and his team. They came together and and really revamped this entire process for us and listened to our feedback and our concerns and redid this entire thing. And I just wanted to give them a huge shout out and say thank you, because in terms of transparency and accountability, they made huge strides forward with these contracts. So thank you all very much. Thanks, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. I would just add quickly, I want to commend Councilwoman Ortega as she has been working on this for a long time. That's been a subject of interest to me as well. But I just am traveling in her slipstream. She's really taken the lead on it. And I want to recognize that as Councilwoman Sonya just did the work of public works or Dotty in improving the reporting. And I just wanted to point out to members that DIA is going through the same process, and I've been working with them to make similar reports on their own calls so that there will be much more information and data and transparency available to all of us.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Flynn, and appreciate the work of Dottie and Jason and their entire team. It's good to see us evolve with these contracts. So see in other questions. The next item up is Council Bill 20 1524. Councilwoman CdeBaca, go ahead with your questions.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. Is there anybody here who can speak to this? What this is actually intended to collect donations for or what type of donations we're anticipating?
Speaker 0: Yes. We have Rachel Barden and then Tristan Sanders on. So I'll let them choose.
Speaker 3: I'll defer to Tristan since he's the subject matter expert on this. Thank you, Tristan.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I can't wait to get back to. Thanks for your question. So my name is Tristan Sanders. I'm a public health manager in the Community Behavioral Health Division here. And the specific reason that this came about is actually related to a lot of work that we do with grants and we work in the communities providing emergency food assistance, connecting food pantries to different resources. And through our connections with other organizations, like whether they're funders or quasi state governmental entity entities, they often are looking to support the work that we're already doing in communities through the form of donations. And until about as long as I've been here, we've not had a mechanism to accept that. And in talking with the Division of Finance, this was a way to do that. So we would actually be able to get funds from organizations or funders that we could then put towards communities that we're supporting through a variety of our work.
Speaker 3: And how will those donations be communicated to the general public? How will we know who's donating and what it's for?
Speaker 1: Yeah. So we bother maybe a couple of ways, actually. First, we don't solicit any of these donations. These are not like, you know, we're we're not out asking for these donations. Generally, it is through committees and like community based coalitions where these other organizations come and say, how can we support this effort? And short of being able to give donations directly to community members, they often are looking for an entity that can accept those donations and then put it back into communities. So one way is through all of our reporting with the projects that we get, these donations for which we are required to do specifically for the grants that we receive, we have to report all of our grant activities and all of our other money that may come in supporting those activities. And then second, having this actually in its own revenue account, you know, at any time, this could obviously be audited or looked at and we could go through line by line what revenue came in through donations and then exactly how it was spent, which, again, we've not been able to do previously.
Speaker 3: Thank you for that. And our office would like to request that when donations come in, it be reported to us what they're coming in, who they're coming in from and what it's coming coming in for. I could easily see this becoming a place where, you know, our friends down at the Denver Downtown Denver Partnership donate to ramp up some of the cleanups, the sweeps. And I don't want to see it become that. And so I want to make sure that we're being very careful about who we are accepting donations from and what it is to do. And just one would like to make sure that our office is on notice about that. Thank you. That's it for my questions on this one.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman. And thank you, Kristen, for joining us tonight. The next item up is Council Bill 20, Dash 1534. Councilmember Herndon, will you please put council bill 20, Dash 1534 on the floor for publication?
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Contract between the City and County of Denver and Flagship Airport Services, Inc. concerning janitorial services at Denver International Airport.
Approves a contract with Flagship Airport Services Inc. for $182,986,361.33 and for three years, with two one-year options to extend, for janitorial services at the main terminal and concourses at Denver International Airport (201953023). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 1-19-21. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 12-16-20.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_01042021_20-1534
|
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman. And thank you, Kristen, for joining us tonight. The next item up is Council Bill 20, Dash 1534. Councilmember Herndon, will you please put council bill 20, Dash 1534 on the floor for publication?
Speaker 1: Yes, Madam President. I move the council bill to 0-153 for be ordered published. Okay.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded by Councilman Hines. Questions or comments by members of council. Council members say the.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. I am curious about how this one is different than the eminent domain authorization that we passed in July and discussed at length for the Sand Creek Project. Is Lisa Lumley able to or somebody from real estate able to explain the difference between this eminent domain authorization?
Speaker 5: Evening Council. Councilwoman. Yes. So what, you approved the the larger land acquisition ordinance back at the end of July. As we were moving through the process with our appraisals, what we realized is there was an error in the legal description. And the error is that as we had started this project a couple of years ago, it overlapped with the vacation of Ulster, which runs adjacent to this property. And so this land acquisition ordinance is a cleanup, if you will, that will include the approximately 15 feet that runs alongside this property. It would it completes the trail. Otherwise, it would leave a gap in the trail, but it also would create a weird leftover remnant for the landowner right now, because it means that we would be the Ulster is the westernmost part of his parcel. And then what you did approve is further east. And so this is the 15 foot gap.
Speaker 3: Thank you very much for that. And. Madam President, I would like a separate vote on this one. I did not support the the vote in July and would like to go on record as not supporting this second piece.
Speaker 0: All right. Perfect. Thank you, Councilwoman. Seen no other? I'm sorry, Councilman Hines.
Speaker 1: But thank you, Madam President. Just a quick comment. I did not support the original vote, but there's no need to leave an owner with 15 feet of space. So I will support this one. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman Hines. So, you know their hands raised. Madam Secretary, roll call, please.
Speaker 2: CDEBACA No. Clark.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Flynn.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Herndon.
Speaker 1: I. Hi. Hi. Cashman i.
Speaker 2: Kimmage.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 2: Ortega.
Speaker 5: I.
Speaker 2: Sandoval, I. Sawyer.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 2: Torres, I.
Speaker 3: Black eye.
Speaker 2: Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 2: When they 12 eyes.
Speaker 0: One day, 12 eyes council bill 20 dash 1534 has been ordered published. The next item up is Council Bill 20, Dash 1554 Councilwoman Sade Ibaka. Please go ahead with your questions on 20 Dash 1554.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. This one is a little bit confusing to me, and I just had some questions about if we're floating a check essentially for dollars we expect from HUD later in the year. And if it is, where is the five year action plan for the Community Development BLOCK grant dollars mentioned in the bill request? I couldn't find it in any emails or on the granicus posting or on on our Denver Gov website. And I know we spend CDBG dollars in multiple city departments. And so I'm just wondering where to find this information and what we're doing here.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilwoman. I think Rachel Barden is going to take it first.
Speaker 3: I, I knew myself, but I think that I'm not sure if there's anyone from Dito who can speak specifically to the five year action plan and provide that to you. But that is they should have that available to send via email if it is not posted in granicus. To answer your question. Go ahead. Is it public on our Denver Gov website or will it be at any point? That is a good question and I don't know if our friends in are available at school.
Speaker 0: I think we have Matt. Khan's. Okay. Well, there you go.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Hi. Thank you. And I may call on Rachel King. She's on here and actually oversees our action plan. We do have an annual action plan. That is, it actually has either a five day or more public comment period. We usually do not do the annual action plan unless, one, there is a substantial amendment, substantial amendment to the action plan so that when we received the covered CDBG dollars, we had to do another public annual action plan with that. But usually the action plan is not sorry, it's not made public until March or so because we have to wait until we receive the actual dollars and the award that we're going to get from the federal government. And usually that number is not quantified and solidified until February or March. And then we will go to the public public comment period with that action plan every year. What you're referencing, I believe, Councilwoman, is when we mentioned the five year action plan for this dollar amount we were talking about annually, over the past five years, we've received between six and $7 million. And so we don't see that this two and a half million dollars. We were really talking from a risk perspective. We don't see advancing two and a half million dollars as being a substantial risk to the city, because every year for the past five years, we typically have received close to $7 million. And that's what what we are referencing when we talked about the five year sorry, the five year plan on that. But if Rachel Zane, I'm sure she can talk about the action plan a little bit more. Sorry, Rachel King with Dito.
Speaker 3: So just before Rachel respond to that. So if we haven't approved the plan on how to spend the dollars, what are we advancing the dollars for in this instance?
Speaker 1: Sure. So we run a January through December program here at DITO for our CDBG, HUD dollars and the action plan, which unfortunately is not really established until late Q1. Early Q2 covers January through December, but we also receive program income every year from our loan portfolio and we do have some carryover dollars some years. And so this money just really allows us, for example, the sofa that just went out on both host side and our No. $5 that we use in our Nest neighborhood team that was close to one and a half million dollars total. I believe that we typically need to front that money when we encumber that full amount. So if we have a $100,000 contract, we need to encumber that $100,000, which will last for the full year. But we don't typically even receive money from HUD until July, sometimes, sometimes later, sometimes earlier. So it really this advance really helps us cover some of those admin costs, some of the contracts that we typically do toward the end of the year to start on January 1st. Now we do have some carryover dollars. But but, you know, it doesn't always work out from a timing perspective. And sometimes we have a lot of money that might carryover and sometimes we have very little because of the power building acquisition and some other acquisitions that we did as well is because of the limited program income we've been receiving due to COVID. We have a loan deferral program and some other items where businesses just aren't able to pay off their loans as often and frequency frequently as they typically do. We just don't have as much carryover funds this year, so we're asking for the advancement of two and a half million to really help us cover the first six months
Speaker 3: . And will we get will we get some kind of report on what we spend the advance on and which departments spends because you guys spend out of post and correct.
Speaker 1: Correct. Yeah, it really we it really depends on the timing and what projects go forward. We also sometimes, as you mention, we might have, you know, programs in host and and coming out of Dito that we start the contracting process in as we need to have the money available but the project may or may not even exist or be finalized with the contract until later in the year. But we do need to make sure that we have some of those funds intact, especially on the construction lines or even the service ones that take a full year. So the two and a half million, I mean, I guess we could do a we typically don't from an advance standpoint, don't know exactly what projects that two and a half million covers because we pull the money together from multiple years or multiple, multiple items. Right. So if we if we have a large acquisition, we might use some of the two and a half million we might use some of the carryover money from the year before. We look at it more of a first in first out approach. But but we could easily, you know, start start to develop a report that, you know, if we have two and a half million dollars worth of projects in the first six months, likely those would be the ones that that this advance is covering.
Speaker 3: Got it. And thank you for that. And I, I just urge my colleagues to hear what was said and to acknowledge that, you know, the city is doing exactly what small businesses and nonprofits in the community have been asking the city to be able to do. It's very difficult to deliver on grants when you have to front the money or deliver on services when you have to front the money or where you have to wait until a prime gets paid. And so we're doing exactly what people are asking us to do. And I hope that in in fronting the money or floating this check, knowing that the money will come in later, that we extend that same courtesy to others as we go forward doing business. That's it for my questions. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman CdeBaca. Next up, we have Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam President. Matt, I just wanted to ask if if you have known projects already identified either programs or projects that this money will be used for. If you could share that with us. And then can you just clarify that these moneys that were advancing are aligned with what is in the five year plan that was submitted to HUD for laying out what what we intend to do with these HUD dollars over the next five years.
Speaker 1: Yes, absolutely. On your second question for sure, we we do have the five year plan and we do have an annual action plan that we put forward every year. So we we do not fear from that plan unless there is a substantial change. And so typically that will take another action plan amendment, which requires another public comment period. So, so usually we do a single annual action plan and then and then work on that five year plan as well. So we do not anticipate that these two and a half million dollars being advanced would veer outside, that they can't veer outside of what we what we would typically fund in our CDBG action plan unless we were to amend that plan.
Speaker 5: So with these dollars, what percentage is going to housing and homeless services versus the the desire for jobs and job creation?
Speaker 1: So, so so it varies year over year, but typically we have an agreement with hosts when they split off, we have an agreement with hosts that they will receive at least 30% of the total funding. And usually even before hosts split off, it was around a third, a third, a third. If you think of it from a nest perspective and public service perspective, a housing perspective and business development perspective. We tried to we tried to stay within that realm. So we have an agreement to keep at least 30% in host. But as payoffs and other loans pay down and pay off, if there are any outside payoffs that occur and we receive large amounts of money, that's when our executive directors of each agency will get together and determine the best need for for that additional funding that we can anticipate.
Speaker 5: Does. Does this include home and hopper or is that sort of set aside separate as separate?
Speaker 1: So Home Hub, ESG, a few others common hardware specifically are HUD, but they are 100% host. Dito does in fact, doesn't receive those dollars.
Speaker 5: And the ESG goes to them as well, right?
Speaker 1: Correct. Even though I don't believe that Rachel would have to correct me, I don't believe that's a hide. Maybe it is. Sorry, I'm not an expert on ESG.
Speaker 5: It is. It's. I used to go through human services now.
Speaker 1: Understood.
Speaker 5: Host Okay. That's all I have. It would be helpful to know where we can see the one year plan as well, not just the five year plan. I thought at one point we were you guys were providing that to us on a regular basis. And you may be because I'm on the committee that that goes to. So I don't remember seeing the one year plan come before us.
Speaker 1: And we can do that. If Rachel King is on, she can raise her hand and jump on. We did because we received this CDBG COVID. She received two rounds of it very recently. Just a couple of months ago, we did another public comment period for our action plan because as I mentioned, because we received the additional COVID money, it was considered an amendment to that action plan. And so we did redo our due action plan pretty recently. Rachel, I see that you're on.
Speaker 5: And it's thank you. And I just want to ask quickly if this also includes like a bunch of the the contracts or the the funding that has been brought before City Council on the shelters and some of those other services. The security, I know it has included the shower, some of the food. Those kinds of things. Is that all part of the dollars that you got from from HUD as well? Or some of it is, but most of it is not.
Speaker 3: My understanding with the host budget is they are primarily utilizing the FEMA and coronavirus relief dollars.
Speaker 5: First.
Speaker 3: As priority and then moving into their allocations.
Speaker 5: Of the HUD.
Speaker 3: Coronavirus dollars. Our 2020 action plan that we just amended, as Matthew indicated for the third time this year in 2020, does include all of the housing uses of.
Speaker 5: Those coronavirus dollars from HUD.
Speaker 3: But for our 2021 action plan, which is what these CDBG dollars will be covering. We have not gotten into the action plan.
Speaker 5: Process.
Speaker 3: Quite yet for that, but we are getting ready to start that at the end of January.
Speaker 5: Okay. And then if you could just send us a link to where we could see that one year plan, that would be really helpful. Definitely. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 5: Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. And thank you, Matt and Rachel, for fielding those questions. The next item up is Council Bill 20, Dash 1553. Councilman Hampton, will you please put Council Bill 20, Dash 1553 on the floor for final passage?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance designating certain properties as being required for public use and authorizing use and acquisition thereof by negotiation or through condemnation proceedings of fee simple, easement and other interests, including any rights and interests related or appurtenant to properties designated as needed for the Sand Creek Project.
Grants the authority to acquire through negotiated purchase or condemnation any property interest as needed in support the Sand Creek Project, including easement interests, access rights, improvements, buildings, fixtures, licenses, permits and other appurtenances, for the portion of the vacated North Ulster Street right of way located at 8101 E. 40th Avenue in Council District 8. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 12-15-20.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_01042021_20-1553
|
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. And thank you, Matt and Rachel, for fielding those questions. The next item up is Council Bill 20, Dash 1553. Councilman Hampton, will you please put Council Bill 20, Dash 1553 on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 1: Yes, Madam President, I move that council bill 20-1553 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and I think I heard the second from Councilman Hines first on there. And so comments by members of council. Councilwoman CdeBaca.
Speaker 3: Nope. That that one handle. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 2: CdeBaca.
Speaker 3: Sorry. Click that one on and off too quickly. No.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Clark.
Speaker 1: All right.
Speaker 2: Flynn.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Herndon.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Hines.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Cashman. I can h.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 2: Ortega. I. Sandoval. I swear. I Taurus. I.
Speaker 3: Black eye.
Speaker 2: Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce results.
Speaker 2: One need 12 eyes.
Speaker 0: One there, 12 eyes council bill 20 dash 1553 has passed. 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.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance setting the salary of the district attorney for the second judicial district.
Amends Section 18-95 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code to amend the salary of the District Attorney for the four-year term beginning 2021 through 2024. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 12-15-20.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_12212020_20-1436
|
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. I'll do a quick recap here. Under resolutions, Councilwoman CdeBaca has called out Resolution 1436 for a vote. Under bills for introduction, Councilwoman CdeBaca has called out Bill 1553 for a vote under Bill's for final consideration. No items have been called out under pending. No items have been called out. Our first item up is Council Resolution 1436. Council Member Hines, will you please put Resolution 1436 on the floor for adoption?
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. I move the Council Resolution 20 1436 be adopted.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved. May I get a second? Thank you, Councilwoman Zoya. Questions or comments by members of Council. Councilman CdeBaca.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. I wanted to make sure that I went on record voting on this one. I don't feel like we're in the right time to be raising taxes. I know we're in a deficit. We've lost a lot of revenues. And it's not really appropriate, in my opinion, to force the taxpayers to feel that burden when people can't even pay their rent or mortgages right now. We were having complaints prior to COVID regarding property tax and property tax relief for both residential and commercial. And this, I believe, is going to exacerbate the problem. And just because we can do it doesn't mean that we should, especially right now. So I'm a no on this tonight and just wanted to make sure that got recorded.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman CdeBaca. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 3: CdeBaca No, Clark.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Flynn.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 2: Herndon.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Hynes.
Speaker 1: Hi.
Speaker 3: Cashman.
Speaker 4: Hi.
Speaker 2: Carnage. I. Ortega. I. Sandoval.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 2: Sawyer.
Speaker 3: I. Torres. I.
Speaker 2: Black. I. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 2: One need to have eyes.
Speaker 0: 12 eyes. Resolution 1436 has been adopted. The next item up is Council Bill 1553. Councilman Hines, will you please put 1553 on the floor for publication?
|
Resolution
|
A resolution levying upon all taxable property within the City and County of Denver taxes for the year 2020, to be collected in 2021, for purposes authorized by law.
Approves the annual City Property Tax Mill Levy for the year 2020 to be collected in 2021 for purposes authorized by law. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 12-8-20.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_12212020_20-1553
|
Speaker 0: 12 eyes. Resolution 1436 has been adopted. The next item up is Council Bill 1553. Councilman Hines, will you please put 1553 on the floor for publication?
Speaker 1: Jesse Benton, president of the Council. Will 2553 be ordered published second?
Speaker 0: Q It's been moved and seconded by Councilman Herndon. Questions or comments by members of Council. Councilwoman CdeBaca.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Madam President, I wanted to go on record voting no for this one. Asked my constituents what they felt about this salary increase, and I heard from them loud and clear that this is not a salary increase they feel is appropriate at this time. I'm wondering if there's a possibility to get a courtesy public comment when we get this on second.
Speaker 0: You know, let me check with our Madam Secretary, because that's a unique request that I don't believe we've entertained before, especially around a salary increase for an elected official. And so, Madam Secretary, or I know we have Kirsten Crawford on the line as well.
Speaker 3: Good evening. Kirsten Crawford, Legislative Counsel. And it you know, you're you're absolutely right in the sense that that is not something that we've considered before, because it is an action that has to be taken. Set with the before the term of the day begins. And it's also you know, the rationale behind the law is that they salaries shall be set for the four year term to de-politicize the the setting of the salary. Nevertheless, the rules allow the council president to have the discretion to hold a courtesy public hearing if you are deemed appropriate. And then we would have to also consider later at that time what implications, if anything, were to change in the bill, because that could trigger, you know, a new publication, which then would potentially jeopardize the deadlines that were under. And I certainly think it would be good to hear from our council parliamentarian as well.
Speaker 2: Hey, Marcus, you're here. So it does look like, you know, if there's no legal ramifications that we do not have any public hearings scheduled for January 4th, which would be the final consideration of this bill. So it would just be a request at this point if legal is allowing that.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. Well, I would like to have the opportunity, since it's my decision finally to think on this a little bit and think about the ramifications, because this is for a currently elected official, but that it's also setting the salary for their. The person that comes in after them if they are not reelected. So I'd like to have a little bit of time to think about that. We've got a little bit of time before the January four council meeting, and so I will make sure and get back to you on that, Councilwoman CdeBaca And we've got a few more folks who are up in the queue, and so I'm going to go ahead and go to them. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. If Kyrgyzstan is still here, what would trigger a republication? Of this, if this were introduced and published tonight, in your opinion, what would what would cause it to have to be delayed for another publication, which would put it beyond the date of the swearing in.
Speaker 3: If there were any changes to the. Any substantive changes, I think, to the title or the description.
Speaker 4: So the title. Yeah. Okay. I'm looking at the title. Just setting the salary. Right. I don't see how any.
Speaker 3: It's you know, it's a it's a very good point. I mean, I, I was just giving you as much information to consider since. Thank you. It's coming up last minute.
Speaker 4: Sure. And if I could ask Councilwoman Black, who chairs the committee, I apologize for my clock here. I'm a I. I'm not a member of the committee, so I did not attend it. And I had some other work that prevented me from viewing the video. But I and I did talk to the district attorney McCann, and I believe she's actually in our audience as well. But I understand that this was amended from in committee, from what was originally submitted. And I want to understand how we got to this point where the raises are set out for a year one, two, three and four. And I don't know if Councilwoman Black can answer that for me.
Speaker 0: Mm hmm. We can go ahead. She's next up in the queue. So, Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Just as a clarification, the. The bill includes no raise in 2021. Right. Right. And then a raise in 2022. Only if other city employees also get a raise and then a raise in 2023. Only if other employees get a raise. And what was amended at the request of Councilwoman Sawyer and we all agreed was that in that fourth year, the raise would also be contingent on other city employees getting a raise. So we made that amendment. Yep. All right. So is this consistent with the previous years? But as a reminder, there is no raise in 2021 at all.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 3: And I did want to point out that we had public comment scheduled for fin gov and nobody signed up for it. We did have a long discussion about the proposal that McCain was there. And I think. People were satisfied with her proposal and with this amendment that Councilman Sawyer suggested.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Councilwoman. Madam President, I would I would have preferred that the raises not just be contingent on pay increases for career service individuals city citywide, but that it not be a fixed 3% in years three and four. But it be the average of these career service wages. And I did have a discussion with District Attorney McCann about this. I know that there are some inequities in the level of pay between Denver and the first judicial district, which is Jeffco Gilpin, where they are paid the DA is paid more but handles fewer cases, I believe , than than our in our district attorney's office. But I, I really would have preferred the. That the races in years three and four be pegged to the average raise for city employees rather than being its career service in 2023. Got a 2% raise, then the district attorney gets 3%. So I'm a little troubled by that. Madam President, I listen to the rest of the discussion here. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Councilman Herndon.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. Well, as was said earlier today, just because we can doesn't necessarily mean that we should. And I appreciate Councilwoman Black giving that summary, because I was going to ask that that be done.
Speaker 4: So there's no raise for 2021 in the future. Years are contingent upon what happens with our city employees. So I'm just questioning.
Speaker 1: What will come out of a public comment in regards to that. Maybe with the exception of just encouraging council members to lower the salaries.
Speaker 4: I don't I don't know at all. But the idea of having time of we have to do this, this is and you can't just vote no, we are required to set the salaries. So it just my thought, Madam President, certainly your decision. But I that's just what I wanted to add to the comment. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Councilman Herndon. Councilman CdeBaca, we've got a couple other council members up. I'm going to go ahead and bounce to them. Councilman Kimmich.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. And to my colleagues who weren't there, Councilman Flynn, in particular, you raised a question about the amount. We did have a pretty extensive discussion that city employees don't actually get an across the board amounts. So when, for example, the city says we are going to give merit raises at the average of 2.9%. City employees might get a raise as high as 4% or as low as two, depending on their performance, depending on which quadrant they're in and, you know, where they're at in their in their particular scale. And so I think for me, I raised the point that it's very difficult to say that it will be pegged to which city employee, to the city employee who gets the best merit score to the city employee who get you know, gets the average. And so so I think that, you know, for predictability of budgeting, frankly, you know, I don't see the second issue that I raised personally was just the question that that there is no other elected official whose salary is set to be variable based on that factor that council salaries do are based. The council mayor and other elected salaries are based on a formula that looks backwards at city employee raises as part of the formula. But it's not that those but then we pick the amount and we distribute it as a certainty each year. So I think that this is already unique in saying that the salary increase may not happen at all if city employees don't get it. And I think to make it further contingent would just be a little bit inconsistent with how we treat the clerk and recorder and the auditor there. You know, the other thing that I thought was compelling is that the state of Colorado pays for more than $100,000 of this salary, which is it makes it unique as well. So just a few things that came up at committee that may or may not be important to folks, but just wanted to get them on the record since we're we're having a little version of that debate. So important questions about timing. But I also just wanted us to think about, you know, consistency between electeds who, you know, are also city wide electeds like our clerk and our auditor who are not subject to those conditions. Thanks.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman Canete. Councilman Hines.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. Councilmember Flynn, I have the same question as Councilmember Orange said. We did we did talk about that. And and because of the timing, it just made it difficult to do a lot of the detailed discussion beyond what councilmember. So the only other thing that that I mentioned that that I want to put on the record is it was alluded to by President Gilmore, and that was we I hope that we have a day of color or even better, a woman of color who is our district attorney at some point. And if we if we start all races now, then that makes the position less competitive for for attorneys who can make way more money in the private practice and not have their houses physically protested or personally in person protested, or have all of their decisions open for scrutiny. So, you know, I it's it's a lot of money. It's more money than I've ever made. But but I'm also not a well qualified attorney. And and so, again, hopefully someday we can have an idea of color or even better, a woman of color. And I wouldn't want there to to be a huge deficit between what the D.A. makes and what what private attorneys make. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: All right. Well, thank you, Councilman Hines, and your backup, Councilwoman CdeBaca. We have this on the floor to vote on its publication. So after your comments, we're going to go ahead and vote on the publication of this.
Speaker 3: Awesome. Just a quick comment and a question. The comment is regarding having the public input session at committee ten 3130 in the day is often a major challenge for regular people to be able to tune in and participate because many of them are working all day long and don't have the ability that we have to set aside time and do some public testimony. And so I understand that it happened that finger and believe that the public should have an opportunity any time they like to address us, especially if the things that they're planning to address are going to be helpful for us in the future. And my question for Kirsten is we know this has to the salaries need to be set, but because the salary needs to be set, does that mean it needs to also be increased? Kirsten Crawford Legislative Council. It's a good question. No, there's no requirement to increase. It could be frozen over the four year period. That is a decision that council needs to make prior to the term of office beginning. Got it. Thank you very much. That's it from my questions.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Flynn, your backup.
Speaker 4: Just quickly, Madam President. Thank you. I am going to vote yes to publish because we have to have this finalized by the next meeting. So there's no doubt about that. But I am uncertain on the amount of the raise as as is Councilwoman CdeBaca. So I want to I will talk more with colleagues and with the D.A. and with others over the holiday. And and. Kirsten, I suppose that we could amend this on final because we're not changing the title. Correct. Silence means consent. Right.
Speaker 0: I'm not sure about that.
Speaker 4: Well.
Speaker 0: Just assume they're sending a child back in there.
Speaker 4: I'll just assume it does. And I do understand, as Councilwoman Kennedy said, that the the merits of the pay raises for career service are that they have an average and everybody gets something different depending on performance. But I would have much rather seen this pegged to the actual career service average overall raise rather than 3% no matter what career service gets. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Very good. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. And so the motion on the floor is to order Council Bill 20 Dash 1553 ordered published. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 3: CDEBACA No.
Speaker 2: Clark.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 4: When I.
Speaker 2: Herndon.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Hi.
Speaker 1: Hi. Cashman High.
Speaker 2: Image.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 2: Ortega. Sandoval.
Speaker 3: I. Sawyer. I.
Speaker 2: Torres, I. Black I. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 2: One knee. 11 eyes.
Speaker 0: 11 eyes. Bill 1553 has been ordered published. That concludes the items to be called out. All other bills for introduction are ordered published. Council members remember this is a consent or a block vote and you will need to vote. Otherwise, this is your last chance to call out an item for a separate vote. Councilman Hines, would you please put the proclamations and resolutions for adoption and the bills for final consideration, for final passage on the floor?
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. I hope that the proclamations and resolutions be adopted and bills on final consideration be placed on final consideration and do pass for a block for the following items. 20 Dash 1560 420 Dash 1430 420 Dash 1430 920 Dash 14 2020 Dash 14, 26, 20 Dash 14, 2720 Dash 1437, 29, 1438, 20 Dash 11 7120 Dash 13, 1120 Dash 13 1320 Dash 1340 220 Dash 1340 420 Dash 1340 520 Dash 1380 620 Dash 1401 20 Dash 1406 2514 1220 Dash 14 1320 Dash 1430 320 Dash 1409 20 Dash St 1341.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved. Again. Thank you, Councilman Sawyer. Madam Secretary, roll call, please.
Speaker 2: Whack. I see tobacco. I. Clark.
Speaker 1: All right.
Speaker 2: Flynn.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 2: Herndon.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 2: Hynes.
Speaker 1: All right.
Speaker 2: Cashman. I can eat. I. Sandoval.
Speaker 0: Ortega's still here.
Speaker 2: Oh, I apologize, Ortega.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 2: Sandoval.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 2: Sawyer. I. Torres. I. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced the results.
Speaker 2: 13 eyes.
Speaker 0: 13 eyes. The proclamations and resolutions have been adopted and bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass. The pre recess announcement tonight there will be a required public hearing on Council Bill 1177, changing the zoning classification for 3621 Lowell Boulevard. A required public hearing on Council Bill 1180 for changing the zoning classification for 2567 Albion Street, a required public hearing on Council Bill 1399 designating 910 Galapagos Street as a structure for preservation and a one hour courtesy public hearing on Council Bill 144 for renaming Columbus Park, located at 1501 West 38th Avenue as La Rosa Park. Anyone wishing to speak on any of these matters must go online to sign up during the recess. If there are no objections from members of council, we will take a ten minute recess. Council members, please remember to turn off your cameras and meet your microphones and we will return at 6:24 p.m..
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance setting the salary of the district attorney for the second judicial district.
Amends Section 18-95 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code to amend the salary of the District Attorney for the four-year term beginning 2021 through 2024. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 12-15-20.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_12212020_20-1177
|
Speaker 1: Looking at other policies within Blueprint Denver, specifically a policy for a diversity of housing choice through the expansion of accessory dwelling units throughout all residential areas. This rezoning is consistent with that policy. And the reasoning is also consistent with a number of housing and inclusive Denver policies. Criteria. Number two, uniformity of district regulations. This is a standard zone district furthering public health, safety and welfare by implementing adopted plans and by providing additional housing unit that is compatibly integrated into the surrounding neighborhood. Justifying Circumstances. Implementing of adopted plan. Specifically Blueprint Denver. I'm looking at consistency with the neighborhood context zone, district purpose and intent. Urban neighborhood contexts primarily consist of single unit two. Unit residential uses or residential districts are intended to promote and protect residential neighborhoods with the character of the urban neighborhood context. The building forms standards, design standards and uses work together to promote a desirable residential area. And the specific zone district, UCB one, the single unit district that allows the Urban House and detached accessory dwelling units building forms with a minimum area of 4500 square feet. Staff finds the proposed rezoning to be consistent with all five criteria and recommends council approve this application.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, James, for your staff report. Council has not received any written testimony on Council Bill 1177. We have two individuals signed up to speak this evening, and our first speaker is Jesse Paris. All right. Go ahead, Jesse.
Speaker 1: Did you put Jesse up or me up? Because it looks like I saw my picture.
Speaker 0: And it's Jesse up first. Okay.
Speaker 1: And then also I'm in the chamber. So every time there's nobody here, the focus is on the tears. One of them is just a missing person. A representative for Denver, homeless out loud. That's the smallest, the self, the most positive, I think, most of the time, as well as the guilty party. Oh, Colorado Mile High. No, I will be there next November 20, 23. I am under reconsideration in favor of this rezoning. Of. I was against it initially because I thought it was going to be more justification as usual. This area of town is rapidly gentrified, so I've got used to rezonings that involve more gentrification of the dumb black and brown areas. So upon further consideration of support processes going units, I'm allowed to see them in every single district in the city. Just like I would love to see Tommy Hall go door to door, follow this and this. Amanda. So that's all I have to say. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Jesse. Next up, we have David Hagan.
Speaker 1: Hi all. David Hagan. I live at 18 and Chestnut. I am in support of this as well. You'll hear me?
Speaker 0: Mm hmm. Go ahead.
Speaker 1: Okay, great. Thanks for having me on as well. I'm in support of this as well. I would like to say a couple of things about it quickly, and I'll tie all this to all the put together at the end here. Just as Sam Gary said, what could be, should be. I think that's a great quote. I didn't know the man, but I admire him based on that quote right there. Well, what could be said, we could be should be is an inclusive comment, not an exclusionary one, as the council member thought it was when he said something different. It's all about bringing us together, just as the zoning is bringing people together, giving more opportunity for somebody else. And I like that. So this is one that I can I can say yes to. Let's see here. My wife was reading something that I wrote earlier, and it's not about how much you do. It's about what you choose to do and about who you choose to represent. And it's about what you choose to remain silent about. And when you choose to defend the will of the people before the power of the elites. It's about treating your constituents like human beings. As Martin Luther King Jr once said, we are caught in an inextricable, inextricable network of mutuality, bound by a single garment of destiny. So that right there is a good reason to approve this rezoning right here. And it's also a good reason to represent all of us. What I see when I look around my screen is not a diverse group of people that represent the make of the city. I see a group of people that are dedicated to the status quo and unwilling to rip the Band-Aid off. That is not what we want to see around here. How it is that you are representing us when you fail to push back at the mayor, shoves policy through what would what would happen if you voted down the $16 billion? Would we have no police or would they strike?
Speaker 0: David, I need you to stay on topic for the rezoning, please.
Speaker 1: On topic. It's just I'm just getting there a roundabout way and. Do you think the police would have stayed there in a pandemic? This is not what would have happened. The people would not care and the people would not allow that. We should not have passed that, just as we should not have passed the rezoning of that other place. It took to the 16th storey or 14 storeys or whatever. So just think about those things when you vote yes tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. That concludes our speakers questions from members of Council on Council Bill 1177. All right. Seen no questions by my colleagues. The public hearing for Council Bill 20 Dash 1177 is closed. Comments by members of Council. Councilwoman Sandoval.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. So accessory dwelling units are growing more popular in Council District one. As we'll see this one is coming through. Before they had the application, filed the application, they had a pre-approved community planning and development and then met with my office and they rebuilt a garage in 2016 with like a shell of an accessory dwelling unit, knowing that maybe their policy was going to move forward with allowing them. And so this would allow them to legally put in the plumbing so the kitchen and the other appliances needed to finish off the accessory dwelling unit. And I believe it meets all the criteria. And I also believe that accessory dwelling units don't change the fabric of our neighborhood. They allow gentle density. And in a time when we need a different type of housing options, there is a registered neighborhood organization in this neighborhood. It's called West Highland United Neighbors, West Highland Neighborhood Association. Sorry. And they choose not to take a position on any accessory dwelling units. So any accessory, any ADU use that comes to rezoning in this neighborhood, they are no has chosen not to take a stance with that. I feel like it meets other criteria and I would be honored to have my colleague vote. Yes. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Sandoval. And seeing the presentation, I agree it meets all of the rezoning criteria. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 2: Sandoval.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 2: Sawyer.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 2: Torres. I. Black. I see tobacco. I. Clark.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Flynn.
Speaker 1: All right.
Speaker 2: Herndon.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Haines.
Speaker 1: Hi.
Speaker 2: Cashman. I can. I. Ortega. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce results.
Speaker 2: 12 Eyes.
Speaker 0: 12 Eyes Council Bill 20 Dash. 1177 has passed. Councilman Hines, would you please put Council Bill 1184 on the floor for final passage?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 3621 Lowell Boulevard in West Highland.
Approves a map amendment to rezone property from U-SU-B to U-SU-B1, located at 3621 Lowell Boulevard in Council District 1. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 10-27-20.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_12212020_20-1184
|
Speaker 0: 12 Eyes Council Bill 20 Dash. 1177 has passed. Councilman Hines, would you please put Council Bill 1184 on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 1: Madam President, I moved the council bill 1220 excuse me 20 dash 1184 he placed on final consideration. Andrew Peps again.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It's been moved and thank you for the second councilman herndon. The required public hearing for council bill 20 dash 1184 is open. May we please have the staff report?
Speaker 3: L Yes. My name is Alice Stevie, and I'm here to present the proposed rezoning at two five, six, seven Albion Street. So, first, just want to confirm. Can you hear me? Right. And I apologize. You can probably also hear the crying baby that will hopefully stop shortly. And now can you see my screen?
Speaker 0: We just need you to go ahead and make it full screen.
Speaker 3: There you go.
Speaker 0: I'll say good to go.
Speaker 3: Great. All right. Well, let's get going. This will be largely familiar because it's very similar to the previous case. But we are in Council District eight in the North Park Hill neighborhood. So the subject property is just under 6000 square feet and the proposed rezoning is from U.S. to U.S., U.S. one to allow an accessory dwelling unit . So the subject property and all the properties surrounding it are currently U.S. see. Similarly, this site and surrounding properties are the single unit residential land use, with a few public and quasi public and higher density residential surrounding in the surrounding area. So the photos on the right, the one in the middle is the subject property and then the nearby a couple of nearby properties are shown in the top and bottom. So this Map amendment application was on the consent agenda for both planning board and so they were moved forward for both of those unanimously and staff have not received any comments on this application. So now looking at the review criteria, we have four plans to consider for this particular site. Staff found this rezoning to be consistent with several strategies and comprehensive plan. In particular, the proposed rezoning would allow for an additional housing option near transit and a mix of uses within an established neighborhood, which is consistent with the strategies in the equitable, affordable and inclusive vision element shown here. And it would allow for compatible infill development consistent with the strategy from the Environmental Resilience Vision element shown here. So then moving to Blueprint Denver, that plan marks this area as within the urban context and within the residential low future place. And the description for that does specify that accessory dwelling units are appropriate. Under the blueprint growth strategy areas, including the subject property, expected to see 10% of job growth and 20% of housing growth by 2040. The additional accessory dwelling unit permitted by the proposed rezoning is consistent with that. And then the proposed rezoning is also consistent with these two strategies from Blueprint that both recommend expanding the allowance of 80 use. So then we have the Park Hill neighborhood plan. And in that plan from 2000, this area is mapped as part of what the plan refers to as R zero. And that defines that as a stable residential area. The goals and strategies in that plan recommend reinforcing the residential character while creating a mix of housing types. Then housing an inclusive Denver, which was adopted in 2018. It contains recommendations that are directly relevant to this rezoning. The plant recommends expanding the development of accessory dwelling units, so the proposed MAP amendment to U.S. one is consistent with these recommendations. So staff found that the rezoning is consistent with adopted plans. The proposed rezoning will result in a uniform application of zoned district building form, use and design regulations, and it will further public health, safety and welfare through implementing adopted plans and facilitating increased housing density. Staff found that the proposed rezoning is justified through change and changing conditions. The adoption of Blueprint, the Blueprint Update and Housing Inclusive Denver included policies that specifically support this rezoning request. Finally, the context zone, district purpose and the intent of, as you see, one, are all appropriate for this particular location given the surrounding area and the adopted plan guidance. So given the finding that all review criteria have been met, staff recommend approval of the proposed rezoning. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Ella, for the staff report. Council has not received any written testimony on Council Bill 1184, and we have one individual signed up to speak this evening. We have Jesse Paris up. All right. Go ahead, Jesse.
Speaker 1: Good evening. The lives of counsel, those watching at home. My name is Jesse. Listen, there's. And I live in District eight or council in this district and I represent for Denver homeless fellow Black Star Fillmore for self defense positive vested commitment to social change as well as the Unity Party of Colorado and mile high laws. And I will be the next November in 2023. I am in favor of this rezoning tonight. I support any use along with tiny home villages and safe outdoor spaces. I just had a question for the council. How many the winners have been approved in North Parkdale or in this case, South Park? If I could please answer that question, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. That concludes our speakers tonight. Questions from members of Council on Council Bill 1184. CNN. The public hearing for Council Bill 20 dash 1184 is closed. Comments by members of Council. Councilman Herndon.
Speaker 1: Thank you, my president. I think this clearly meets the criteria not asked of my colleagues with support.
Speaker 4: Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman. I will weigh in as well. It shows that it meets all of the criteria and I will be supporting it as well. And hopefully everyone will, too. Madam Secretary, roll call, please.
Speaker 3: Herndon.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 3: Hi.
Speaker 1: Hi.
Speaker 2: Cashmere.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 3: Can I? Then the ball. I. Sawyer. I. It. I. Black I. Hate about that, I.
Speaker 1: Part I.
Speaker 4: When I.
Speaker 3: Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. Well, right. 12 I's Council Bill 20 Dash 1184 has passed. Councilman Hines, would you please put Council Bill 1399 on the floor for final passage?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 2567 Albion Street in North Park Hill.
Approves a map amendment to rezone property from U-SU-C to U-SU-C1, located at 2567 Albion Street in Council District 8. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 10-27-20.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_12212020_20-1399
|
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. Well, right. 12 I's Council Bill 20 Dash 1184 has passed. Councilman Hines, would you please put Council Bill 1399 on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. I am of the Council both 20 dash 1392 1399 be placed on final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It's been moved and we've got the second in there from Councilman Herndon. The required public hearing for council bill 20 dash 1399 is open. May we please have the staff report, Kara?
Speaker 3: Anything. You want me to share my screen for just a moment. Can you? I'll figure.
Speaker 0: Mm hmm. Good to go. Thank you.
Speaker 3: We are here for 910 Galapagos St, which is located in Council District three. As you can see on the map, it's at the corner of Gallup, Pico and Ninth Avenue, and it currently has a use overlay in zoning for use overlay three, which provides incentives for designation. If property is designated, new uses can be applied to the property, so use overlay is already there and so the property owner is coming forward for designation. Be able to take advantage of this landmark designation. I'm actually here to add to anything on that and historic Denver assisted with the application the completion of the application for this designation application and they should also be here if you have questions for them. So per the landmark ordinance, in order for a property to be designated, the structure needs to maintain its integrity. It needs to be 30 years of age or older or of exceptional importance. The structure must meet at least three out of the ten criteria, and the LPC needs to consider the structures historic context. This particular property is significant under three criteria, and we'll go through all three of these. So first, the property is associated with the development of the city. It's directly tied to the development of Denver's West Side, which is one of Denver's oldest residential neighborhoods and has historically been a working class and immigrant.
Speaker 0: Neighborhood.
Speaker 3: In the 1870s. Alexander Cameron Hunt, which later on went on to become a territorial governor, was an early resident and developer of the area. He homesteaded the land that is the park within on the Lincoln Park and then subdivided the surrounding neighborhood and which was started the beginning of the early development of the neighborhood. Followed by him was another notable Denver businessman who started developing the neighborhood. John W Smith. Smith had platted subdivisions in the Capitol Hill area. He developed some of the early water supply. Smith's ditch, of which there's still a remnant in.
Speaker 0: Wash.
Speaker 3: Park, is named after him. And so then following E.C. Hunt, Smith also began subdividing the area. He did land and provided money for the construction of the chapel at the corner of what was then ninth and Water Street. In 1882, the chapel was constructed for the Church of the United Brethren, and it was situated on the outskirts of the city, as was moved by the Rocky Mountain News at the time of its construction. And so Smith used this likely as a form of advertisement for his subdivision in order to show that there was a viable community. He built the chapel to show that the community was strong enough in order to support a church. And so it is likely that the church was something that he did in order to help sell his subdivision. But it represents the growth of the area that the neighborhood was well-developed enough to support the church as well as from other commercial commercial area commercial buildings in the area. It was one of eight churches between 1882 and 1893 that were constructed in what we now know as the Lincoln Park neighborhood. As you take a look at this one, one map to the left, it shows where the church is located. And this is reflective of an 1897 mapping overall. This is one of the oldest remaining churches in the Ormeau Park neighborhood and is significant as it represents the historical development of the city. The property is also distinct, is also significant for its distinctive, visible characteristics of the Gothic revival style. The property is designated on the State Register of historic properties for its architectural style, as can be seen in the steeply pitched gable roof. The ash square masonry, which is really stone and actually means that it from rough edges on the front of the property, on the front of the brick, on the front of the stone. It can also be seen in the engaged buttresses on the corner, as well as the Lancet doors and windows, which are the pointed windows, and then finally in the prominent steeple. And so this shows the characteristics of the Gothic revival style is significant for its architectural style. And finally, the property is associated with social movements, institutions that contributed significantly to the culture of the neighborhoods, community and city. This was historically a working class immigrant community, and it changed from a primarily European to Latino residents in the 1930s, as started to see a change in the number of residents and the residents who resided there . This is partially as it goes into the postwar era through the Presidio program, which invited guest workers to come to the area because Denver need additional workers. And there was a promise of free housing and there was already a Latino community in the war on the Lincoln Park neighborhood. That's where a lot of residents resided. Also in the 1930s, you saw through the Homeowners Loan Corporation, the redlining map or the map that we know now is redlining. And in this area, which you can see here, this area was noted as redlining. And so there was a lot of disinvestment into the neighborhood. And so with this disinvestment into the neighborhood, discriminatory redlining and then postwar, you had white flight to the suburbs. The Church of the United Brethren dissolved. And so a Denver Area Council of Churches want to start an interdenominational organization in the downtown area. They started the Denver inner city parish, and in 1961, the parish acquired the chapel. The building served as a place of worship, a social agency, a food bank, a school and a meeting center in the Denver inner city parish lobby for welfare reform, student reform, and for farm workers rights. And over time, it became a meaningful institution at the heart of the community. It was one of the many mutual aid societies that were arising in the Lincoln Park neighborhood that were associated with the Chicano movement. And within Denver, Tullahoma, Lincoln Park neighborhood was really part of the heart of the Chicano movement, as part of the National Civil Rights Movement, as part and included things such as opposition to Vietnam fight systemic discrimination and have had affected the West Siders through federal funding, through Denver Opportunity. The community had a lot of mutual aid societies that were forming. Denver Inner City Parish is one of those that were coming at the time in which of movement. There were leaders forming within the community, some of which were serving as directors of Denver Inner City Parish. And so the West Side and Lincoln Park in particular became central to the Chicano movement within inner city, was an important component of both the neighborhood and the Chicano movement. And that can probably best be typified by the blow out of 1969, which was later called the central event in Denver for what was become what is called the Chicano Movement. So in late 1968, there were walkouts in L.A. from their schools. And as we saw through the protest this past summer, as protests start to grow. Not long after, in 1969, we started seeing protest here in Denver, particularly at the West High School. There was a history teacher who was very poorly treating these students and had ongoing insults about the Chicano culture. There was nothing. There was nothing was occurring. There was there was no ramifications for the teacher. So on March 20th, about 300 students and family members walked out and so it became known as the blowout. Police arrived wearing gas masks, carrying billy clubs. And so protesters sought to avoid police brutality by fleeing from the area, some of which sought shelter within Denver inner city parish. And as you can see on the image here, this is a still from a documentary. This shows the parish in the background. So if you're looking at the map, here is the high school and here is the Denver inner city parish. And so as students and protesters were fleeing from the police, some stopped at the parish as a place to seek seek respite. Others continue on to a march to La alma Lincoln Park. And so the Denver inner city parish is really a significant part of the Chicano movement and is an institution that is central to the kind of movement here in Denver. And so it meets the criteria, Jake. For designation. So in order for a property to be designated, in addition to meeting the three criteria, it also needs to be related or still needs to demonstrate integrity, which is just basically the preservation way of saying just the building looks like what it used to look like. And although there have been additions and changes over time, these changes were within the period of significance, which is basically the time period for which a property is important. So the large addition was that in 1923 there was a cross gable that was added. Some of the windows had been changed, but overall the property looks like what it used to look like first when it was originally constructed in the initial and then with the addition of the 1923 additions, was still there when it was significant as part of the Chicano movement. And so the property retains integrity. The Landmark Preservation Commission also considers the historic context of a property in historic context should be ideally strongly related to the criteria for which a property is designated. So for this property, at the time it was constructed in 1882 and 1910, Del Picco was one of the first chapels or churches in the neighborhood. And so it really reflected the growth of the Lincoln Park neighborhood. It was designed in the Gothic revival style, which is a prevalent architectural style for churches at the time. And then in the 1960s, the chapel became the home of the Denver Intercity Parish, which was an organization that was directly associated with the important movements and leaders of the Chicano in Denver. So the OPC found that the historic context was reflected well in the persecution application. For this particular property. There were two public comments that we heard a receiver. One was a written comment in support of the designation application. And then there was one public comment in support of the Landmark Preservation Commission meeting. In summary, the designation meets the criteria. It's over 30 years of age. The application meets at least three out of the ten criteria. It retains its integrity and the LPC considered its historic context in its deliberation. Landmark Preservation Commission unanimously motion to forward it to you for your review and CPD staff recommends approval of the application.
Speaker 0: All right. Well, thank you so much for the staff report tonight. Council has not received any written testimony on Council Bill 1399. And tonight we have five individuals signed up to speak. And our first speaker is Matt Slaby. Mountain. You might have to have you meet yourself there.
Speaker 1: I got it. My name is Matt Slaby. I'm the owner and the steward of the building. I'm here tonight to be available for questions that anybody might have about the the property just by way of interest in the building. We're particularly interested in the adaptive uses that are available under landmark designation. You know, as as you see right now, it's, it's only available to use under the RH three as as functionally as condos. And, you know, our intention is to use it as office space for a business that I own, but then also to use the remainder of the building to lease back to similarly situated organizations like Inner City Parish that sold the building. That was something that we represented to them at the time of sale. So with that, thank you to Kara and Jamie Taurus and the folks of historic Denver. And if there's anything that I can do in the way of answering questions, I'm more than happy to be available to do that.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Matt. We appreciate that. Next up, we have Annie Levinsky.
Speaker 3: Hi, everyone. I'm Annie Levinsky. I'm the executive director of Historic Denver, and we're located at 1420 Ogden Street in Denver. And for those of you who don't know us, we're a membership based nonprofit organization that supports historic preservation, advocacy and technical assistance. And so tonight, we're here on both accounts, and we've had the opportunity to work with Matt on this application to produce a landmark designation. But we actually have a deeper history with this particular building. So I just wanted to share a little bit of that. We first became involved with what is Smith Chapel or Denver Inner City Parish in the early 2000 when we helped the building get listed on the State Register of Historic Places. And that was done in order to make the building eligible for grants and incentive programs like the Colorado State Historical Fund. So after that listing, we applied for a series of restoration grants on behalf of Denver Inner City Parish and worked with them to get work on things like window restoration and other improvements to the building that made it functional and useful for them that resulted in the parish donating a preservation facade is meant to historic Denver in 2015 and that provides some additional exterior protection to the building and runs with the building and the land. And so that easement continues in effect today, even though the parish did sell the building. So we find this to be a very special asset and are really excited to be here tonight to support Matt and to the next phase of life for the building. And I think there's a couple of reasons that this is particularly special. First, as you heard and Kara discussed at length, this building is really associated with Denver's Chicano movement, and particularly with the West high blowout, but but also the many leaders who, you know, cut their teeth in this neighborhood and went on to become important people in our city who who made significant change for our community. So we hope that it's the beginning of a series of designations that can use this cultural criteria to really acknowledge the our social movements of our past. But the second reason I think tonight is particularly special is that this designation offers the owner an opportunity to take advantage of an incentive that comes with designation. That's something we've talked a lot about in Task Force work with some of you over the last few years. And while the use overlay is not new, it's great to see somebody able to take advantage of that and to do so in a way that will allow the building to continue to be used and accessed by the community and used by organizations that are based in the community, and that will continue even if the building's ownership changes over time. So thank you so much for your consideration. Thank you to Matt for taking on this project. I know it can sometimes seem daunting and particularly thank you to Councilwoman Torres for her help and support to us and to Matt in getting it completed.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Annie. We appreciate that. Next up, we have Anna to pack. You might. There you go.
Speaker 3: There we go. Okay.
Speaker 0: Here I am.
Speaker 3: I'm Anna Chapek, and I live in the neighborhood. I'm at 871 Box Street, so almost across the street from Smith's Chapel. And I. I just want to say very quickly that I hope the council will vote.
Speaker 0: In favor of giving the.
Speaker 3: Chapel landmark status. I'm very happy that this application is is going forward.
Speaker 0: I've lived here for over 23 years.
Speaker 3: And so we have been, you know.
Speaker 0: Very aware.
Speaker 3: Of the chapel and its involvement.
Speaker 0: In the community.
Speaker 3: And I guess you could say historically, it always has been a community.
Speaker 0: Building as a church.
Speaker 3: And then moving into different owners and organizations in there. But I am happy that it sounds like.
Speaker 0: Matt is interested in continuing that.
Speaker 3: Community.
Speaker 0: Involvement. And so I asked the City Council to vote in favor.
Speaker 3: Of the landmark status, and that's all I had.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Anna, for joining us this evening. Our next speaker is Jesse Paris.
Speaker 1: Good evening. Members of council, those watching at home. My name is just past and present for Denver. Home with our low last toss. The moment itself, the first positive active commitment to social ties as well as the Unity Party of Colorado and Mile High. Those and I will be there next November and 2023. I am in favor of this historic landmark conservation. I am a graduate of West High School. I graduated from West High School in 2005, have two degrees. I received diplomas from the school and the program. I was in Center for International Studies. I'm very aware of the significance that this has to the Latino community of the West. So that being said, presentation and even do it justice. But. We'll give you the context and the history of where this is coming from. I have no choice but to approve this self preservation work to see that the owner the owner is willing to work with the community and easement to preserve the church. So with that being said, I approve this historic preservation and good choice.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Jesse. Our last speaker is Shannon Stage.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Good evening. Council members hopefully can see me here. My name is Shannon. I am the preservation coordinator at Historic Denver. Our address is 1420 Ogden Street, Denver, Colorado. And I wanted to just reiterate a lot of what Annie said, but also add to that we are really thrilled to be here to show our support tonight for this Miss Chapel designation at 910. Galapagos St Care's presentation did a great job explaining why this chapel is significant for its association with the historical development of Denver's West Side, embodying the Gothic revival, architectural style, and being integral to the Chicano movement of the 1960s and seventies. Over the last few years, we at Historic Denver have been working with the law in the Lincoln Park neighborhood on a project to research and inventory the long history of the neighborhood up to and including the Chicano movement. This research has helped inform the designation process for this chapel and ensured that the chapel is not only recognized for the art for its architecture, which was the case when it was previously listed on the State Register of Historic Places, but is also recognized for its cultural association and for the years it was occupied by the Denver inner city parish. We hope that the neighborhood project will continue to support additional recognition and designation for Denver's Chicano and Chicano movement history, with this chapel being a great step in this direction. In closing, historic Denver fully supports the Smiths Chapel landmark designation, and I'm also happy to answer any questions about the application as I was very close to helping write and finalize that application. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Shannon. And that concludes our speakers questions from members of Council on Council Bill 1399. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. I don't know if Councilwoman Torres would want to go first with any questions, if she had any. Because I want to respect. No. Okay. Thank you. I have a couple of questions, Kara, on the use overlay. Are we also through this bill? Are we also rezoning or applying use overlay three or is that a later action?
Speaker 3: It's actually already been to have it. So. So there are few areas in the city that have the U.S. really like a lot of capital already has it. I see some areas over here in LA on the Lincoln Park, so it's already there. This is just allowing them to take advantage of it.
Speaker 4: Okay. And I'm very interested in that 1923 addition. How does that function and maybe is it Mat? I could answer this as well as Kara maybe. But how does that 1923 addition interplay with the 1890 structure of the church? Does it function as a single structure? Is it? I've not been inside of it, so I. I don't know.
Speaker 3: It does. I mean, it is one single structure, but I have not been inside either. So I think Matt might be one who's better situated to answer that.
Speaker 4: Okay, Matt, would you be able to answer that?
Speaker 1: Yeah, of course. So when I was out of the parish, it was the classrooms that were adjoining the chapel portion. The chapel portion was used as a gymnasium for its latter years. So it's it's three levels. And then when it was designed, it was designed to match. If you look at the. The architectural features on there, you'll see that it's designed to match the chapel itself. And so it's remained intact since 1923. And the best of my knowledge, it hasn't changed that look.
Speaker 4: I can see where it imitates some of the aspects of the chapel, but of course it's stone versus red brick, so it's not quite a match up. So that leads me to my last question. Do we have other examples of Denver landmarks that incorporate adjoining structures of different eras and different construction styles? Are there other. Yes.
Speaker 3: Yes, we do. We do probably the one that that most comes to mind and one that you guys might have seen more recently was the Emily Griffith Opportunity School.
Speaker 4: Oh, yeah.
Speaker 3: Actually a series of multiple different buildings with different styles. And so it's significant for a couple of different architectural styles on that one. So there are there are some that's the most recent one that you guys have. We have. See.
Speaker 4: You're right. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam President. I'd just like to thank Matt for his commitment to not only purchasing this property, but to preserving it and and maintaining it as a as a landmark. Thank you, Matt.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. And see know their hands raised for questions. The public hearing for council bill 20 Dash 1399 is closed. Comments by members of Council. Councilwoman Torres.
Speaker 3: Thank you so much, Madam President. And thank you, Keira, Anna and Shannon at historic Denver and thinking about Slaby, the property owner, really being diligent and supportive of the designation of this property. I knew it only as academia, so the applications research even gave me more context and appreciation for the building and its role in our West Side history. I'm very proud that this is our first application or seeing under the new landmark designation criteria, which includes culture and specifically this language abbreviated associated with social movements that contributed significantly to the culture of the neighborhood, community, city, state and nation. So very proudly, I asked my colleagues to join me in supporting this as it meets the criteria this evening. And thank you also to Anna Chapek for your testimony. Jamie Jacob, who wrote in a comment and to Jesse, I didn't know you were West High Cowboy. Thank you. Just be. Thank you, everyone.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Torres. Councilwoman Sandoval.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. I would just like to also offer my support as I believe this meets all the criteria. I remember learning about the West Denver walkouts and the importance that that piece of land played in the history of the Chicano movement. And when I was working for Councilwoman Monteiro, who represented not only the park neighborhood, oftentimes she and I would think about how we could proactively save structures that had importance. But as to Councilwoman Teresa's point, there was no criteria in the landmark ordinance that talked about cultural significance. And I just want to thank everyone in the West Side for getting this done. I think it's so important to have these structures to remind us of who came before us. And they will also and they'll be forever in history in Denver. So with that, I would also ask my colleagues to support this. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Sandoval. And seeing other hands raised, I'll go ahead and add in as well. It's wonderful to see the structure finally protected. I went through my master's program with Dusty Gourlay, and it was amazing to learn about the Crusade for Justice and all of the work that her and her family did over the years and continue, quite frankly, to do for our community. And so I am very honored to support this tonight, seeing that it meets all of the criteria for this preservation. And with that, Madam Secretary, roll call, please.
Speaker 3: Correct. I. Like I. See the bucket? I. Clark.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 3: Flynn.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 3: Herndon.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 3: Hi.
Speaker 1: Hi.
Speaker 3: Cashman.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 3: Can I? Ortega. I'm not seeing Ortega. Sandoval. I. Sawyer. I. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce results. Well by 12 Eyes Council Bill 20 Dash 1399 has passed. Councilmember Hines, will you please put Council Bill 1444 on the floor for final passage?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance designating 910 Galapago Street as a structure for preservation.
Approves an individual Denver landmark designation for property located at 910 Galapago Street in Council District 3. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 12-1-20.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_12212020_20-1444
|
Speaker 8: We did also receive 16 letters of opposition, and I think many of those who were in opposition were concerned about the representation of the Italian-American community. And I and I, I wanted to really speak to that. This was not about the diminishment in any way of the Italian-American community, but really a lifting of this place of special importance to the the Latin X and Chicano community. So our Parks and Recreation Advisory Board voted unanimously after a public hearing that was held on November 16 to move this forward, and thus the recommendation and the ordinance request from Parks and Recreation. So on behalf of our department and really myself personally, I'm really delighted to recommend this renaming to you to preserve such an important part of Denver's history. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: I will. Thank you very much, Director Haines. We are appreciative of you joining us tonight. And we've got our second speaker up and we have his suit. So Frontier.
Speaker 1: But even in council I get here, I think Director Heinz did a great job of summarizing the outreach effort and what the department did. I'm just here to answer any questions that council may have after the public hearing about the process that was followed by the applicant, Councilman Sandoval, the community, and then the department to get to you all.
Speaker 0: Very good. Thank you for joining us. And next up, our next speaker is Richard Sabel. Mr. Sabel, you may. Oh, there you go. You're unmuted. Go ahead, sir. Okay.
Speaker 4: Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to speak tonight. My name is Richard Sabel. I've lived down the road from Columbus Park most of my life, and I'm opposed to changing the name of Columbus Park. This is an extreme affront to the Italian-American community, and a direct attack against our heritage and history in the area is being imposed upon us against our will and until tonight, without dialog or participation on our part. It also highlights the disparity of civic assets allocated slabs dedicated to Hispanic figures over two dozen compared with only two, one of which is under attack dedicated and allocated to the Italian community. Currently, the only civic assets acknowledging the Italian-American community are Columbus Park in northwest Denver at John Cho Park, located in what is known as the Bottoms. While some landmarks still remain, such as the martial arts Cerrone's Grocery and of course the small Carmel Church, all are privately owned. Compare this with over two dozen civic assets acknowledging the Hispanic community. Cesar Chavez. Park Mestizo. Curtis Park. Paco Santos Park. Balboa. Lincoln Park. Val Verde Park. Paul Sandoval High School. Castro School. Panga. Vale of Art, etc. etc.. Based on this comparison alone, Denver City Council cannot in good conscience move forward with this proposal. Further, it is intrinsically unfair to take from one community and give to another. It is also unethical to diminish and erase the historical significance of the park to the Italian-American community and the consequent acknowledgment of the contributions of the Italian-Americans to the community at large. It is our position that there is no legitimate reason to change the name of Columbus Park. But in the interest of cooperation and community, if keeping the name Columbus is too much to ask, then we propose that the park remain allocated slash dedicated to the Italian-American community with a name that acknowledges such. Why not Da Vinci Park or Garibaldi Park? Or for a Colorado connection? Angelo, A.C., please help us preserve our heritage by protecting the legacy of our history. It should also be noted that there is a pyramid structure within Columbus Park that has a plaque affixed, dedicating it to La Raza that has been there many years. If nothing else, why not leave everything the way it is? The Italian-American community keeps their park. The Hispanic American community keeps their La Raza structure, and both communities benefit by continuing to share a public resource they have shared for many years. If this compromise is unacceptable to La Raza people, I suggest they purchase their own park and build their own park. Denver City Council cannot claim to support inclusion and diversity by taking away from and shaming one community in order to give to another. This is an example of cancel culture.
Speaker 0: Thank you, sir. Hence the time we have allotted. Next up, we have Senator Julie Gonzalez.
Speaker 3: Hi, everybody. I want to thank you all. So much for all of the work that you all do at the Denver City Council. And particularly, I'm here to ask you to vote yes in support of 20 Dash 1444. This is this is a special night. This is this is solstice. And it is a moment of transition. It is the shortest day in the longest year. This year itself.
Speaker 0: Has been a decade.
Speaker 3: And I want to acknowledge that this land has been a site of struggle for four generations. It's also been a site of transition and of transformation. And I think particularly in this year in which our community has navigated so much crisis, whether it has been the.
Speaker 2: Pandemic, whether it has been the economic devastation.
Speaker 3: Whether it has been the climate crisis or the racial reckoning. Denver And our our society, we've gone through a lot. This renaming of this land to affirm its name. That the community has always called it a La Raza park. It is a step towards healing. It is a step towards transformation. And it is a step towards unity. And so with that council, I want to appreciate everything that you all do on the.
Speaker 0: Daily, but particularly.
Speaker 3: Appreciate the work that the council member, Sandoval and so many others have had that have brought in acknowledging the name of this, that this park has always come by through community. And with that, I do ask for your support in naming and affirm. Make La Raza Park.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much, Senator Gonzalez. Our next speaker is Arturo Rodriguez. Natale. You're going to have to amuse.
Speaker 4: Hello, everyone. Can you hear me?
Speaker 0: Mm hmm. Go ahead, sir.
Speaker 4: Okay. Good evening. Thank you very much for your time. Congratulation, counsel and everybody, for taking on this historic task. I know the part very well. I was the organizer of the initial protests 50 years ago, so I have lived the history and made the history as a retired Chicano studies professor. I have taught this history for 50 years. University of Colorado. Boulder. Denver Community College. Metro State College this fall. Do you people are interested in the history of L.A. Apart? It's a fascinating history of the entire park. Growing up with the rebels and other Italian-Americans in the neighborhood. I know their story and this has never been about them in us. It's been about the reality, the truth about Christopher Columbus. Under the guidelines of naming a park of Christopher, Columbus does not meet the qualifications for that. Mexican Chicanos as indigenous peoples have suffered genocide over 500 years. We live with that trauma. We continue to live with that trauma. In 1981, when we were gassed at the park, for a lot of us, the park day that we held for ten years in conjunction with the pool staff, it was a beautiful event and it turned into a riot. We live with that trauma, so we now have an opportunity to move forward. We have an opportunity to move into the 21st century. We have new residents in this neighborhood now. There's not a day that I walk in that park when I see a person who I know did not grow up in that neighborhood and I educate them about the history and the beauty of the park. And they think and I think that's the message that we want to give every year. I congratulate you for your work and let us make history. Let us. The park should be also not a nominated and be a historic park. Thank you very much for your time.
Speaker 0: Oh, well, very good. Thank you, sir. Next up, we have Representative Sarina Gonzalez Gutierrez.
Speaker 3: But evening, everyone. My name is Serena Gonzalez Gutierrez. I want to thank Councilwoman Amanda Sandoval for bringing this forward. And I'm here in support of naming the park to let us the park. I'm a proud third generation North Sider, and my husband and I are raising the fourth generation right here in the same community in North Denver . I have many memories dating back to when I was my kid's age, playing on the playground, running up and down those steps of the pyramid, performing there with my grandmother. And now I've had the opportunity to watch my daughters perform on the very steps of the pyramid. And I've watched several, as well as at the local graduations that have taken place right on that kiosk. Those. There are memories that also precede me, of course, memories from my family. My mom had her first job at the pool when she was 14 years old. LaRosa Park is a symbol of unity in our communities. And without those that became that came before us, we would not be here continuing to fight for what has been a part of our community, our memories, and what we want to pass on to the next generation. Just this year, we celebrated Mother Cabrini Day to celebrate the Italian heritage and someone that made significant contributions to our communities. Columbus is not someone to be celebrated. La Raza is a word of unity and about celebrating community. And I have always known this to be Let us park. Lastly, I'm going to quote my late grandfather, Rodolfo Corky Gonzalez, who led the Crusade for justice and opened a school esquina Tlatelolco. Over 47 years ago. Land is the base on which our cultural values are created. That is what led us the park is to the Chicano, Latino and the Northside community. It is the land that holds our values to come together, to fight injustices and to celebrate our cultures. Thank you so much for allowing the time and I hope that everyone is in support of this renaming. It is well, long overdue. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, we have Cameron Selvin.
Speaker 1: Everyone, thank you so much. So I'm actually a resident of District one. I lived directly on the park on Osage Street, but I don't want to speak to you as a resident today. I actually want to talk to you in a professional capacity. I'm a professor of history at the University of Colorado, Denver. And I'm just seeing the panic in your eyes as you're envisioning me starting to launch into a long, boring lecture an hour three of the city council meeting. What I will not do, I promise. But I do just want to say that over the past year or two, I found myself answering the same question again and again as Confederate statues and monuments come down across the country. And that question is if we remove a statue, right? If we rename a school or a neighborhood. Doesn't that mean we're raising history? And my response is always the same. No. We're not. And I tell my students this all the time, history is a choice. We choose to remember and celebrate certain things and not others. And those choices say a lot more about the values of the society that is making those choices than the things that are being remembered. So stuff like monuments, memorials, the names of schools or buildings or parks, these say a lot more about the society that builds them , the society that names them than they say about the thing that's being commemorated. So I think the real question facing the city council right now is what kind of community do we want to be today in 2020? What kind of values do we want to celebrate today? And I don't envy any of you. You've had to make some extremely tough decisions over this extremely tough past year. But this one, this is not one of those tough decisions. I say this again in a professional capacity as a historian, changing the name of this park from Columbus Park to LA Rosa Park is actually pretty straightforward . This change would go from celebrating. What I see is some of the absolute worst parts of this country's history to celebrating some of the very best parts of this country's history. So for those reasons, I am fully in support of this name change and just want to thank you for your willingness to consider taking this step.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Jesse Paris.
Speaker 1: We need more members of the council, those watching at home. My name is just Perez and I'm representing for Denver homestyle restaurants and mobile for self as the vessel promotes the social change as well as the Unity Party of Colorado and Mile High. No, and I will be the next November 2023. I agree with everything that was said previous to me, minus the guy who didn't want to take the part of this. Is a fixture in the north side, is a community center on the city that the city is finally realizing that after all these years, that is a step in the right direction. We need to honor the cultural significance of this park and of this neighborhood that's dominantly brown and Chicano not. Now. I was known as the last the part. I am a native. I was born here in 1987. And this part has always been known since I've been living as the life of the party. So to hear the pushback of just simply taking the name from Columbus, who is not somebody that we should be honoring, especially in the age that we're in now. Post George Floyd protests and previous speakers for Confederate monuments coming down. Why in 2020, with the city of Denver still be honoring a criminal such as Chris of All Columbus? So I am very happy and pleased to hear the testimony of those that descend directly from the playmakers that started the Crusade for Justice in the 1960s and 1970s. Representative Selena Gutierrez. And Senator Julie Gonzalez. They understand the historical significance of this part and why it is so important that this world is also full of holes in the name of this park, like a famous estate. It's always been known as the Rosa Parks since I've been living with this 33 years. So with that being said, I'm glad to see that the city is actually taking the initiative to close and accept the cultural significance of our many diverse neighborhoods in the city and honoring the contribution that the level of community has given to the city of Denver. So with that being said, good job. You've got this of.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Jesse. Our last speaker this evening is Emmanuel Martinez. We're going to need you to unmute, sir. There you go. We're going now. Mm hmm. Go ahead, please.
Speaker 1: Well, I try to be brief, which is what I have to say about this, because nearly 50, 50 years ago, after founding Rome, a recreation center, and I was its first director, and at that time, Joe Johnson was director, Parks and Recreation. And he agreed to my request to be a full time muralist for the city of Denver Parks and Rec. And after painting murals at Lama they wanted the Plaza Park was that was already being renamed by the staff there and wanted me to paint murals there so I did when I helped, I didn't have time to do that mural. So so while Roberto Lucero pretty much designed in my help him paint it and get the materials to do that. And during that time. There was some controversy later because at that time, the city council, Linda Damiano, who was also Italian-American, urged Joe Johns, who after we had painted a mural that was acceptable by the community and by the staff. He wanted me to paint over the mural because I was in the city, the city murals, and I refused to do that. And as a result of that, I got fired from my job. So I have a little history with. But let us apart. Going way back to 1970. And, you know, I would just like to urge the city council members to please support the name change of Columbus Park. A lot of support the size of it, besides a small number of Italian residents who identify with Columbus. Most of the residents of that area. I've been calling this park. But also park. And it just seems to me like this is is this a no brainer? I mean, is the vast majority of the community has been using that, not calling it that, you know, it's appropriate to do that. And anyway, it's important to realize that La Rosa Park was just the name. La. The site is a positive term. You know, it's you know, it it relates to people, you know, different cultures. It's not exclusively, you know, just for Chicanos or Latinos or Mexicans. So it's I think I think we will soon be.
Speaker 0: Thank you. So that's the time we have allocated to.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 0: We appreciate it. Thank you. That concludes our speakers questions from members of Council on Council Bill 1444, Councilwoman Canete.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Madam President, I wanted to see whether perhaps Professor Rodriguez, if he is still here, or maybe the councilwoman, the sponsor, might want to speak a little more, or even Mr. Martinez, since he was about to talk about this, but about the the term. So so when I learn Spanish, I, I know the way that I learned this term, La Raza. And we have some folks who've kind of, you know, I think looked at this term and and their risk of translating to literally. And so I wanted to just give you a moment, either as the sponsor or maybe the professors to speak a little bit to this term and what it encompasses and how hard it is to to kind of get it out of a dictionary, if you will. Councilman Sandoval Yeah, I'm happy to answer. Or if I did the Rodriguez, if he's still here, we can promote him and he would be able to answer.
Speaker 0: It's wonderful. We're going to see if we can get Mr. Rodriguez. Promoted back up. Yep. I see that we have him here and we'll ask him to unmute.
Speaker 3: Ah. Theodore, are you still with us? Can you unmute?
Speaker 0: All right. There you go, Mr. Rodriguez. And then I think Mr. Martinez would like to to speak as well. But Mr. Rodriguez, go ahead, please.
Speaker 4: The term the word. The word La Raza means the people. During the Chicano movement and during the civil rights movement. We empowered ourself. We said Bieber, La Raza. We as a people encompass a world, a culture. We are predominantly native peoples. A group of people also will inevitably develop customs culture. And if you're asking about the definition of does it mean the race? No, it does not mean the race. That was a negative, negative experience, backlash, if you will, from the general public, because they didn't understand that. When I teach Chicano studies, that's one of the first lessons, is the terminology and what it really means to be La Raza and what it means to be La Raza means to be the people. So when we selected that term in a public meeting in 1970 in the community when we were developing this protest, we looked at the name and we said, You know, what we really want to do here is develop a people's spark. We were actually inspired by the People's Park in San Francisco, you know, the hippies and the people that were developing this new world culture. And so we were inspired by the civil rights movement that they were involved in. And so with the Cesar Chavez movement and the other civil rights movement, it became a term to empower us, to educate people about who we are. We are most of all. Good question.
Speaker 3: Thank you very. Did you want to add something?
Speaker 1: Yes, I would like to. Can you hear.
Speaker 0: Me? Go ahead, sir.
Speaker 1: Well, you know, the the concept of La Raza actually created by the Save Our School Sailors, who was a philosopher in Mexico City and also the minister of culture. And during the third 1930s. And that as his minister of culture, he was probably, you know, the president, Diego Rivera and Siqueiros and Orozco, the great muralist. He was responsible for getting that work done. But the point I'm getting at is that as as a philosopher, he came up with that term, and it has been popular in Latin America and it is very inclusive in terms of all races. And it's relative to our to our race because we are a mixture of race. We are citizens, which is Europe and and and indigenous people. So it's important to realize that this term is that negative. It's all encompassing of a mixture of races in people. So I think people should understand that this is not just a Chicano full term, you know, and it wasn't created by the father movement or what was goes wrong extensively on the concept of La Raza. And so you may you want to you may want to research and if you want more information on that concept.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Madam President, I just thought it was important. Languages are living, and any one of us could look up an English word in the Oxford Dictionary and know that that's not how we use the word today. And I think that I just wanted to really underscore the idea that you have to look to how the word is used, not to what you find in some Wikipedia site. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Wonderful. Thank you so much, Councilwoman Canete. Next up, we have Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. I don't know if maybe Director Haines or Hastings could respond to this question, but I just want to clarify for everybody listening that it is not unprecedented to change the name of a park that already has been named officially. And so a renaming is something that has been done before. So Director James raises Hazel. She want to answer that.
Speaker 1: So in the rules and regs for the naming policy of different parks and recreation, they do allow for renaming, right? Parks there have been parks that have been renamed or portions of parks have been remain renamed by by members of this council and previous groups that that have renamed parks that previously had a name.
Speaker 4: Great. Thank you. I just want to let bring that out so that folks know that this is true. And to build upon what Councilwoman Kennedy said, history is also a living thing and it can be viewed from many perspectives through many generations and viewed differently. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Flynn. And I thought we had another hand raised, and so I'll wait for a second. All right. Seeing no others. The courtesy public hearing for Council Bill 20 Dash 1444 is closed. Comments by members of Council. Councilwoman Sandoval.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. I'd like to begin with a little time and a little history. In 1848, the treaty of his Hidalgo was signed into law, and this was when Mexico ceded 5050 5% of its land. And this is part of present day Arizona, California, New Mexico, Texas, Colorado, Nevada and Utah to the United States. Growing up, I was taught an important thing. We didn't cross the border. The border crossed us. Christopher Columbus did not discover America. It was already inhabited by our indigenous brothers and sisters. What Christopher Columbus did was genocide. He raped and pillaged our native people. And it is time we stop celebrating Columbus and recognize the people. Or, as we say in this part. Let us ask, as district one resident was quoted in the Northstar local newspaper, Judy Diaz from Acquisti in North Denver, resident who identifies as Latin Next and is married into an Italian family. She said she respects the role the name and park had for the early Italian residents. Many used Columbus as an icon to gain acceptance at a time when Italians were heavily discriminated against. Despite that, today, she supports the change to La Raza. It needs to be a building to embrace community and humanity, said friend from Acquisti. People are going to find it controversial if they want to find something to controversy, if they want to find controversy. Growing up in the North Side, I had only known the park to be named. Let us the park. I have celebrated many events there graduations, kids. And yet at the end of summer follows the summer solstice. And my community feels it is time for the park to be named not as a park. I would like to thank those who came before me who fought in the crusade for justice. Art Do the bones. Rodriguez The Chicano movement and the many Latin, black, Latino, black and Latino elected leaders who came before me group to help them. The Gonzalez Family. Senator Julie Gonzalez. Representative Sydnor Gonzalez Gutierrez. The Chicano Pride Rides Councilwoman Ortega, who brought this forward in her term in District nine and was shy one vote. And all those community members who came out during a pandemic to sign over 400 plus signatures to rename this park. I will end with one of my favorite poems as I know it is relevant tonight. Joyce Johnson Rose. Said, I am standing on the shoulders of the ones who came before me. I am stronger for their courage. I am wiser for their words. I am lifted by their longing for a fairer and brighter future. I am grateful for their vision, for their time on this earth. We are standing on the shoulders of the ones who came before us. They are giants and humans and angels. They are friends. We can see beyond the struggles and the troubles and the challenges when we know that by their efforts things will be better. In the end, they lift me higher than I could ever fly. Carrying my burdens away. I imagine our world. If they hadn't tried, we wouldn't be here celebrating today. I am standing on the shoulders of those who came before me. I am honored by their passion for our liberty. I will stand a little taller. I will. I will work a little longer. And my shoulders will be there to hold the ones who follow me. They lift me higher than I could ever fly. Carrying my burdens away. I imagine our world. If they hadn't tried, we wouldn't be so very blessed today. I am standing on the shoulders of those. The ones who come before me. I am humbled by their passion for our liberty. I stand a little taller. I work a little longer. And my shoulders will be there to hold the ones who follow me. I humbly ask my fellow colleagues. To support this long overdue. Name change and Cuba us. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilwoman Sandoval, we appreciate your comments. And I want to pause for a second. Councilwoman Ortega, she had tried to carry forward a name change quite a few years ago. And so I would ask my colleagues if they wouldn't mind allowing Councilwoman Ortega to go next and share her thoughts on this. Thank you, Madam President. I really appreciate it. And I just want to extend my apologies to my colleagues in the audience for not having here for the previous votes. I had to leave for an eye doctor appointment and just got back. So I want to thank Councilwoman Sandoval for bringing this forward and for putting all the legwork. It is not easy to do a park name change. Sorry, I'm getting. Oh, we just want. Yeah, there you go. My screen just. I figured.
Speaker 1: You'd want.
Speaker 0: Your video on. Go ahead, Councilwoman. But it was on and then it turned off. That was kind of weird. But anyway. As I was saying, it's a lot of work to do a park name change. It requires, you know, the signature gathering, pulling together the historical information and and lining up the votes with your colleagues. And I just want to thank you, Councilwoman Sandoval, for all of your work to bring this forward. As as you know, I attempted to do this in my time as a district council person that had a lot of support within it. And everybody from the community has always called it led us apart. And what I was successful doing was getting the the it's not a gazebo. What do you call the. The structure in the park named as Plaza de la Raza. But that was not that was only sort of in exchange for. You know, having let us name officially on the park. And, you know, there's a lot of history in this park that I believe you already covered. I just got back. So I didn't get a chance to hear that part of the presentation. But I did see the information that Councilwoman Sandoval had provided to all of us. And, you know, the demographics of many of our neighborhoods have have changed over time. And this is an example where at one time this was predominantly an Italian community. And, you know, and then at one point it was predominantly Latino. And now the demographics have changed even once again. There's still a lot of Latino families in the community. But, you know, it's it's a gentrified neighborhood. And if you were a renter, most renters are gone that were Hispanic because a lot of those properties have been redeveloped. And so I think this is a great opportunity to reflect the culture and the history that has existed within the community. I can remember growing up as a young high school student and in my, you know, early days as a young adult, spending time over at the park for some of the gatherings and opportunities for the Chicano community to come together and and just celebrate our culture. And so this is an opportunity to do that. I believe it does not take away from the contributions that the Italians in our community have made on the board of a nonprofit that has several of our buildings named after Italian leaders from the community. And this is just another way to recognize the long standing indigenous peoples who, you know, originated in this city, when the confluence of both the South Platte and Cherry Creek came together, which was the the early beginnings of our city. So just ask for support of our colleagues. And again, thank Councilwoman Sandoval and all of the people who assisted in getting the signatures and helping to bring this forward. Thank you. Madam President. Thank you, Councilman Ortega, and happy that you were able to get back and join us for this important event tonight. Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 4: I'll defer for a moment to Councilwoman Torres.
Speaker 0: All right. Sounds good. Councilwoman Torres.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. Thank you. Come to my house. Just a quick note of thanks. Just acknowledging and applauding Councilman Sandoval and everyone of the hundreds of people who came over two days during this year, which has been such a tough year to sign the petition and help make tonight happen. There was immediate reaction and enthusiasm and to have the political will and leadership to be able to do this right now is incredibly affirming and a powerful move. And it did not come without risks of threat and names and just real ugliness over something that I think. We have heard calls for four generations, Columbus statues around the country.
Speaker 0: Coming down and.
Speaker 3: People really hitting a limit, a tolerance for revisionist history. And so I really just want to thank Councilman Sandoval, Councilman Ortega before her for hearing the words of community for whom this is really important. And I look forward to voting yes. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Torres. Councilman Cashman?
Speaker 4: Yeah. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 1: I want to start.
Speaker 4: By congratulating my colleague, Councilman Sandoval. A great presentation, a great effort.
Speaker 1: And I am.
Speaker 4: Pleased.
Speaker 1: To wholeheartedly support this.
Speaker 4: Name, change and celebrate with you.
Speaker 1: And your staff and the Latin community on this just long overdue.
Speaker 4: Name change. And I need to take a moment of personal reflection. When I was growing up in New Jersey, my my best friend's name was.
Speaker 1: Don and his.
Speaker 4: Brother was Andy and his parents, Randy and Kaye. And their last name was Prezioso. And they were proud Italian-Americans. And I'm picturing myself. At their dinner table where I was many, many times, trying to explain to Mr. Prez what's going on here. And being a VA as he was, he would he'd have been difficult to convince. And so recognizing that, I just want to ask our Department of Parks and Recreation as they move forward with the. There are ongoing efforts.
Speaker 1: To add Parkland to our.
Speaker 4: System to see if they can't.
Speaker 1: Find a nice parcel and an appropriate parcel to consider a naming in honor of.
Speaker 4: Denver's Italian community. I think there are numerous heroes more appropriately.
Speaker 1: Suited to bear the moniker of a Denver park.
Speaker 4: And I appreciate the moment of perhaps inappropriate personal reflection. But in honor of Mr. and Mrs. President, I wanted to put that forward.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Next up, we have Councilman Hines.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 1: We as Council, we are here to guide Denver's present and its future based on the values we want to have in our city. And and certainly we should look back at our history and and revel in our history. But, you know, once dinosaurs roamed the earth and now they just adorn sweaters. And so sometimes, you know, if we can just continue to to to only live in the past, just for the past sake. And. And so, Councilmember Sandoval, thank you so much for for bringing this forward. And this is obviously a tough conversation. I in District ten, we had a Christopher Columbus statue, as in it was actually named Christopher Columbus. And we reached out to the Italian American community. We reached out to the Italian consulate here in Denver. We reached out to people who identify as of Italian heritage in Denver and elsewhere. And and the the the conversations that I had were that the Italians in Denver want this. They want they want to celebrate the people and they want to celebrate the people's part. So so thank you again, Councilmember Sandoval. Thank you for all of the the current and former elected officials that you've had here to present, including my state senators, Senator Consultants, thank you for thank you for making the trip on the other side of of of veterans park and and visiting us in the local yokel end of Denver City Council. I'm I'm really excited and and happy to to be part of the support that helps get this across the finish line. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman, can each.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. Kvitova is very exciting. I just wanted to share some perspective about the renaming commission that the mayor seeded about six months ago that Councilwoman Ortega and I serve on. And I was trying to pull out the criteria. I couldn't quite find them fast enough, but. But it includes not just that the individual or term that's used has, you know, a historic harm associated with it. It's also about whether or not that harm is continuing into the future in terms of replicating or reinforcing messages or values that are contrary to the city's. And I think that's really important because, you know, I just first want to say Naomi did an amazing job, really great presentation. But I think what I took from her presentation is the way that colonization right. Replicated itself. And I think that's really important because the disparities that are still experienced by the Latino community and members of it. Right, is that replication of the harm. And so to honor the origins of that harm. Right, is a replication of it. And so I can't predict for you what would have happened, but I think it's pretty likely we would have been ended up here. Even if Councilwoman Sandoval never picked this up. She picked this up because she's a leader, because she knew there was this long standing need in this community. But I didn't want anyone to think that she's speaking only for herself. Right. That I think that there is clearly a movement and we're looking at all kinds of names. And so that that report won't be ready till next year. We're still we are so thoroughly debating it. Some of the most thoughtful, challenging conversation that I've been a part of in my time governing, thinking about the confluence right of history and the present, and inequities and harm and healing and all of that. So I just but I wanted to give that perspective because I think that as we do reckon with wanting to better understand the history and that the harms associated with names or terms of things in our city, I think that you are going to see that this might be one of the easier cases, right, as communities will be the next one. So this committee that councilman are taking on will basically take recommendations and give them back to communities to debate. And only after they debate it will it come to this council. But it's this this is an easier case than some that you may see through those processes. It clearly meets the criteria for a renaming that the Parks folks just described. And I just want to say that to the community who waited so long for this, your perseverance and your commitment and the contributions that you made sometimes in spite of our city. Right, are not to be forgotten. And so congratulations to the to the community and to Councilwoman Sandoval for helping to lead them. Thanks.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Next up, we have Councilwoman CdeBaca.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. Just wanted to send a quick congratulations to Councilman Sandoval and all of the North Siders, the West Siders, the East Siders who were a part of the Chicano movement, but also all of our professors, our cultural workers, our community workers who really dedicated lifetimes to teaching people about race as a social construct. And how in order for us to get beyond a scenario where we use race to validate, to justify oppression, we have to start envisioning a world that doesn't exist with race. And I strongly encourage anyone who's curious about this renaming or who's frustrated by this renaming to really do a little bit of research on La Raza cosmic , because what it is really about is acknowledging that there is no pure race. There is no such thing anymore. And the the this idea of La Raza is about a new race of people without the labels applied to us based on color. So I again, congratulations. I'm very happy to see this. I'm very happy to be able to vote yes on this in my term and proud to to say that this is a community home. And I hope that beyond this symbolic fight, this symbolic win, we make sure that the Latino people, that La Raza is able to stay in this community and enjoy this park with this new name. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. And I will go ahead and wrap up on comments. Congratulations, Councilwoman Sandoval. Councilwoman Ortega. And, you know, I loved it when Senator Gonzalez talked about the winter solstice and how significant this point in history today right now is. And I think of our grandmothers and our aunties and our mothers and all of the women in the community and and the men. But I like to concentrate on the women a little bit, because I know that there has been many grassroots efforts and and keeping that fight going over the years. And that I also would be very remiss if I didn't honor our elders, Mr. Rodriguez and Mr. Martinez, who joined us and the the many academics and teachers. I got my undergraduate at Regis at Metro and then my master's at Religious. And so that history is interwoven throughout the Denver metro area, but really within our state, because like my family came from the San Luis Valley and came to Denver for a better opportunity. And so I feel like our elders are smiling down on us and have been whispering for decades to make this change. And I just want to sincerely congratulate the community and Councilwoman Sandoval and Ortega and also Torres, because the preservation in your district as well continues on that strong Chicano Latin history of our city that is so important. And so, without further ado, Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 3: Sandoval. I. Sawyer a. All right. I. Well, I. Peter Barca. I. Clark.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 4: When I.
Speaker 3: Herndon.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 3: Hi.
Speaker 1: I'm.
Speaker 3: Cashman.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 3: MH I. Ortega, I. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I am secretary. Please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 3: 13 I.
Speaker 0: 13 Eyes Council Bill 20 Dash 1444 has passed our pre adjournment announcement on Tuesday, July 19th, 2021. Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 1414, changing the zoning classification for 3397 South Geneva Street in Hampton.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance renaming Columbus Park located at 1501 West 38th Avenue as “La Raza Park”.
Renames the park at West 38th Avenue and Navajo Street from Columbus Park to La Raza Park in Council District 1. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 12-8-20.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_12142020_20-1453
|
Speaker 0: And so seeing no other council announcements, we have no presentations tonight, we have no communications. We have two proclamations being read this evening. Councilmember Hines, would you please read Proclamation 1453 for us?
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. I will. So the proclamation is titled Proclamation in support for studying Community Choice Energy as an option for local governments in the state of Colorado. Whereas, 14 cities and counties in Colorado, known as the ready for 100 communities, have committed to obtaining 100% renewable energy by 2025 to 2035 and 34 communities known as Colorado Communities for Climate Action have organized to advocate for stronger climate policy. And. WHEREAS, these communities, which represent when more than 1 million Coloradans cannot reach their ambitious energy and climate goals within their desired time frames unless they require greater choice and control over the energy sources comprising their wholesale electricity supply. And. WHEREAS, the Governor's Policy Initiative, entitled Road Back to 100% Renewable Energy by 2040 and Bold Climate Action, explicitly supports local commitments to 100% renewable energy. And. WHEREAS, the ability of the community to achieve ambitious energy goals is currently limited by the energy supply mix and the decarbonization decarbonization timeline of the electric utility that serves that community . And having the option to procure electricity from alternative wholesale suppliers may enable communities to achieve their climate or excuse me, achieve their energy goals substantially faster and at lower cost. And. Whereas, there exists a local energy model called Community Choice Energy, also known as Community Choice Aggregation, which is a proven approach to expanding local control over energy sources and lowering electricity rates by introducing competition and choice into the wholesale electricity sector. And. WHEREAS, under CCU, communities may choose alternative wholesale electricity suppliers, while the electricity continues to be delivered by the incumbent utility, which continues to own and operate its transmission and distribution system and manage customer service and billing, thereby allowing communities to choose a competitive power supplier without affecting non procurement related utility operations. And. Whereas, in the wholesale opt out model of CCE, individual customers retain the choice to opt out of their community CCE offerings and receive electricity supplied by the utility under its traditional bundled service. And. WHEREAS, a thoughtful study of CCE would answer key questions and illuminate the potential benefits and challenges of enabling CCS model in Colorado. And. WHEREAS, a well-designed CCE program would likely drive lower rates and cleaner energy for all Colorado communities, not just those that would Adobe city by introducing competition and community level choice into the supply of wholesale electricity while maintaining the viability and strength of Colorado's investor owned electric utilities and without imposing additional costs on the utility for its bundled service customers. And. Whereas, while CCE has the potential to allow Colorado communities to make local energy decisions, meet their energy goals, reduce energy costs, foster local economic development, and keep more energy dollars circulating locally through more local employment and fewer energy dollars flowing to distant utility employees, executives and shareholders. It is nonetheless prudent to study the economic and technical visibility and the regulatory implications and legal impacts of CCE before considering CCE enabled legislation. And. Whereas, CC is an innovative concept which other states have already successfully implemented, thereby thereby giving Colorado the opportunity to identify best practices and lessons learned from their experiences. And. WHEREAS, a CC study bill entitled Public Utilities Commission Study of Community Choice Energy was introduced in the Colorado legislation that would authorize an informational proceeding at the PUC to receive input on key questions about CCE from a broad array of stakeholders and invited expert speakers to determine whether the apparent promise of CCE for Colorado's energy and economic future does indeed have merit. Now therefore be resolved by Denver City Council. That Denver City Council concludes that it is a public interest to better understand the potential benefits and challenges of community choice. Energy in the state of Colorado and Denver City Council does hereby indicate its support for a thoughtful study of CTE at the Public Utility Commission. And Denver City Council does urge its legislators and all Colorado legislators to support the study before that so that we may obtain the information needed to determine whether the apparent promise of 64 communities for eight communities and for Colorado's energy and economic future has merit, merit and is worthy of being considered for implementation. Adoption of this resolution in no way obligates Denver City Council or Denver to participate in community choice energy, energy if and when. The study does show no benefits to Colorado and is subsequently implemented by passage of enabling legislation in the future. This.
Speaker 0: Sorry. Go ahead, Councilman.
Speaker 1: And one one quick note. If if colleagues, if you checked Granicus, this has been updated and the public facing view does save Denver City Council and argue it just has denver. So the public sees that it is Denver city councilman as I read it, as it is published to the public. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Hines, your motion to adopt.
Speaker 1: I move that we adopt. Proclamation number 20 that 1453 seconds you.
Speaker 0: Councilman, it's been moved and I believe Councilman Ortega was the second. And we'll go next to comments by members of council. But just wanted to remind folks that because we do have interpretation services happening simultaneously and you did a great job, Councilman Hines. You were right on. But just that we speak a bit slower so that we can allow the interpreters time to do their job. And so and we've had it moved and seconded comments by members of Council Councilman Hines.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. And thank you for to our interpreters, for all you do. I apologize. So I am excited to bring this proclamation forward for three reasons. First, climate change is real. Yes, Cohen is here and it is destructive to our community, our lives and our livelihoods. But climate change is also here, and it threatens our habitability on this planet. We're seeing it all over the world from Venice, Italy, where their newly installed water barrier system still didn't stop flooding recently throughout the city. We're also seeing it here in Colorado, where three of the state's largest forest fires in history all occurred in 2020 . We cannot afford to lose focus on our climate. Certainly not for our children and for our children's children. But we also can't afford to lose focus on our climate for us today. Second, communities like Denver deserve the ability to direct the ways we want to generate energy. Call it local control. Denver Rights Want more control over our own energy sources. We have the most polluted zip code in the nation. 80216 located in District nine and it is socially and environmentally just that we move quickly to stop the continued destruction. Three. This is a demonstration of collaboration between levels of government. We are doing everything we can to mitigate climate change, including partnering up and down the levels of government to preserve our habitability on our beautiful planet. Finally, to be clear, this is a Denver City Council proclamation in support of a bill that it passed, would direct the PUC to conduct a study on Community Choice energy. While I and maybe my colleagues might be on board with Community Choice Energy entirely. The proclamation is just supporting the bill that creates the study. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Hines. Madam Secretary, roll call, please.
Speaker 5: Hines.
Speaker 1: Hi.
Speaker 5: Cashman. I can. I. Ortega.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 5: Sandoval. I. Sawyer, I. Torres.
Speaker 2: I black.
Speaker 5: I see tobacco. I. Clark.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Flynn.
Speaker 6: I.
Speaker 5: Herndon.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 5: Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 5: 13 eyes.
Speaker 0: 13 eyes. Proclamation. 1453 has been adopted. Councilman Hines, we have 5 minutes for the proclamation acceptance. If you'd like to introduce. Who will accept the proclamation?
Speaker 1: But thank you, Madam President. Representative Gideon was planning to accept the proclamation. She was the bill's sponsor and. And is the one who asked the city council to initiate the proclamation. I just received a text message from her saying that she is stuck in traffic and will be unable to accept the proclamation. So we have the 5 minutes to move forward. So thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Well, congratulations, Councilman Haines, on the proclamation, and we'll wish her well in traffic. We don't get to hear that much anymore, so we'll move on. Councilmember Ortega, will you please read Proclamation 1552 for us?
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation of support for studying Community Choice Energy (CCE) as an option for local governments in the State of Colorado.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_12142020_20-1528
|
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded questions or comments by members of Council. Councilwoman CdeBaca.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam President. I would like I see Rob Ness, Nisga'a and Kirsten Crawford on the line, and I would love for them to explain to council members and the public what council members options are tonight for votes, considering this is a contract that was arbitrated. So if that's possible, Kirsten, can you can you let us know? But evening council members in the Senate may be up here and they're all. Well, yes, that's a good question. And a few of you have asked us as well. So there are a number of reasons that this agreement needs to be memorialized in writing. Beyond just the award that the arbiter has rendered, but starting in no particular order under Section 9814 of the charter, both the terms agreed to by the parties and the decision awarded by the arbiter require a written agreement. It's explicitly laid out in the charter, but there's other really important reasons. The the parties, as you know, are bound by the arbiters decision. It is binding arbitration. So both parties are bound to abide by what the arbiter has decided, but also beyond that can choose voluntarily if they mutually agreed to deviate from the decision. So in order of determining finality of the parties decisions as to whether they accept the arbiters award or choose to continue to negotiate for reasons of finality, the agreement needs to be put in writing. There's other reasons, too. They're just highlighting. One of the most important articles in the agreement that is beyond the scope of the Arbiter Award is Article five, which contains a provision where the city does not mandate any more fair share fees be extracted from the officer's paycheck. That's based on a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision. And so Article five says we will take the dues if an officer agrees that they would want us to do so in writing. You know, some of the other reasons is projected liabilities need to be encumbered and the only way to recover is through a written agreement. In other words, the contract. And in this particular situation, counsel is the one who has to determine whether a contract is approved here. So that's clearly counsel authority. There's other just charter interpretation reasons, but those are the most important reasons. And thank you for the question because I have had others ask us as well. And so let me summarize and tell me if I am capturing this. So a vote tonight is not symbolic. And in fact, our vote tonight, it constitutes our agreement or disagreement with the arbitrator, which is required. Correct. No, that's not correct. The the arbitration decision is being analyzed. So it's not a discretionary decision. So my question here. So my question here is, given that we do have yes, no or abstain options to vote here tonight. This it doesn't it's not symbolic. It does allow the public to know where we stand on this agreement. But the agreement has to go into effect. No matter what. What if you get a council that votes this down tonight? What happens with it? Well, I mean, if we're in that particular framework, we.
Speaker 3: Would be.
Speaker 5: Discussing the potential litigants and outcome of litigation because the binding decision is enforceable and someone is bound to enforce it. But that's not a discussion that I don't think that anybody would want to have right now in a public session. So we can discuss that if that's what does the charter. Can you explain for the public a brief overview of what happened after the last vote? I'm happy. We're happy to do that. I feel that potentially John Griffin and Roberts were better suited to talk about the process because they were intimately hands on involved at every step of the way. So perhaps we want to hear from them first. Sure. John, I would appreciate if you could speak up and brief the public on what happened between the last vote and this one.
Speaker 1: Three. Do you have specific questions you'd like to have answered?
Speaker 5: Yes. Who was involved throughout the process? What offers were on the table? What happened through negotiations?
Speaker 6: Well, as you know, negotiations are confidential.
Speaker 1: So I will defer to Robert Nassau on some of these questions. But to overall answer, the mayor's office, the city council and then other people from Budget Management office were also involved in discussions. I'll hand it over to Rob to speak more if there's anything else to add. Yeah. I can speak to process. I'm leery to discuss any her. To address anything that was specifically said during those discussions because of their confidential and privileged nature. But after the. The tentative agreement was rejected by city council. We had an obligation to go back and try to continue to negotiate a replacement contract. Through those negotiations, we were able to come to an agreement on most every aspect of the contract, with the exception of five issues that remained in dispute and based upon the nature of those disputed issues, final offers from the city were developed in concert with the mayor and City Council, and ultimately those final offers were presented.
Speaker 6: To the arbitrator for resolution.
Speaker 5: So can I get some clarification on the confidential nature of. Essentially an autopsy. The charter does not require this to be confidential. And I was told at the beginning of the process that we choose this confidential process to protect both parties, leverage in negotiations. Now that negotiations are over and there is an arbitration agreement or arbitration decision, what requires the process and the offers to now be confidential? After it's been said and done.
Speaker 1: Well, the best answer I can give you is that negotiations do not end with this particular contract, that negotiations will continue not only with the EPA, but locally, by the way, on fire contracts, on on share of contracts. I would counsel against disclosing anything that may tip the city's hand in future negotiations.
Speaker 5: So there's. Did you. So do you agree that there's nothing that requires us to maintain a confidential process in the charter?
Speaker 1: I don't believe that there's anything in the charter that specifically requires that. But again, I would counsel against disclosing anything that was confidential.
Speaker 5: Thank you. And I would like to weigh in on that as well. That is not one member's decision to unilaterally decide what to disclose when it's attorney client privilege and confidential information and negotiations discussed in executive session. That is the client's decision. And, you know, the corporate parties are the client, which is comprised not only of city council but members of the other teams. So that is a discussion that the body would have to have before one member of not just decided to release information. Did city councils offer? Was it allowed to be presented to the arbitrator in there in the hearing?
Speaker 1: I can speak to that somewhat.
Speaker 6: And Rob can jump ahead because the corporate authorities could not come to.
Speaker 1: An agreement. No offer was presented towards the arbitrator.
Speaker 5: What prevented both corporate authorities from presenting what their offers were to the arbitrator or the arbitrator to decide between?
Speaker 1: They disagreed.
Speaker 5: But their their position was not presented to the arbitrator.
Speaker 6: The aisle at Rob. Tim, did you actually to talk about this?
Speaker 1: My understanding is that the city offers something as an entity. So if the city cannot, if the corporate authorities inside the city cannot agree, then no offers submitted. But I will rob chocolate. That's exactly right, John. The final offer issue by issue presented by the city was the city's offer. It wasn't the mayor's offer. It wasn't city council's offer. It was the offer of the city collectively as the corporate authorities.
Speaker 6: For the city.
Speaker 5: Is that are we joined together as one in an ordinance or in the charter?
Speaker 1: The Charter defines corporate authorities for purposes of collective bargaining as the mayor and city council or their representatives.
Speaker 5: And so because that's plural, it suggests that we would have. Separate offers as well. Correct.
Speaker 1: I don't agree with that.
Speaker 5: Why would they not refer to us as the corporate authority if it was synonymous with the city?
Speaker 1: I believe the mayor is one corporate authority, and I believe that city council is also a corporate authority.
Speaker 5: And so in an arbitration hearing, why would both corporate authorities not be able to present their position?
Speaker 1: The corporate authorities did.
Speaker 6: Present their final offers.
Speaker 1: On all but one issue, and that was the issue of salaries in 2022. And on that one specific and discrete issue. The corporate authorities were unable to come to an agreement on what offered 2% to the arbitrator, and therefore none was made.
Speaker 5: Is there any? Limitation to city council, putting forth an ordinance that makes this process more transparent and public in the future. It can. Council Members. Gibson Crawford Legislative Council. I neglected to introduce this stuff a couple times. Now I apologize. You know, we are talking to President Gilmore about continually, continually and sometimes daily and hourly about process improvements along the way and whether something can be codified and who it finds is a discussion that we're having. And happy to talk to you more about that, too. But to say kind of a vague or ambiguous question about can we put something in ordinance? Yes, the devil's in the details and we're discussing that now. And final question, where any city council members present in the first and only hearing with the arbitrator?
Speaker 1: No.
Speaker 5: Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilwoman CdeBaca, Councilwoman Canete.
Speaker 5: Thank you very much, Madam President. It's been difficult to determine how to. Speak tonight on this issue. I very much respect the benefits of confidential negotiations and privilege, and I will honor them in terms of the the details of the process. But as an elected official, I cannot stand silent without an observation, which is that this outcome happened because of a disappointing failure to good faith negotiate with this council. And I will say that that. In my opinion, was a perversion of the charter. And requires a systematic solution such that the good faith obligations extend between the branches of government in the same way that they do to our bargaining partners across the table. With that, I will be voting for this tonight because of the legal consequences that will occur. But I could not remain silent in what I consider to be a bad faith outcome between the branches of government. That requires rectifying. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Canete. I'm going to go ahead. And I don't see any other hands raised. And so I want to just let folks know that this body has worked together over the last five months to shore up this process. I came in as president July 20th and that same exact week. This is when those negotiations were happening and through us as council working together, we have shored up this process and we have a stronger role in collective bargaining. And I really believe that these new protocols that we've put together will strengthen our role. And council has held our ground. We are now viewed as an equal partner in the negotiation process, which, as we all know, we haven't been viewed as an equal partner in a very long time, and we are an equal partner now. We met in executive session with sometimes a majority of council and if not, the others were briefed. We met during mayor council. We met and luti committee. We met six times to shore up our position and evaluate proposals. And I'm proud of the work that this Council has done together. We pushed each other. We asked questions. We were unhappy with some things. We pushed back. And when we outlined this process way back in August, we determined that we were going to have a representative and John Griffin was our representative. And like Kirsten Crawford said, I was sometimes talking to them daily, sometimes more than that. And we made sure to create plenty of time for council to talk. Now you've got to start out in a good fashion sometimes to get a negotiation to where it needs to be. And I agree with the criticisms that have been lobbed, Mark, tonight, because we weren't. On even footing when we started out, but we did the best that we could with what we've been given. And I had just that conversation today with Kirsten Crawford and Jonathan Griffin, how we share this process up so that this is not just a guidelines that the city council came forward with, but that we codify this in ordinance in some way so that this never happens again to another city council, so that there is a process related to it. And that's going to entail us working with the city attorney, Kristen Bronson, and the mayor's administration to make sure that we don't put something forth and then it doesn't take effect. We need to work with them, ensure this up. But that is the work that we've started. And at the end of the day, that's how you start to undo these systems that have been wound so tight for decades and decades. This council started that work. This wasn't the outcome that a majority, a supermajority of us wanted. But we have started that work and I'm proud of that work and we will continue to do that work. And so with that, seeing no other questions. Madam Secretary, roll call, please.
Speaker 5: CdeBaca. Now. Clark.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 5: Flynn.
Speaker 6: I.
Speaker 5: Herndon. I ain't.
Speaker 1: No.
Speaker 5: Cashman. I can. I. Ortega.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 5: Cinnabon. I. Sawyer. No. Torres. I. Black. I. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced the results.
Speaker 5: Three days. Ten Eyes.
Speaker 0: Ten Eyes. Resolution 1528 has been adopted. The next item up is Resolution 1415. Councilwoman CdeBaca, please go ahead with your questions on it.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam President. I put I called this off a consent for questions because of an event that happened this weekend. GREENE Latino's has been through the leadership of and Tafoya collecting trash throughout our encampments with a crew of volunteers. And every week, they they come up with loads of trash that they have nowhere to dispose. And I'm wondering if this contract would allow them to to continue some of the innovation that they've started. Well, what they're doing is buying those large waste management bags that an individual can buy for their residents, where they call waste management , to pick it up when it's full. And I'm wondering if this contract would allow for us to be able to do that specifically for our unhoused residents at encampments.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you for that question, Councilman. And go ahead, Christina.
Speaker 5: Thank you. And apologies, Christina Ulrich, administration supervisor with the General Services. Thank you, Councilman, for that question. So this contract is actually limited to pick up at specific two city facilities. In addition, it is limited to trash compactor, dumpsters, front load service and vehicle impound facilities. I don't believe that it currently has the capacity to pick up those bags as you as you're referring. And what would it take to modify to allow that sort of service for people who are not entitled to a dumpster? So I don't think that we're prepared to answer that question at this time. And this amendment really does focus on adding the cares in the female language. I do think that is a conversation that we could potentially have offline when we have some more information available. Is it possible to make sure that that conversation happens before? We? Finalize the Keres language. It feels like picking up trash where there's not a dumpster in a bag like this during COVID makes a lot of sense. If we're spending millions on hazmat cleanup when a situation has escalated beyond repair. And so for this to be a reimbursable thing within the CARES Act language I think is critical right now. Is there any opportunity to modify that language to make sure that this is part of the services in that contract? I'm sorry. You asking apologies to modify the CARES Act language. That language specifically cannot be modified in any way or shape because it does come from the federal government itself. And at this time, we actually only are looking seeking reimbursement for about 1200 dollars through the CARES Act for services received through this year. And as you're aware and less that cares funding is extended. Those services can only be through the end of this year. And that's really what this language covers. So the event that took place this past weekend, the city will be getting a bill from the organizers of that event for the costs of the bag and the pickup . Is that something that we would add into the contract that we are currently spending down and whether we get reimbursed by the CARES Act or not? Is that something we would pay for? Because that is not covered under the current contract. I don't believe that's something that we would pay for tying it to the contract. However, as I stated, this is really just specific to that cares and funding language. So I think this is a conversation for us to have offline, just as we gather some more information on that topic. Thank you. That's it for my questions. Madam President.
Speaker 0: You councilwoman. Thank you, Christina. Councilman Hines.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 1: I. I understand that the the nature of the questions from my colleague was outside of this particular contract as just like District nine, District ten has a lot of enforcement actions and homeless encampments. And as I understand it, as far as I understand it, is currently against municipal or Denver law to place your trash in someone else's dumpster or trash receptacle. And so I too would be interested in a conversation necessarily about this contract. I just wanted to put it out there that there are those encampments. The people who live in those encampments have no place to put their trash. And so they're just putting it where they can. So I, I second to the idea that we should have a conversation about as we continue to have enforcement actions, we should have a way for, for, for the responsible residents of these unhoused encampments to to have a place to legally dispose of trash. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Hines. Councilman Torres.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam President. I'd like to request Councilman Herndon and Councilwoman Sandoval, if you might consider asking Dottie to come to Ludi, to answer this specific question as it relates to trash pickup, perhaps a new contract or an expansion of an existing contract needs to be pursued. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Torres. And we will definitely work on getting something scheduled so that we can have this conversation, seeing their hands raised. 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 out an item for a separate vote. Councilman Canete, would you please put the resolutions for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor?
Speaker 5: 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. 1126 1411 1366 1367 1368 1369 1370. 1387 1396 1405 14 1514. 18 1425 1327 1402 1403 1404 1410 1346 1347 1400 1419 1420 1421 1422 1364 1371 854, 13, 21, 1351 and 1377.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Creech has been moved. Thank you, Councilman Ortega. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 5: Black. I see tobacco. I. Clark.
Speaker 1: All right.
Speaker 5: Flynn.
Speaker 6: I.
Speaker 5: Herndon.
Speaker 6: I.
Speaker 5: Hines.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 5: Cashman. I can each. I. Ortega.
Speaker 2: I. Sandoval.
Speaker 5: I. Sawyer. I. Torres, I. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I am secretary close to voting and announce the results.
Speaker 5: 13 eyes.
Speaker 0: 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 1159, changing the zoning classification for 3225 ten Argo Street.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the City and County of Denver and the Denver Police Protective Association, for the years 2021-2022, that resulted from the 2020 impasse arbitration award.
Approves a collective bargaining agreement with the Denver Police Protective Association for the years 2021-2022, that resulted from the 2020 impasse arbitration award. The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 1-4-21. Councilmember Gilmore approved direct filing this item on 12-10-20.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_12142020_20-1159
|
Speaker 5: As such, Blueprint Denver directs the majority of growth to key centers, corridors and high density residential areas served by transportation options as applies to Tanaka market. The subject property falls within the plans growth strategy area of high and high medium residential areas in D and C contexts, which anticipate 15% of new housing and 5% of new employment by 2040. For this growth strategy to be effective overall, the city needs to channel housing and jobs into appropriate places such as this to achieve other plan goals. Now moving on to the River North Plan, which city council adopted in 2003. The subject property falls within the plan areas southwest corner as outlined in the yellow triangle. In this area. It specifically calls for redeveloping Tanaka Market into a mixed use community with pedestrian oriented transit supportive design. The proposed CMC 16 zone district and the design overlay would help achieve this plan's vision by continuing the build out of an urban center with a compact, mixed use and pedestrian friendly environment. The requested zone district already meets the required criteria for consistency with adopted plans without additional support from housing and inclusive. Denver. The city's plan that outlines strategies to create and preserve strong and opportunity rich neighborhoods with diverse housing options that are accessible and affordable to all Denver residents. Nevertheless, the proposed rezoning, along with the aforementioned Affordable Housing Agreement, helps implement a key recommendation of the plan to promote affordable mixed income and mixed use housing. Now when we consider whether the rezoning meets criteria too, we have to assume that future development proposals will follow the proposed Cinemark 16 zone district regulations if they're approved. If they don't meet CMC's 16 regulations, then developments won't be permitted in regards to the third criteria. If the rezoning is approved, the proposed development would introduce the first affordable housing and commercial space and jobs to Tanaka Market. It would also improve the streetscape, adding a detached sidewalk where none exist today, adding new trees and replacing streetlights. The project would also comply with the Green Building Ordinance by providing green space on site and 5% greater energy efficiency than the building code requires because the project provides those health and safety benefits. We have to answer yes to the question about whether it also meets Criteria three. Justifying circumstances for the rezoning request include changing conditions and adopted plans. Recent physical changes near the subject site includes several new apartment buildings in the generico market area. Reconstruction of Brighton Boulevard. The addition of bicycle and pedestrian connections through the area and a new neighborhood park. In addition, the city has adopted the comprehensive plan blueprints on borough and housing and inclusive tender since the approval of the existing IAB Euro two zone district. As stated throughout this presentation. The proposed rezoning meets the intent of these plans. Overall, the proposed MAP amendment is consistent with the neighborhood context zone, district purpose and intent statement for the CMF 16 End Design Overlay District. Greater detail can be found in the staff report. Finally, CPD acknowledges that this rezoning will facilitate significant change in the area. But based on our objective analysis, we've determined all the review criteria have been met and we are recommending approval. Besides myself, several city staff and applicant representatives are available for questions.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Libby, for a great staff report. And just to let my colleagues know, if you check your email, we had some difficulties loading the PowerPoint presentation onto Granicus. And so it's been emailed to you as well and reloaded on to the city system. Tonight Council has received 26 written comments on Council Bill 1159. There were four submitted comments in favor of the application and 22 submitted comments in opposition of the application. All members of Council that are present have certified that they've read each of the submit and submitted written comments to 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 in favor and in opposition of Council Bill 1159 has been read by each member of Council, and all written testimony will be submitted to the official record of the hearing. We have 39 individuals signed up to speak this evening and we will go ahead and get started. And just a reminder to folks, we are still having Spanish translation. And so if you might slow down your comments a little bit so we can make sure and get everything translated, we'd appreciate that. Our first speaker up is Chase Hill.
Speaker 1: Good evening, City Council and thank you for your time this evening and for your public service. I'm sorry. Silver, Cypress and I live about a mile from the site. 2924 1.8211. Cyprus originally acquired the northern markets back in 2007 and to date has built to products in the area is currently building a third. We've also been active in the broader market for close to 20 years and in just the last 18 months we've signed three voluntary affordable housing agreements with host committee to a combined 168 affordable units, which puts us near the top or at the top of the list for the most inclusionary affordable units offered by a private market rate developer. Slide three My presentation shows that aside from our substantial commitment to providing affordable housing, Cyprus is also committed to socially responsible and environmentally friendly development. Through socially conscious and environmentally sustainable planning and design, we strive not only to improve the quality of life of our residents, but of the communities we develop in as well. Just months ago we delivered a product in Denver that is MGB Screen Certified. We've also delivered leads project in local markets. We're currently a member of the U.S. Green Building Council and we always strive to reduce the carbon footprint of our residents. We're also at the forefront of developing inclusionary zoning, driven, affordable housing and often build well beyond the minimum required affordable housing imposed by local municipalities. As we have committed to here, Slide five on our presentation shows that within a couple of blocks of the subject site, there are currently three sites highlighted in green that are zoned for 180 to 220 feet, as well as another see 16 sites in addition to several eight and 12 story sites. As explained by Libby, this area is also designated as high residential by Denver Blueprint, which is the highest density designation for residential within that plan and is currently consistent with the 16 zone. Slide six shows our site plan and here are the highlights. It's a six story project with 326 units will include 49 affordable units or 50% of of the total 33 units day of stay in line 16 at 16. It will also include 6000 square feet of retail, which would add to the 7000 square feet we're currently building across the street will provide nearly 15,000 square feet of much needed retail to help significantly improve this messy, mixed use district that we started many years ago. The target market has been labeled as close to everything but next to nothing, and we're determined to change that. These latest projects, in addition to all this, we will also deliver nearly 10,000 square feet of private and publicly accessible open greenspace. And lastly, we'll provide electric vehicle charging stations within the project, and we're working on an RTD bus stop. We also have reached out to 13 different autos. Of the 13. We reached out to eight groups engaged or willing to be with us. Of those eight, seven issued letters support the most time are spent with the Gas Coalition, where we unfortunately cannot commit to their 50% affordable, 30 to 50%. But we did increase our offering many times, including a 50% increase in affordability from 10% to 15% at 1680 AM. Thank you for your time and I'm here for questions.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, we have Justin Croft. You're muted, Justin.
Speaker 1: Good evening, members of City Council. Thank you for your time today. My name is Justin Croft. I live in the Cole neighborhood and work in the Renner neighborhood. I was also the Rainbow Bid president for its first five years, my term ending just this past June. I was one of the handful of community representatives who worked closely with KD to craft the requirements and language of design a really seven runner design overlay. I was actively involved also in helping to craft the affordability overlay or the incentive height and affordability overlay at the 30th and Blake Station and surrounding area, which was intended to be a density bonus. In other words, a greater height adjacent to the transit station provided to ostensibly take advantage of transit and reduce automobile dependance. This would be a lot of developers provided housing for the community already in place rather than new community members at a price point that was affordable for those community members. For this reason, I support the push to have this project include affordable housing and I appreciate the work that has been done to encourage that. Today, I'm here to underline the importance of adhering to the spirit as well as the requirements of the seven, the runner design overlay. And I would call on the City Planning Department to take another look at the Dennard on market area. It's no longer one large pad as it once was, and it should connect people to Brighton Boulevard, to the South Platte River Promenade, to the Rainbow Park and all the other public improvements that have taken place. All public spaces should receive the same attention to detail as minor design overlay seven did. The city should match the requirements that we hold our developers to. And because this will be the first time the design overlay seven has been met in the general market area, this developer has an unusual challenge in trying to provide active ground floor space in a neighborhood that didn't previously require that with apartments at the ground level as well as above. So I call on the city to support those efforts to support the developer, hopefully working in good faith to meet both the legal requirements and kind of the spirit of activating that part of the city. And again, I do support the inclusion of affordable units in this project as well. I am also available for questions.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Justin. Our next speaker is Nolan McDowell.
Speaker 5: Thank you, President Gilmore. My name is Nola Miguel. I'm the director of the GSA Coalition. The Globally Responsive Coalition.
Speaker 3: Facilitates.
Speaker 5: A committee called the Development Committee. It's comprised of neighborhood residents and three neighborhood renos, which include the first, the Elyria, Swansea Neighborhood Association and the Illyria Global and Swansea and Partners. And two nonprofit organizations, including that are community driven, including the Coalition and the Center for Community Wealth Building. Each of us focus on different aspects of equitable development. Tonight, we will strive to show counsel that this proposed use of land does not meet the criteria of furthering health, safety and well-being in our area and does not meet the planned guidance. As far as the nine equity goals and 23 strategies that are in the comprehensive plan 2040. The key equity concept that guides blueprint Denver committed to reducing inventory to. We hope that you have our letter in your records to review from our committee that provides written documentation of our arguments and some data. You've gotten calls to your offices. And tonight, you'll hear from neighbors impacted by displacement, concerned neighbors and neighborhood groups, allies and other neighborhoods that worry about a precedent being set for large scale growth on the backs areas facing displacement without protections and equity measures in place. Urban Council members, we come to you with an ongoing conundrum around development and growth in Denver and how and where to do it in an equitable manner. We continue to come to you in desperate need of the dire impacts hitting the communities where neighbors are an ongoing threat to involuntary displacement, facing rent and property taxes, and extreme threats to the health right now. During the COVID 19 pandemic, we're not here tonight or our prophet or her minor concerns. We're here tonight to defend the survival and basic well-being and health of ourselves and our neighbors. We opposed the 16 storey reason at 32 to 25 DeMarco. We do not believe this land use promotes health, safety and well-being of the area and in fact, quite the opposite. We believe an ongoing use of light industrial would support the need for jobs in the community and IT growth and residential mixed use happen here. It's happen incrementally and equitably. Prevent involuntary displacement. I with my screen. No. No. The sight like an elephant.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you so much, Nola, for your comments tonight. We really appreciate it. Next up, we have Kevin MATTHEWS.
Speaker 7: Hi. My name is Kevin MATTHEWS. I live at 1020 Madison Street in Denver, Colorado. I'm also on the board of Unity, Denver. I just want to read something. This is a study by several authors James Ryan, James Asquith, Evan Mast and David Read. And this is a combined study from the Upjohn Institute for Employment Research and the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia. A major obstacle to new housing construction in gentrifying neighborhoods is the fear that new units will induce additional housing demand, increasing local rents and fueling further gentrification. Although this is counterintuitive, there are many plausible mechanisms by which an increased concentration of wealthy households could make a neighborhood more attractive to other wealthy households. However, there is little to no empirical evidence on this topic. We study induced demand for new apartment complexes in gentrifying areas, using listing level data on rental prices from Zillow and exact household migration data from in future preliminary results. Using the spatial difference in difference approach suggests that these induced demand effects are overwhelmed by the effect of increased supply in neighborhoods when new apartment complexes were completed between 2014 and 2016. Rents in existing units near the new apartments declined relative to neighborhoods that did not see new construction until 2018. Changes in in-migration appear to drive this result. Although the total number of migrants from high income neighborhoods to the new construction neighborhoods increases after the new units are completed. The number of high income arrivals to previously existing units actually decreases as the new units absorb a substantial portion of these households. On the whole, our results suggest that on average, in the short run, new construction lowers rents in gentrifying neighborhoods. I would like to add that this is not the only study available. I could have used a few others, and I would like to also add that there's some people that will say that adding some fly is not enough to solve the issues at the lowest end of the income scale. This is, of course, correct, but adding supply is going to be a necessary precondition in preserving those affordable units that already exist. And when you consider that this project has 49 affordable units, that is an extra bonus. Gentrification is simply a symptom of population and job growth, outpacing the housing stock. If you don't build homes in one area, those needing housing will build up the available housing in another. The solution to this are actually pretty simple. Zoning wealthy areas, especially those zoned for only single family homes, increasing number of units per square mile in urban areas, and abolishing wasteful zoning regs like parking meters.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Kevin. That's the time we have allotted. Next up, we have Jesse Paris.
Speaker 8: The counselor that I was watching at home. My name is Personal Representative Muhammad. Now Blackstock, a move for self defense, positive action for social change, as well as the party of Colorado. And my move and I will be the next November in 2023. I would like to read a brief statement from the Yes Coalition enables a fight with bipartisan global various ones here about this new tonight. The GSA coalition neighbors the fireplace global where I was once the assembly impacted communities stand in opposition of this rezoning tonight by Texas based developer Cypress Real Estate Advisors for a pair of 16 storey high and finished luxury apartments at 30 to 35. We ask that neighbors across our communities and across the city to stand in solidarity to help us deny this rezoning request for the better part of a decade. Denver Communities of color, made up of majority of low wage workers and renters, have faced a new wave of extreme displacement pressures driven by development and investment, compounding these devastating impacts to family and community help, our neighbors, who have long breathed life into our communities, are now pushed out of them. There is a very visible pain in our communities, a constant worry with stomachs full of anger. When we see our city government in partnership, in sponsorship, for profit developers who have given the profit motives and the legality to take all we have built away from us. This extractive model of development is building a timber that is unaffordable to most, while holding historical disparities and inequalities that target low income. And communities of color, the high risk of housing instability and displacement join us in our collective effort to push Denver to create a new standard of development in our communities. We have a right to stay in our homes. We have a right to not be priced out of our communities. We have a right to lead equitable processes and influence major developments in our communities that have massive impact on us all. We have a right to demand at the city government, work for the House the stability of everyone instead of exploiting profit motives for the benefit of developers. In conclusion, this area was just swept three weeks ago. I was at the suite, Don house the suite. And across North America, adjacent to the proposed sites. Instead of addressing our own house neighbor problem, you better sweep it out of sight, out of mind. Tonight, city council. You have to make a.
Speaker 0: Jesse, are you the time we have? Next up, we have David Pardo.
Speaker 1: Hello. City Council, this is David Pardo. I currently live in the Highlands neighborhood, but for six years I lived downtown both in the central business district and next to train tracks in the Union Station neighborhood. I support this project. The production of 326 apartments as well as some. Absolutely. Needed commercial space in this neighborhood. It fits with the plan for this area. It's something that will provide housing for 400 people, at least with construction of a building that size. Who will not be buying in places like Globeville and Alegria, Swansea, and instead will proceed to rent in this new building, assuming it's built. This is critical for promoting the connection of Denaro to the rest of the city. Right now, everybody who lives there has to drive because as people said earlier, it's next to everything and it has nothing. Producing this building will mean that the area will likely get better transit, it will absolutely get better pedestrian infrastructure and will promote the increase in the amount of green space that's provided in the area. And in reality, as somebody who lived in an area that used to be effectively derelict Union Station and then was developed, it has the potential to help promote the production of a vibrant neighborhood in a place where right now there are a number of apartment buildings and a number of industrial buildings that don't provide all that many jobs. We as a city have a shortage of housing. We don't have. Enough places for people to live. That's why there are homeless people on the streets. There are people like me who have a moderate amount of income who can afford the rent, the rising rents. And that inherently pushes people out of the places where rents used to be low. If we produce buildings that provide some affordable housing and also additional market rate housing, that decreases the likelihood that people like me will end up displacing those with low incomes. To me, this building could potentially be my home when it's built, and if I live there, I won't be displacing some homeowner or some renter who is living in the Highlands or who's living in Greece. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, we have Terry Bowen said.
Speaker 7: And Evening Council members. I'm Terry.
Speaker 1: Burnside. I'm a resident in District six.
Speaker 7: I'm here to speak against the request for a zoning change at 30 to 25 Tanaka. I'm speaking in support of the GSA Coalition, a community effort of residents in Globeville, Luria, Swansea and the Five Points neighborhoods to stop yet more development.
Speaker 1: That prices them.
Speaker 7: Out of the neighborhoods.
Speaker 1: In the process, we've all come to know as gentrification.
Speaker 7: The Texas based Cypress Real Estates Advisors is the force for gentrification that is requesting the zoning change in this case and that the GSE.
Speaker 1: Foolish Coalition and I oppose Globeville.
Speaker 7: Elyria, Swansea and Five Points are all traditionally communities of.
Speaker 1: Color and less often emphasized. They're all.
Speaker 5: Traditionally working.
Speaker 1: Class communities. In the general comments session.
Speaker 7: Tonight, we heard many citizens speak against the funding of top tariff and in favor of treating our houseless neighbors with simple decency. At long last, it's clear that the housing crisis and cop terror both are exacerbated by the development that prices people out of their homes and neighborhoods and vice versa. As the Gas Coalition can tell you better than I, every time the developers come around to lap up and another opportunity for profit in the housing industry, they always promised to devote a substantial portion.
Speaker 1: Of their projects to low income units.
Speaker 7: And it never seems to quite happen. Certainly not to the degree that meets the needs of the working families in the cities, the ones that make the city run. So I'll just reiterate the yes coalition proclaims the following. They say, We have a right to stay in our homes. We have a right not to be priced out of our communities. We have a right to lead equitable processes and influence major developments in our communities that have a massive impact on us all. We have a right to demand that the city government work for the housing stability of everyone instead of exploiting profit motives for the benefit of developers. The US Census tells us that in the last decade of apartments built in this city, 51% were luxury units, 32% were market units and 17% were low income units. That makes 83% of apartments at market rate above. And if we wonder why the suffering of our houseless neighbors is so widespread with residential space that might house them sitting empty. This is a major reason not to mention that outright homelessness is not the only consequence of gentrification. The cohesion of neighborhoods suffers where fragmentation also means the continued segregation of lived experience. Housing justice.
Speaker 1: Is crucial to racial justice, and both.
Speaker 7: Are necessary for.
Speaker 1: Any hope of class justice. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Alfonso Espino.
Speaker 1: Well, thank you, counsel. I would first like to state that I am. A organizer for the Gas Coalition standing in opposition of this proposed reason. More importantly, I lived and I was born and I was raised all 24 years of my life so far. Thankfully, in the Elyria, Swansea community, I can still not afford to move out. So the problem is not a supply and demand issue too, because there's plenty of housing in. Last year, supply and demand was the issue. Why has the problem not been solved? It's because we keep building what is not needed. If we you just heard 51% of the units built in the last ten years. Partly you do because of such dramatic changes in land you use. Our luxury units. We've seen the reports out in Denver's media that suggest that they are mostly vacant and I house we have also submitted a document with a lot of other information related to involuntary displacement. I would just like to start off with the most grotesque when. Now for the period between 2008 and 2020, there was a 470% total increase in average property values in our communities. 470%. And people still have the audacity to come on here and suggest a building. More of this is going to solve the problem. How does any of this align with anything that's equitable? None of it does. In Olivia, in Swansea, since 2010, the rent has the median. GROSS rent has increased from $817 to about over 1105 points. That has gone from two 737 to 1245. Now it's over that in Globeville, it's it's gone from 839 to over a thousand as well. And people still have the audacity to sit here and tell us that building more. Same of the problem. A 470% increase in total property tax values in the span of under two decades is traumatizing to a community. And if city council cannot understand that and finally change the tide in Denver's housing crisis, then when will it ever start? If now they're demagoguing on January 1st, when the eviction moratorium ends, millions of Americans, thousands of Denver ites, will be left out on the streets. And people are still here talking about building more luxury and market rate units. Furthermore, the proposed affordable units, the rich real estate has. Offered voluntarily, though, are not affordable in our community. The maximum that a person can afford currently in Denver's rental market is under 50% AMI. None of these units can accomplish that. None of these units are actually affordable.
Speaker 0: You. That's your time. Next up, we have Darryl Watson.
Speaker 1: Madam President and 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 District nine. I'm a former president of the Wichita neighborhood, R.A., former co-chair of Denver Game Plan for a Healthy City and a former member of the Land Use Transportation Advisory Committee. My engagement in supporting Denver parks and land use spans over two decades. I'm here to express why you should vote yes on changing the zoning classification for 30 to 25 to narrow street from industrial to mixed use. My rationale.
Speaker 6: Is as follows.
Speaker 1: The exhaustive three year community engaged process to develop the land use recommendations within Blueprint Denver, including the review criteria used by council and considering zoning changes, supports this zoning change. This parcel bordering Globeville but in Five Points, is.
Speaker 6: Currently surrounded by apartments of similar height.
Speaker 1: And density. This private development, unlike those aforementioned market rate apartments, provide for 15% affordable units, with some units at 60% of AMI. Preventing displacement in District nine is a priority for Denver City Council and for residents of the city at large. This development on an industrial parcel will not directly create displacement. It will provide a measurable increase in affordable housing units providing the dignity of housing for many who would otherwise not be able to afford to live in Denver. It will create needed jobs, good paying, immediate jobs through construction. The planned retail space will also create longer term, necessary employment.
Speaker 6: Cyprus properties demonstrated.
Speaker 1: Their interests in a constructive two way conversation by engaging the discussions with Denver City Council, denying neighbors and other interested community members. Those collaborative discussions with an eye to an equitable outcome. What a catalyst for Cyprus to increase the.
Speaker 6: Percent of affordable housing from the initially.
Speaker 1: Proposed 10% to 15%, which is above the historic norm of 8 to 10% for similar developments not only in D9 but across the city. I understand that these decisions are not just a matter of data. Your decision will impact people.
Speaker 6: And for some, this.
Speaker 1: Development impacts their sense of what Denver is, as well as a sense of place. It is important that you that you hear those voices. The decision in the end is yours to make in these emotional circumstances. I encourage you to look to your North Star blueprint, Denver and Denver Comprehensive Plan 2040. These pivotal documents will lay bare any conscious or unconscious biases. They provide a clear, consistent, fair and.
Speaker 6: Equitable process that all Denver neighbors can.
Speaker 1: Rely on as we collaborate on imagining and building an accessible city for all. Thank you for voting yes on this proposal.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, we have Dianne Thiele. And Diane, you might need to unmute yourself.
Speaker 5: I am speaking against the.
Speaker 2: Rezoning request for 3225 an hour ago. It's almost ten years past time for our city to fundamentally change its process for property development. So we make Denver a city for.
Speaker 0: People of all incomes.
Speaker 2: Not just a gentrified city. We need to protect the neighborhoods of people of color. Neighborhoods where immigrants live. And low income neighborhoods. The residents of these.
Speaker 0: Heavily.
Speaker 5: Impacted neighborhoods should be.
Speaker 2: Safe and secure in their homes or apartments. But instead land in their neighborhoods is constantly appropriated by developers with support from the city.
Speaker 5: The existing.
Speaker 0: Residents end up not being.
Speaker 2: Able to afford to live in their homes or rent the apartments the developers build. They are forced out.
Speaker 5: What needs to change?
Speaker 2: Personally, I want the city to stop approving any zoning variations for luxury apartments.
Speaker 5: Townhomes and condos.
Speaker 2: And luxury mixed use development for ten years. Developers could build these projects only where the proper zoning already exists. During the first six months of that ten year period, the city was.
Speaker 5: Council.
Speaker 2: And community input should rewrite the current linkage policy that allows developers to offer a small number of units at the high end of affordability in return for government subsidies and zoning variances. Instead, the city's new guidance should require private multi-unit developers to make a.
Speaker 5: Minimum of.
Speaker 2: 25% of their housing units attainable for people in the extremely.
Speaker 5: Low.
Speaker 0: Income or low income. And my.
Speaker 2: Brackets. The big luxury and market rent apartment developers may refuse to build in Denver that would lower the cost of land. The Denver Housing Authority.
Speaker 5: Local land trusts and nonprofit groups might have more development sites to.
Speaker 2: Choose from to build low income housing. And money.
Speaker 5: From this year's homeless housing ballot.
Speaker 2: Initiative would stretch further. We're told we will not be returning to the old normal after COVID 19. We are about.
Speaker 0: To hit eviction hell.
Speaker 2: Come January. People don't have jobs or have been forced to become gig workers, slaves to billion dollar companies. We need to live in the new reality. Protect our communities of color around the city and house people of all incomes.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you, Diane. Next up, we have Adam Astrof. Oh, you're on mute out of.
Speaker 7: Hey, Denver City Council. My name is Adam Ashraf. I live at 361, a lady in the Baker neighborhood and I'm also on the board of BE Denver. I am speaking in favor of this rezoning tonight because the reality is, is we're really talking about whether we're going to approve or deny 45 affordable units. Currently, city council doesn't have the authority to mandate affordable housing in our projects. And though we hope that's something the legislature changes and Denver will be advocating for that, it's just not the case right now. 15% is probably 15 to 20% is what you'd be getting with an inclusionary zoning policy. So this is something that we believe passes muster. But I think it's also important to note that, like here we are again having a really contentious rezoning about, you know, multi-unit development and folks from who live in big mansions on the white side of the red line to communities that have been really harmed by displacement, really focus on these. But these are under these are around 20% of the units in Denver. They're only buildable on 20% of the land in the city of Denver until city council takes seriously single unit zoning, which covers 80% of the residential land in our city and is the real driver of displacement by forcing all growth into communities of color. And, you know, these industrial sites, you know, you're just not taking this seriously. And you didn't with the EPA amendment where you kept single unit zoning language in the plan. And I really hope you pass this because, you know, this is 374 homes, 50 of which are affordable for workers in Denver. But this is a crisis. You're hearing the pain of people in gas and it's not a time to be concerned about angry emails or reelection. It's a time to take on a zoning policy that was put in place explicitly for raises purposes that still segregates our city today. The problem here is that building more apartments, it's that we have single unit zoning in our city. So please approve this rezoning and then really take strong action to address the housing crisis and open up development in neighborhoods not facing displacement. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Helen Tekle. I'll let you correct me, Helen, if I pronounced it wrong. It's okay to take a taxi. Thank you.
Speaker 5: Hi, everyone. My name is Helen, actually, and I'm the business organizer for the East Colfax Community Collective. I'm here speaking on behalf of the collective and the ease and the community of East Colfax to urge you to oppose the rezoning of 3 to 25 De Niro Street in five points. The development will set a concerning precedent that prioritizes the needs of developers over the needs of our local communities. And we stand solidarity with our.
Speaker 0: Brothers and sisters at G as coalition.
Speaker 5: Asking you to reject this of zoning changes. Neighborhoods at risk of displacement, such as East, COVAX and Global will require a different set of standards and equity analysis when looking to the development process. As community members, we are told that developers will be forced to provide community benefits to mitigate the impact on displacement. And in this case, this has not happened. Despite good faith attempts by GSS to enter into community benefits agreement, the developers have only offered 5% units in 60% and 10% of units and 80%, and both of which are higher than the aim high level of. In this type of development were to be proposed in the East Colfax. We would oppose it with.
Speaker 0: Everything we have as d.
Speaker 5: As has done, because it is clear that this type of development is not being built to support the community that currently lives in that area. Along the majority of market and luxury apartments, building into the communities that are already under pressure of displacement will only increase the pace at which we are losing our community members. We should not develop just for development sake. We should not oppose such a large scale project if they are not being offered significant, affordable units. If the city can be clear on proposals that come forward and that are not serious about creating affordable options will be approved. We can send strong signals to developers that our first priority in building for residents of our local neighborhoods, which are a heart of our heart.
Speaker 2: And soul of Denver, will put.
Speaker 5: Denver as states to achieve our vision for Equitable City with the promise of opportunity for all.
Speaker 0: Their rights.
Speaker 5: We must focus on the needs of our most vulnerable residents. This has not happened in this case. It is not enough for CPD to engage with local communities to then proceed to ignore their recommendations. We urge you, I council members to be more fierce in defense of our equity and prioritizing the risk and communities and reject a proposal of rezoning.
Speaker 2: Of 3225 Durango Street.
Speaker 5: Thank you, guys.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Helen. Next up, we have Ty Bell, doc.
Speaker 2: Good evening, council members.
Speaker 0: My name is Taobao Alcott.
Speaker 2: I live in Whittier and I own a.
Speaker 3: Business that's been in Reno for 21 years. And I was also a former.
Speaker 1: Member of.
Speaker 2: The.
Speaker 3: Business Improvement District.
Speaker 0: I wanted to take this.
Speaker 5: Opportunity to ask the council members to consider.
Speaker 2: A more balanced approach to engaging.
Speaker 1: Our peers.
Speaker 5: I feel that it's counterproductive to be both pro affordable housing and yet remain anti-development. You must recognize that affordable.
Speaker 2: Housing needs private funding.
Speaker 5: Under the current economic crisis, and with our city's budget falling short by a $190 million, we can no longer afford to alienate.
Speaker 2: Those who have the means to help.
Speaker 5: Just as the members of City Council are held.
Speaker 1: Accountable to their.
Speaker 2: Constituents. Developers are also.
Speaker 5: Held accountable to.
Speaker 2: Both equity partners and the banks to fund their projects. If there is a developer.
Speaker 0: Like Cypress willing.
Speaker 2: To bring more affordable units to the table, then I urge.
Speaker 5: You to listen and negotiate.
Speaker 3: Terms that are win win.
Speaker 2: For both parties. If you can't do this, I fear that.
Speaker 5: Denver will become known as a city unfriendly to.
Speaker 2: Developers. We are not the only city with a housing crisis and developers do have options.
Speaker 5: This is not to say.
Speaker 2: That we should be held hostage, but maybe it is time to rethink our strategy.
Speaker 5: I do not expect the members of City Council to be.
Speaker 2: Completely versed on all the intricacies and costs associated with development.
Speaker 3: But I believe it would be in our city's best.
Speaker 5: Interest.
Speaker 2: For each of you to have.
Speaker 5: Solid resources on both.
Speaker 1: Sides.
Speaker 2: In order to better understand.
Speaker 5: The challenges involved.
Speaker 2: In bringing a housing project.
Speaker 1: Out of.
Speaker 2: The ground. Affordable housing must be.
Speaker 5: Approached from both in social and an economic perspective.
Speaker 2: One will not work without the other.
Speaker 5: Today, you have an opportunity to see the advantages that could be gained.
Speaker 2: By a partnership with a socially.
Speaker 1: Conscious developer.
Speaker 2: I urge you to see the power by voting for.
Speaker 3: Crew threes on their.
Speaker 1: 3225.
Speaker 2: In Arco and.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker up is Maria Elena Jimenez. And we're going to also have translation services.
Speaker 5: That will rise. When I start this miembros circle. Good evening.
Speaker 0: Members of the Council.
Speaker 5: I know your cattle just. Are you the love of sonification? I am against the reunification mes bingo those puntos game crocus on bald eagles. I have no valid points. Number one is il and in case then mirando a said well, maybe physiology as you say. E must be must cambios in this area when they are making open. One is that they.
Speaker 0: Are making a 16. A building with 16 floors and 16 floors and changes in that area. And one of the things that I'm concerned about.
Speaker 5: Is any given rocket lab, lab, Papunya. The answer let us get started. This idea is that they're going to get.
Speaker 0: Rid of a company that that makes salads in that area.
Speaker 5: Maybe the occupation vessel as it is companhia. As adult tobacco, various personas gave even an globule. And my concern said.
Speaker 0: Is that they have given they.
Speaker 5: Are getting rid of that company.
Speaker 0: That has given jobs to people that live in global areas. Once you.
Speaker 5: Judgment this, most of it I'm glad is because I'm tobacco. I can think of even that and give us give us the answer the global daily like once you and if we really trust something.
Speaker 2: And if we really take a look.
Speaker 5: At that, we're.
Speaker 0: Going to find very few companies that hire residents that are from global areas. Once. Yeah, and for me that is concerning.
Speaker 5: And does the system allow other causes that get instant broadband access even if Barack in. Seven Perfect Samantha Piano Sutras and a lot of other. They love you already as one example. And they're not all the symbols. Not for the most part, that it's a center for the soul and one. So my other.
Speaker 0: Concern is that they are saying that they're making affordable housing, but for who? They well know that people who live in global areas once you cannot pay a 60% ami.
Speaker 5: You know, Solomon and Estacada as you know tambien and see Capone tossing coal and weed out. And so those are some regard as some folks look, whether or not they saw them. Okay. Some of what I see in my book does the does it dampen when we see them on that was the Canadians you'll say but they love Colosseum they just want to see more negotiation going gonna be more simpler because of llamas that can be natural. I'll ask you that. The Los Puestos proposal that I said must be accessible if you cannot carry on an example. In some instances, yeah it is. Look at get in. I say Solomon de la Lazaro, you'll get get it. And I said, but, but compromising little paracetamol isn't what I meant. There's that baby. And by myself, that's when I said available. So this the.
Speaker 0: It's not affordable to any of the communities in the surrounding areas. It's not.
Speaker 5: Affordable to.
Speaker 0: Five points.
Speaker 5: Calderwood, Whittier There are very few.
Speaker 0: People that can afford that, that type of housing. And besides that, when we were in negotiations with them, I'm also a gas member, we asked them that why didn't they ask for tax money from the city? And they said that they didn't want to participate in those in that function.
Speaker 5: In those negotiations.
Speaker 0: So who are they making this for? It's not it's not for the people who need it.
Speaker 5: Does this GOP insulted like it? Because that gave us an album. We ran Dick above it and that's what I look kind of even in Australia. No, sorry. Look at some of the elements of other this are local. He probably meant the most idea that I said indicate this almost as much as they indicate this. Because some people want government, they love rentals. Announcements are lost in Brussels castles, one woman said but I don't know men total time but I don't problem at all but and people who are.
Speaker 0: Saying that this is going to be a benefit for communities they don't know they don't know what the situation is in our communities because they don't live in our areas. What's really going to happen is, is that this is going to cause displacement in our communities. It's going to make another.
Speaker 5: Group of it's going to make a lot of.
Speaker 2: Us become homeless.
Speaker 0: It's going to increase the rent and increase the tax.
Speaker 5: So it's not going to help. Boehner says GOP welcomes. They hope that considera Puntos Générale meant that freedom mucho signals the start. But the jungle consists of animals. And I really meant the case that you really meant they like you, that most of them Australia is all I can say. I get considering eagerness up again. I never stop at this. You'll get no LA no laws if they're not approving for I meant there are some girls that Kendall that closer. So I.
Speaker 0: Am asking city council to please consider these points that I've talked about and for them to consider each each one of the things that I've said and.
Speaker 5: To consider equity. Equity does not exist in our community. Please consider that and.
Speaker 0: Don't accept it. I'm asking city council to not accept and and.
Speaker 5: Not.
Speaker 0: Not give into this, please. And thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Gail LaRue. My name is Gail LaRue. I'm at 4676.
Speaker 5: Lincoln St 80216. This zone change classification.
Speaker 2: Will add to the.
Speaker 5: Destabilization.
Speaker 0: Of five points Globeville, Elyria and Swansea neighborhoods and undermines our access to equitable housing.
Speaker 5: Opportunities. This zone change will add.
Speaker 2: To the.
Speaker 0: Removal of.
Speaker 5: People of color from their homes and communities.
Speaker 0: By increased taxes, increased rents and mixed uses, but not.
Speaker 2: Mixed.
Speaker 5: For youth.
Speaker 0: Of existing residents. Enough is enough.
Speaker 5: I have lived through this through North Denver. Please don't.
Speaker 2: Out prices out of the last affordable.
Speaker 5: Neighborhood in Denver.
Speaker 2: We can do better. We ask that.
Speaker 5: This zone change.
Speaker 0: Request be denied. Let's keep it industrial. Let's look.
Speaker 5: For industrial partners to.
Speaker 0: Bring manufacturing back to our inner city. Let's preserve inner city industrial zoning.
Speaker 5: This property is on a major transit route close to.
Speaker 2: Rail.
Speaker 0: Yards and the air park.
Speaker 5: So the location is perfect for.
Speaker 0: Creative small.
Speaker 5: Manufacturing, new inner.
Speaker 0: City industrial.
Speaker 5: Space micro enterprises, which will encourage local entrepreneurism but more importantly.
Speaker 0: Bring back jobs to the community. Empty shop tops are a thing of the past. The zone change is easy and lazy.
Speaker 2: Let's get creative. These four neighborhoods are original.
Speaker 0: Live here. Play her work here. Neighborhoods.
Speaker 5: I, for one, enjoyed walking to.
Speaker 2: I used.
Speaker 0: To work at Asarco and I used to love walking to work each.
Speaker 2: Day. And I believe.
Speaker 5: We have the opportunity to do something.
Speaker 2: Creative at this.
Speaker 5: Location before another easy rubber stamped rezoning. I'm asking you to look.
Speaker 0: Outside of the luxury apartment blocks and ask.
Speaker 5: Yourself, is this.
Speaker 2: The right thing to do? I also ask that we take a look how this process is done. I believe that host is out of touch with neighborhoods needs and.
Speaker 5: This zone change will put further stress.
Speaker 0: Upon our community.
Speaker 2: And please, I ask you to look at our neighborhood, get to know our neighborhood before we add any.
Speaker 0: More of these.
Speaker 5: Luxury apartments.
Speaker 0: To our.
Speaker 5: To our neighborhood were so fearful.
Speaker 2: Of being displaced. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Liliana Flores Amaro.
Speaker 5: Hello, council members. Thank you for having us this evening. My name is Liliana Flores. Amado, and I am a neighbor. And guess in Swansea I live at five 5079 St Paul Street of two and six. I'm also a member of the GTS Coalition and I am asking you to oppose the 16 storey rezone proposed for 3225 ten Argyle Street. It's an extreme change in height and use that merits a critical and creative look at equity and urban development in this area, which it currently is not. The development agreement gives the impression that that we're getting some affordability or equity, but that is not the case. The affordability that that the developer is providing is not relevant to this area. It doesn't meet the needs and it was not agreed to by the community. And so if the city just accepts whatever the developer is giving without pushing back, we will never be able to get to those equitable outcomes that are outlined in all the plans that we've been working on. And we know that the developer did increase the number of units from 10 to 15%. However, it's still just simply not enough. It's not enough units, and it's not enough affordability at 60 and 80%. My equity means should mean that this development process recognizes past harm and does something about that. Equity has to be a lens by which all the aspects of development are examined, and we need longer community engagement processes that involve the the developer and the community directly, as well as changes at the city level to make that to support those processes so that we get to real conversations and not just surface level conversations or a couple of meetings. And then and then we're stuck with these with these timelines. These developments are taxing on residents. We have to be on the defensive with project after project coming in and around our communities. We need the city to stand up and protect its most vulnerable citizens, not the folks who can afford luxury homes and apartments. Our communities. Sorry, it goes to big screen in my notes. When you go to the chamber, our communities and communities across the city will be watching this reason to see how council will continue to depend on extractive land use to obtain development or if it if it decides to protect its citizens. Growth needs to be across the city and not on the backs of our most vulnerable residents. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Shannon Hoffman.
Speaker 5: Hi. Good evening. My name is Sheehan and Hoffman. I live at one, two, two, six North Pearl Street. I am here tonight to stand in opposition of this zoning request and to stand in solidarity with the neighbors of Five Points Globeville, Larry, Swansea, who want to stay in their homes and their community without the fear of being priced or pushed out. This rezoning is not consistent with comprehensive plan. With the Comprehensive Plan and blueprint, Denver plans that outline equity as a top goal. Now, let me be clear with you all about who I am. I am a white, middle class woman who moved to Denver three years ago. And what I see is that this city operates like this place is the playground of people who meet my profile. And I reject that notion. I reject the inherent white supremacy in that notion. And I ask this council to reject the white supremacy that is baked into zoning policies that systematically push black, brown and indigenous people out of their communities. This Arapaho, you and Cheyenne Land was recently home. This area about an hour ago was recently home to 300 souls who have been pushed out of their homes and pushed around by the city and not provided any support or housing. And I. Is it a coincidence that you swept them right before the zoning request? I think not. I I How dare you sweep 300 people from this area? And then in the middle of a global pandemic and economic downturn, allow an apartment, a luxury apartment building to be built that will push even more people out of their homes and communities and potentially into also being unhoused themselves. There are no justifying circumstances for this reason. And I ask you to oppose it tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Alma Urbana.
Speaker 5: Good evening, members of City Council. My name is Ahmed one. I am here speaking out against that in our rezoning request. I am here as an individual and a staff member of Project Voice, a nonprofit Century Youth organization in Denver. I am a resident of Swansea and I work near the proposed location of the site in Globeville, also called River North on V Court. I asked city council members to recognize the impacts housing insecurity has cost to our communities and how these impacts will stay with us for generations. I have seen just how resilient, powerful our community mutual aid has been, and at the same time, we have also seen how our youth go from motel to motel with younger siblings trying to do virtual class and also with elders with health concerns trying to survive. How can we there ask a 14 year old to log into virtual school if their families are searching for a warm roof while they are themselves working two jobs? Our families brown, black, essential workers are not going to benefit from a 16 storey luxury building, threatening to sweep them like trash, as someone else said about homeless people , since they will be unlikely to recover by 60%. And my affordability. They don't make this much. These developers offers to offer for how much our generations are worth is an insult. This many units in this building is expensive and it will cost us our lives. The De Nada proposal does not align with that comprehensive 2040 plan that contains nine goals and 23 strategies around equity issues. This project ignores the equity as given the ratio of luxury units and, says the president of the city only cares about developers in that the constituents in our streets and neighborhoods. Equity means more than barely. It means leveling the field for our most targeted end points families. Let me remind you that families have the highest rates of COVID, especially birth rates. Equity means supporting our 30%, EMI and 20% in my vulnerable communities, not 50% and my hand outs. This year, the pandemic has resulted in unprecedented results. These impacts require unprecedented solutions. Let's get us on a community ground and support and ask for pass in redirecting effort these resources. Any chance we do not seek at least 50% affordable units in any building is a missed opportunity and a threat to us all. We will be watching this vote across all communities in Denver and the rest of Colorado and beyond. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Tanya Cohen.
Speaker 5: Hi. My name is Tanya. I live at 1111 Osage and District three. I'm here to say that I strongly oppose the rezoning of the previous Arkansas Court House encampment, the site of another brutal sweep last week of 300 people from their homes to make way for the 16 story high end luxury apartment building, an apartment building that is overwhelmingly market rate. I mean, how out of touch are we? Denver now ranks second in the nation, only behind San Francisco. Oakland as the most gentrified city in the U.S., according to the 2020 Metro Denver Homelessness Initiative's State of Homelessness report. Why does the city no longer care about trying to support those diverse, historic, working class families and communities there that are predominantly of color that have called Denver and Colorado home for decades? Those who have contributed greatly and made Denver what it is today. Why have they been abandoned over the past few years? And why is that our priority? Just mainly developers and young white transplants to Denver that can afford these places that are just flooding Reno like we need anymore? According to the same report, the leading cause of homelessness in this region around the country is a lack of affordable housing. This plus racial inequities, stagnant wages and affordable health care, to name a few, create economic conditions in which many among us are unable to secure and maintain stable housing. So Denver's history of diverse and vibrant communities of color who've been abandoned are basically the same houseless people that we are sweeping just a little further down the gentrification line. And we know that native and black people play a profound part in Denver's history, but are disproportionately represented among the houseless as well. How many of us know a friend or family member or acquaintance who has been bankrupt by a health condition that derailed their family for life? I do, and I bet you do, too. Those are probably many of the people that are being swept today. Well, we know they are. I am seeing someone every day in dire need of a donation to prevent them from falling through the cracks in Denver. So at a time when many businesses have closed permanently, temporarily or severely restricted people losing jobs and income, when we should be honoring and showing some loyalty to Denver's historic working class, middle class roots, our communities of color are native communities. By building real, affordable, low income housing and finding ways to support our homeless in that location by building more S.O.S. sites, tiny home villages, or just letting the people stay there and make it a resource rich environment which the new S.O.S. site is. Please. Let's just stop the greed. Enough is enough. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, we have Laird Haugen.
Speaker 1: Hi. Thank you. My name is Laird. Horrigan and I live in District 94126 Clayton Street. I stand in opposition of the proposed rezoning a 3225 ten Argo Street as part of Build 20 1159. This rezoning request is very similar to a request the City Council approved at 2535 East 40th Avenue. In this case, the developer requested to rezone and propose city council to make a decision very quickly. The developer stated it was costing them money not to have the property rezoning. And by condensing the timeline for rezoning, there was insufficient time for the community to work with the developer to come to an equitable agreement. Two years later, the property currently sits vacant while scrappers are breaking in and stealing whatever value is left. And that's clearly an indication that this timeline was not urgent and that the developer dictated the conversation in that case and not city council. In this case, the developer is from out of state and pushing for a reason to 16 stories of primarily luxury apartments. This is not what the city needs. We have been let down by CDP and host as far as pushing this project through without proper analysis of the impacts and not working with the community. The city needs to do more to structure the development. These development plans to require affordability. To lead the conversation when it comes to reshaping our city. Currently the city is not doing enough to protect the interests of its most vulnerable residents. The city lets these developers push their interests. Instead of the council standing up and fighting for the interests of its residents. The conversation shouldn't be happening between developers, residents and Arnaud's. The city needs to step up and be part of the conversation and dictate what defines affordability in these development plans. I ask that you listen to the people of the city instead of outside interest in development. I ask that you reject this zoning request and be part of the conversation to structure what affordability looks like going forward and how we can have an equitable housing plan for our city. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Angelina Torres.
Speaker 6: Taurasi.
Speaker 5: See me. I'm recycling that. Always play miembro de ideas. Beyonce wants you. Hi, my name is angelina torres. I am a member of s and i live in 20th. When I noticed Miembro del Consejo. Good evening city council members Estonia in opposition that they sooner than they those might be cynical their then their goal and I am and I am against the zoning the reason ification of 3325 didn't our goal. But not in Iraq, for your sake, that the most community areas, because they don't have.
Speaker 0: The support that is.
Speaker 5: Equitable for the community. We're stuck in office. Okamoto ne aquellos democratico because it was not done with vote and agreements that are democratic. Get okay. Fajardo Nuestro Miembros del Consejo And I believe that our city council.
Speaker 0: Members have failed.
Speaker 5: We're stuck in this temperature mirror. I went there. Because they are here to serve the people. Ian dances is there but Joyce there is Thomas up in under the guest then it's a sauna. It's industrial. And we we are giving our opinion that that.
Speaker 0: Zone is an industrial.
Speaker 5: Zone. Yes. Eloqua let's look at some of the handy work, the IEEE, the evening news does Familias Nuestras Vecinos. And we are.
Speaker 0: Defending the zone because that is where.
Speaker 5: Our.
Speaker 0: Families and our neighbors make.
Speaker 5: A living. EOP. And in this Wolfgang, Nancy, are they supranational? And that is where they obtain their earnings for their jobs. Get a gram of a cool stock. Let's keep them sauce. So Strava, what with Amazon ignoring the problem of alcohol, we will see whether we believe that.
Speaker 0: It is unjust for.
Speaker 5: Them to lose their jobs because we are in a pandemic.
Speaker 2: Of COVID 19.
Speaker 5: Eloqua listed, which has been listed as Comunidad. This little vecinos is on the same level. In which a lot of our the people in our communities, our neighbors are unemployed. Estamos pasando algo dificil parochialism or sobre la loss was. And we are living through.
Speaker 0: Something that is very difficult. But at the same time, we make this easy.
Speaker 5: And sentences if they get them off game, keep on going, mash up and see how it goes. Young Cousteau, who saw Columbus on that trabalhadores essentials. And so what we are doing is we're asking you to be just to be just with the essential workers. Working together must be very acting with the community at this. Because we.
Speaker 2: Want to live.
Speaker 5: Here in our communities. And, you know, certainly not I'm not going to camp, as Bebe emphasized the marginal but we are must content. Those is the problem as they tend to trafico. Yeah that I we now.
Speaker 0: Realize that we.
Speaker 5: We used to live in our communities and we were marginalized, but we were living happy because we were.
Speaker 0: Not exposed to so much traffic that we now have.
Speaker 5: Was there enough having illustrated Gaga, Morgan Doc, Red Mosque Fahrenheit Guide Ivan Watson trailer bilodeau alive or le Carré not having gunman was anti-Muslim sentiment. You don't know how we feel when we're trying to cross the street and you see a trailer.
Speaker 0: That's so long that it goes from one end to the.
Speaker 5: Other and we're trying to cross. You don't know how we feel. We feel. Nothing. Nothing. The most is the Middle East. That is not how they lost the security of their own lives. All created a lot Arab with the nosotros mes mothers, the forbidden city. Anything, something. We feel bad. We don't know if we should rent to one side or rent to the other. And we feel really bad. We don't know what to do at that time.
Speaker 0: Right at that instant.
Speaker 5: Get out, get out. Get them on to the farrugia. I left construction as the long over the far right you'll see inside it in common loss theme of think with them whilst they English former pharmacist there are two and they currently the only our truly they gave ethicists a rather WannaCry days earlier parallel otro lado within those having common Nazareth prior so. So I think that you're just bringing upon all these constructors and.
Speaker 0: Developers without knowing how we live, without knowing how we feel when we're trying to run from one side to the other.
Speaker 5: When we.
Speaker 0: Feel, ah, the stress.
Speaker 5: You don't know what.
Speaker 0: It feels like to be in this situation.
Speaker 5: No photos, almost based as the majority of. Then they went there and you'll see this in your business. Well, my son, Sienna, skin cancer trust, even my skin with them being and I thought that was and we are seniors that are above we are older.
Speaker 0: People that are older than 50. And we see people that are older than us that are also living tormented.
Speaker 5: Kate. I'm being I was a little person saying, oh, they suggested to me that I was going through Fiona's gaydar and just almost grandfatherly with the construction. Get in. Most of them walk away, thankfully, that they pass and people say, Oh.
Speaker 0: How I wish that this was.
Speaker 5: Over that others construction with lives over that we just want to live a little.
Speaker 0: Bit of peace and quiet. And you, so much for your comments tonight. Our next speaker is Yadira Sanchez.
Speaker 5: Hi. Good evening. Council. City Council. I don't have a camera that I can print on, so I apologize for that. My name is Oliver Sanchez. I have been a struggling neighbor from the Diaz community for.
Speaker 2: Over 18 years.
Speaker 5: I live at a heavy point construction due to the I-70. I have seen many people leave.
Speaker 2: Due to the rise of rent in our area.
Speaker 5: Changing our diversity in our communities, and seeing the struggle on those who stay and make ends meet. I oppose the zoning change because this will continue to add more displacement in our communities that already have been sacrificed to the new market value homes that I have note that have no room for those who work, for those who work who are working class families or families that all. And make it even harder to home during this pandemic. With rents over 2500. This will soon not be my home. Allowing the zoning to be changed at any time to any new development that will come. I oppose the rezoning. 3225. Not go and ask that you consider.
Speaker 2: And take into consideration.
Speaker 5: The displacement that is happening all around Colorado. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, we have Benjamin Denning.
Speaker 6: Good evening. My name is Benjamin, darling. I live at 1027 26th Street in District nine. I have been a resident most of Denver for most of my 57 years. I've been in Denver long enough that I remember when we call, when we when around here the bears met baseball at Mile High Stadium. The Rockies met hockey at McNichols Sports Arena. And the basketball was red, white and blue at the auditorium arena. It looks like we are building a city for people that don't live here. And we've been here for a long time. Luxury apartments again. 87% of the renters in Denver make $35,000 a year or less so at 60% AMI, which is only a portion of this particular project. Those folks are are rent burdened to start. Why aren't we building projects that meet 90% of what the ranchers in Denver make? How long are we going to allow developers to tell us what is affordable? Now let's consider wages. This is being built in a light industrial area. What they're promising is just a few jobs at the retail level. How do retail jobs pay in terms of wages compared to light industrial? Not very well. So you already have a depressed community that you're bringing in low paying jobs and high paying rents. That doesn't make any sense. You add into that? On December 26th, the federal moratorium on evictions ends now in Denver. City and county proper, we have some. As of December last year, 2019, we had 320,500 and some odd housing units. That's everything. That's people who own houses. That's people who are renting properties, were renting apartments and own townhomes and everything. Been reported in the news since the summer that we have 100,000 evictions waiting for us. That's almost a third of the properties that are about ready to be empty if this comes to pass. Now, how can real estate developers afford having a third of their properties empty and then being willing to build more? Well, one of the folks that was testifying earlier, it's not about the renters. It's about property value. 400% in the last however many years that was for property taxes. Easily a doubling of property values in the last ten years. They're just going to wait for the property value to double and then sell it. They don't care if anybody's there. And then we keep building stuff that people can't afford. You think there's a lot of homelessness on the streets right now? You just wait till after the first of the year when the eviction moratorium ends and they start processing those evictions. We haven't seen anything yet. Just more empty luxury apartments. I'll be available for questions. I have other data that I wasn't able to get to during the time.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Dunning. Next up, we have Ruben Sanchez.
Speaker 1: Good afternoon, counsel. Can everyone hear me?
Speaker 0: Mm hmm. Go ahead, Reuben.
Speaker 1: All right. My name is Robinson Jones. I have lived in the area for about 17 years, and I have seen firsthand the constant changes occurring around us. I remember the way my old neighborhood used to thrive before the destruction of the neighborhood due to increasing construction and gentrification. I understand that change is always going to come, but I also know that we have the power to get to decide what gets changed and how it changes. I am speaking out against the zoning classification for 3225 ten Argo Street. The five point area has already changed so much, and allowing the change that the building can be raised to 16 storeys is nothing more than a gateway to more gentrification and terminating the ability for low income members of the community to afford living there. I believe that the Five Points area and other nearby low income neighborhoods of color shouldn't change so that more luxurious than high end living pushes out the people already there. The Denver area and neighborhoods surrounding the get of it. Like Globeville, Elyria and Swansea have already seen many of its deeply rooted people disappear because they can no longer afford the ever increasing cost of rent. We are tired of having to leave our homes and neighborhoods so that we can move to areas where we can only afford to survive. I oppose the zoning classification and don't believe that the height limit should be raised to 16 stories. Tall buildings belong downtown. Let five points be five points and leave the tall buildings of central downtown. Thank you so much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, we have Carrie Joy.
Speaker 5: Good evening, members of the council. My name is Kerry. I am a resident of Swansea in District nine. I am asking that you vote no on Bill 20 1159. The city of Denver through host is being negligent by going into negotiations in agreements with developers that focus on negotiation, negotiating profitability on behalf of the developer, instead of negotiating for affordability on behalf of Denver constituents who they are supposed to be representing. The fact that the voice of the developer was prioritized over the native community when the representative for this district asked to delay the public hearing is appalling. The city is the city is nothing without its people. The people that live here, the people that keep the lights on, quote unquote, that financially support you as public servants. And we implore you, listen to the people. We are already in the middle of a housing crisis. Use this zoning tool to prevent more homelessness. These are human beings. The gayest neighborhoods have the highest concentrations of family within the city of Denver. What about these children? Host implied. Host tried to imply that their strategy is solid by arguing that adjacent properties are being negotiated at different levels as far as affordability is concerned. They have failed them and CPD have failed to do an analysis on vulnerability to displacement, a clearly stated goal in COP Plan 2040 and Blueprint Denver in the surrounding area. Any extraordinary ask for a rezone should be.
Speaker 2: Justified with an extraordinary.
Speaker 5: Benefits package to the surrounding communities. Similar developments and investments to this project have skyrocketed. The rent gap and.
Speaker 2: Property tax is more than.
Speaker 5: 500% in global area and Swansea has said since 2007 more than three times the grade. The the average of the city. Exacerbating historic racial health disparities near at 84% Latino community and in a historically black community that has experienced rapid gentrification through thoughtless zoning and as we see a shortfall in our city. We also see that the residents of this city, not necessarily the private the private donors, have been bearing the greatest burden, especially through proposed mill levies directly through property taxes or passed down to the renters. It is decisions like this that puts Denver on the map as the fastest gentrifying city in the country for Latinos. So as a city declared racism a public health issue, it is your responsibility in this moment to prioritize affordability and equitable planning. The well-being and stability of our neighborhoods matter and this and the well-being and stability is a part of our safety. So since this project seems to exacerbate the problem, I am completely opposed to this rezoning. Lastly, this is not a matter of supply and demand because our behaviors and priorities are what informed the market. But even if this was about supply and demand, I ask you recognize that the majority of people living in the city are demanding affordable, accessible housing, and I don't mean accessible to those applying it, supplying it. I mean accessible to those who are demanding it. That is true democracy and representation. We do not have a shortage in housing in Denver. There are over 20,000 vacant units in our city. What we have is a shortage in accessible housing in the city and what we see is a history of multiple.
Speaker 0: Times.
Speaker 5: Interest. We have before we have housing stock ladies, we are on Gonzalez perpetuating preventable displacement.
Speaker 0: Next up, we have Mercedes Gonzalez. And we're going to have translation services as well.
Speaker 6: The potassium.
Speaker 0: We have Mercedes Gonzales. You'll have to unmute.
Speaker 6: Methodists are not supporting us and more support of our okay to say them part of our. I said this.
Speaker 0: Okay. Maybe we'll try to get Mercedes on here in a second. We'll go ahead and go to our next speaker. Mr. Cummings, my question. Oh, there we go. Okay. Is the winner, not.
Speaker 5: Just the little man in Brazil, Consuelo.
Speaker 6: Good night. Two other members of the council. City Council.
Speaker 5: Mercedes Gonzalez.
Speaker 6: My name is Mercedes Gonzalez. I am part of the coalition of chiefs.
Speaker 5: Represent the global leaders once a year.
Speaker 6: I represent global Elyria and Swansea is billion.
Speaker 5: This up would look on to this. Are you.
Speaker 2: There? The I guess you say people.
Speaker 6: I am in disagreement with the development of of the market street.
Speaker 5: Ebola a combative me testimonial a is much a story upbeat always that book all the okay okay so trust me no those that the ample.
Speaker 6: And I'm going to share my testimony there's a lot of history but I realize I only have a limited time.
Speaker 5: Job portability Tristan Jones is the in being Juninho.
Speaker 2: In three in single puntos.
Speaker 6: For 23 years I lived in the five points area.
Speaker 5: With Espn+ Harbor. I see the business.
Speaker 6: I was displaced three years ago.
Speaker 5: It's soy madre.
Speaker 2: Yeah, abuela.
Speaker 6: I am a mother and a grandmother.
Speaker 5: That is huge. On the business.
Speaker 6: Of 18 grandchildren and great grandchildren.
Speaker 5: The letter said, Either.
Speaker 6: I am a woman of the Third Age.
Speaker 5: So let me for our media, for this plaza are different. This area is the last year that.
Speaker 6: All of my family was displaced to different areas of the city.
Speaker 5: In our demand service plus harbor we must is the mi esposo or nico ego.
Speaker 6: And the last ones of my family to be displaced was me and my husband and one of my sons.
Speaker 5: One of Guillermo's displays shadows job to illustrate the onset California three.
Speaker 6: When I was the last time I was displaced, I lived on 3011 California Street.
Speaker 5: If we're done. Really? Not. This is parenting.
Speaker 6: I was so desperate and it was so horrible.
Speaker 5: In a photo market. When was this this place that was.
Speaker 6: In the way we were evicted.
Speaker 5: We must attack those. These groups, these criminal, those.
Speaker 6: We were discriminated. We were discriminated again, discriminated against because of the language. And we were attacked.
Speaker 5: For 11 months.
Speaker 6: Because of our language.
Speaker 5: Welcome. Palabras of NC Boss Jaco Particle Bueno.
Speaker 6: There was an assault and with offensive language on behalf of the owner.
Speaker 5: Departamento and Marla's condition.
Speaker 6: And the apartment was in bad conditions.
Speaker 5: Albania, Libya, in Istanbul.
Speaker 6: The landlord, of course, lived in a different state.
Speaker 5: Now we see losses.
Speaker 2: In Asia.
Speaker 5: Kabul, the lose apartment.
Speaker 6: The the office of the apartments. They took care of the apartments, of the maintenance.
Speaker 5: And where did you go to redecorate.
Speaker 6: The when he came to live in Denver.
Speaker 5: Be no problem. So we no problem.
Speaker 6: That's when the problems began.
Speaker 5: L estava the sandals in the departamento? No departamento.
Speaker 6: He was there every day at the apartments.
Speaker 5: I go stand on those.
Speaker 6: Saltiness.
Speaker 5: Verbal stratus.
Speaker 6: Or mistreating us.
Speaker 5: People knows about Inglis.
Speaker 6: And because we didn't know English.
Speaker 5: Animals the Rachel Orcas and Serena Regulus forget almost.
Speaker 0: Mexicano.
Speaker 6: We had no rights for arrangements to be made because we were Mexicans.
Speaker 5: But I mean, with that almighty Santa.
Speaker 6: For me, it was very pragmatic.
Speaker 5: L knows there's a local community.
Speaker 6: He forced to forcibly evicted us.
Speaker 5: In focus this.
Speaker 6: In just a few days.
Speaker 5: Well, now, this aspiration can also be almost gave us a sore throat.
Speaker 6: It was such a desperate time that we did not know what was going to happen. We would did not know what would happen to us.
Speaker 5: Not just in the medium.
Speaker 6: We spend nights without sleep given.
Speaker 5: Most are sad, but I don't know, Ramos said.
Speaker 6: Where shall we go? What are we going to do?
Speaker 5: With caramels. He was caramels in Encontramos went in, slugger.
Speaker 6: We looked and we looked. And we could not find affordable rent.
Speaker 5: In their neighborhood. Mazara ra tanto de natal by rapport. There are deposits. Don't you rent them?
Speaker 6: How were we able to get so much money to pay for the deposit and the rent?
Speaker 5: I'm innocent, a.k.a. the Ebola Virus 43.
Speaker 6: And I say he would take us to court.
Speaker 5: An impact of what several.
Speaker 6: The impact was severe.
Speaker 5: It's not me. Of course. You know, SARLO meant that either proceeding.
Speaker 6: This caused in me mental health problems and depression.
Speaker 5: Yes. William Morris. Then there was Camille.
Speaker 6: We heard rumors of new changes.
Speaker 5: MP Rotem, you want those illegally stolen marijuana.
Speaker 6: But the situation got worse when marijuana got legalized.
Speaker 5: To go into the state.
Speaker 6: We saw people come in from other states.
Speaker 5: I saw it as Alta Vista.
Speaker 6: And there were is where the high rents began to take place.
Speaker 5: It is into.
Speaker 6: And the displacements.
Speaker 5: Our I think Tristan is maybe in influence. Yes.
Speaker 6: Now, I have three years living here and once you.
Speaker 5: Will come your drastic apparent me.
Speaker 6: And it was the drastic change for me.
Speaker 5: They had never seen that your Amistad is business.
Speaker 6: I left my old neighborhood, my friends, my neighbors.
Speaker 0: That's the time we have available. Thank you, Ms.. Gonzalez. Next up, we have Harmony Cummings. Harmony, you might have to unmute. Oh, it looks like you're still on mute, Harmony. We're not able to hear you. Harmony. We're going to. I'm not sure if Harmony can hear us here. So. I think we're going to go ahead and we'll go to our next speaker and see if we can get harmonies, auto, audio. Figure it out. We've got Tess Dougherty. Go ahead, Tess.
Speaker 5: Okay. Do you hear me?
Speaker 0: Oh, yep. Now we can.
Speaker 5: Hi. I'm test. Hi. And I live at 1801 chestnut place. I oppose this rezoning at 3225 DeNardo Street. And as a special education teacher in Denver, Public Schools at Colt Arts and Science Academy for five years, I stand in solidarity with the Cole and surrounding Five Points Globeville and Elyria, Swansea and neighborhoods and residents. As the city presented, the developer has voluntarily agreed and included in their zoning request beyond what is the minimum affordable housing required by the city, but with over a third of residents having trouble paying rent and that was in 2019. So that is well beyond now. What is considered affordable housing and how we define affordable housing and how we zoned for it needs to be. You know, we need to we need to we need to change that. I mean, how are we defining, affordable? And for who? For whom and and. And what you know, what the minimum requirements are in a in a housing crisis, in the midst of a pandemic, with people on the streets every night and being swept by the city, we have to change the minimum. That's that that's you know, we have to start at but in Denver we are in the top ten cities in the US for income to housing access disparity. And so, you know, I, I don't I don't use the word I don't use the term rhino to describe any neighborhood in Denver. Let's call it what it is. It's five points. It's the historically black neighborhood that helps shape this vitality, the vitality of the city. And until we have new zoning requirements for what constitutes affordable, we are not going to be able to solve this this crisis, according to a report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics that was updated on December 9th, 2020. The report looks at the average consumer expenditure in the areas of health care, personal insurance and pensions, food, transportation and housing. So I think it should be relevant here in all areas of average annual spending. Denver is above the national average, yet if we look at the average hourly wages provided in the same report for the most common occupations, we fall not even on par but below the national average. When we look at how Denver compares to the US average on on a weekly wage earner bolt on weekly wages, the US is 1188 on average, and in Denver is 1350, which is a difference of only one $162 per week. I don't think that $162 per week is going to make anyone that is experiencing housing displacement be able to afford the 60 or 80% that this development proposes as affordable housing. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, we have Katy Blakey and Harmony. If you want to log out and log back in, that might help your audio problems. And we're going to go ahead and go to Katie Blakey.
Speaker 5: Hello. My name is Katie Blakey. I live in District ten and work in District nine. I used to rent in Reno but moved to District ten because I could get a monthly mortgage payment that was cheaper than rent. Please vote no on this rezoning because as you saw from CPD's presentation and from previous speakers, community based organizations and residents strongly oppose this agreement. This rezoning will exacerbate gentrification in the area. All those who spoke against this rezoning before me said it much better than I ever could. So I'll leave it at that. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, we have David Hagan.
Speaker 1: Hi. Good evening. Can you hear.
Speaker 2: Me? Your name.
Speaker 7: In the spirit of white supremacy.
Speaker 3: And gentrification, I'll just say that I live.
Speaker 1: About a driver seven iron away from this property and I oppose this like everybody else has said, it seems ridiculous to me that we are using rules. The rules of the game are different than what is actual reality. The reality is.
Speaker 3: 80 and 60%.
Speaker 1: Is not enough for affordable housing. 49 units should be at 20% because the reality is something like 44% of Americans don't make more than $80,000 a year. I don't know what the percentages are here in Denver, but I'm sure they're probably right on par with that. So what are we doing for those 44% that can't afford to live at 60 and 80% or the 1300 or whatever I employed? And for the developer to rescind his request to go back and meet with the community and do something to help out the community and come back with a better plan, a plan that is equitable to all, not just the people with money, not just white people. That's all I have to say. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, David. That concludes our speakers for tonight. Questions from members of Council on Bill 1159.
Speaker 5: Just questions or questions and comments.
Speaker 0: We're right now in the questions portion. And so we have Councilwoman Torres up.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam President. A. Libby I think my questions are probably for you, and I'm just trying to get to my notes. Is Libby still on?
Speaker 0: You should be. Absolutely.
Speaker 5: I'm still here. Okay. Thanks. Hi, Libby. So I'm curious about some of what I read in the Rhino plan. And the Rhino Plan was one of the plans that was brought up in terms of guidance. Right. Yes. That is the applicable malaria plan. Okay. So what I'm trying to understand a little bit more because it was pretty specific about how many units stand to be developed in that district. Do you have any sense of how many housing units have been built in? What is the Rhino District since this plan was adopted? I did allude to it in my presentation. See here. And I'm looking at for the plan, page 37 that says and just let me know if this is. Your recollection as well that there's market support for nearly 900 single family attached units and 675 multifamily units to the year 2022. Okay. So we're close to that at this point. In the 13 years since the narco market began developing, there's already been 980 apartments developed and 337 more are under construction. 337 are currently under construction. And then this would add 326. And then I'm not as familiar with what's proposed on the vacant land north of Delaney, but I believe that's looking at probably another 1000 units or so. Okay. And I'm not sure if you have this information, but I'm curious because the plan also alludes to this how and how much of that housing stock has been developed under 50%. Am I? So that could be host projects. Denver Housing Authority projects. And I'm.
Speaker 3: Just not familiar.
Speaker 5: With the district enough, so I'm trying to get a sense.
Speaker 2: Of.
Speaker 5: What affordability has been developed. And. And this is. I'm sorry. Who are you looking at? The entire area that falls within the Rainbow North Plan.
Speaker 3: Or are we just looking at it in our goal.
Speaker 1: Market?
Speaker 2: I am looking at.
Speaker 5: So it looks like this alludes to the entire. The entire area. I think it's looking largely at underutilized land area. But what it's telling me and this is page 70. Four of the plan. Let me get over there. Okay. So. This is referencing. Different opportunities. And I think it's looking largely at the Todd areas. But what it's talking about is. Under the section create a compact, mixed, used, pedestrian friendly. Todd Is this area fall within that TODD area.
Speaker 3: I just thought this plan.
Speaker 5: So this does not fall within your 40th employee of Todd districts.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 5: This is pretty much on the opposite side. And I think back then, that was referring to what would now be like 30th and Blake. But this is in that far southwest corner. Got it. We're looking at that. Actually, the plan does reference to narco market. And does it reference for dinner, though? Let me take a look here. What specific is in the Todd area? It does reference very specific affordability goals. Do you recall if the dinner go section referenced anything like that? I don't recall offhand, but it was. Fairly vague on just wanting to increase that intensity and mix of residential and commercial uses in the area. It also did not address how tall those buildings should be. Right. Okay. Okay. I'm finding it here. So in there, create a compact, mixed use. Pedestrian friendly development. It says encourage a mix of uses, including residential, retail and office uses. Provide a range of housing options, including workforce options in terms of site type and size, both sale and rental. Okay. So it doesn't have any metrics in the same way that the total area does. Okay. Have we tracked overall how many? Affordable units have been developed in the Reno area pursuant to the plan goals. We do not have those numbers. We did look around at some affordable housing agreements in the area. The nearest you to nahco market is in city gate. It's just kind of southeast across Brighton Boulevard and that has 25 units at 80% i. But we don't have a full analysis, you know, and the totally there are various developments that have been built over the last 10.
Speaker 3: To 15.
Speaker 5: Years that include a few units at a variety of levels. But. I don't think it's anything that's getting around 50% and there's been nothing so far developed and that's a narco market immediate area.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 5: Thank you so much, Libby. Those are all my questions for now, Madam President.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam President, and thank you for the great presentations, CPD and for all of our speakers who are here tonight. I have some questions for CPD and a couple for host and a couple for the applicant. And for a CPD after evaluating the criteria, you're recommending approval of this, but planning board also voted to approve it . But tonight we have another rezoning on the agenda that neither CPD nor the Planning Board are recommending. Can you please help explain how CPD decides whether or not to recommend a rezoning and what kind of way that recommendation carries? So first off, as far as how we recommend a rezoning that's analyzing again our four criteria with consistency with the plans and for the start up in front of me. Which we place a lot of weight on, especially with Blueprint Number and the comprehensive plan having been adopted just last year after extensive public input. And then we look at whether or not it will also be uniform with the district regulations of that new zone district that's being proposed. And then also considering the public health, safety and welfare and whether or not the proposal will further those the justifying circumstance, there are several that we can look at, but for this one, it came down to the fact that this neighborhood has already changed significantly and the comprehensive plan and blueprint number were adopted after this I.B. Zone district was in place. And then furthermore, we consider whether or not the proposal is consistent with the neighborhood context that is on the list of purpose and intent. And in this rezoning, we found that this did meet all of these criteria. I did not manage the other project that Sarah Carson will be presenting later tonight where we're recommending denial. But it did not meet the.
Speaker 2: Criteria for.
Speaker 5: Various reasons. So the fact that you are recommending that this does carry a lot of weight. I mean, in my five years on council, I've never seen one come to us that you didn't recommend, except for the one that's later this evening. So it does meet all of the criteria according to your evaluation of it. It does. And as I mentioned, we don't consider whether or not this project is perfect or might be better, but we try to be as objective as possible in comparing this with all of the applicable goals and strategies in those plans. And I do want to point out to you, because a lot of folks reference the number of goals and criteria in these plans, and we acknowledge that a particular zoning project isn't going to meet every single one of those goals and strategies, but we consider those that are most applicable, and a lot of them also fall upon the city's responsibility to implement. So it's not on the private sector to implement.
Speaker 3: Every single one of these goals and strategies.
Speaker 5: Thank you. I appreciate the analysis that you've done. So a couple more questions. Do any of Denver's plans call for this parcel to remain industrial? No. And what does Blueprint Denver recommend for this parcel? If you could remind us, please. The future place type for this is higher residential area where commercial uses are prevalent and buildings are generally the tallest of residential places and it falls within the urban center neighborhood context that again anticipates a high mix of uses good street activation and taller multi-story buildings. So using that criteria, that's how you came to support this particular rezoning. It just sounds like that's exactly what you're describing. And on slide ten of your presentation. It shows different heights and it shows this as 16 in there. Are all of those already rigzone on that slide 16. All of those are outlined within the dashed white line are being proposed as another project that's actually going to the planning board tomorrow night where they're signing some of the Chapter 59, as well as industrial zones in order to better specify what's allowed in these areas. And so if that's approved, that would also result in some taller buildings. Although it should be noted that the existing pads.
Speaker 3: Also envision some buildings around 200 feet.
Speaker 5: Tall. Okay. All right. That's all I have for you. And Madam President, I have a few more questions, if you don't mind. Thank you for hosting. I have a few questions. One of the speakers tonight referred to unmet promises made by developers to build affordable housing. Can you tell us about any agreements that developers have made that they did not follow through with?
Speaker 1: Uh. Hi there. This is Andrew Johnston from the Department of Post. There's. A lot of agreements that the city enters into with developers. I'm not aware of any off the top of my head that where a developer has failed to meet their obligations. Usually if they fail to meet their obligations.
Speaker 6: It's before the project's finished and we engage in a conversation with them.
Speaker 1: To rectify the situation.
Speaker 6: Is that what you're. Does that answer your question?
Speaker 5: Yes. Because someone. One of the speakers. Allege that that it's a common thing and I'm not aware of it. So I just was wondering if that is something that's happened. Deborah, did you have something to say about that?
Speaker 2: No, I just wanted to say. Not to my knowledge. And I also wanted to just mention that Andrew has been in this position for less than six months, and I'm coming up on a year. So to the extent that there is any any other projects that have occurred prior to our employment in host, we're not aware of them. We're happy to check and let you know. But I have not heard of any.
Speaker 5: Okay. And we recently just received the 2019 report from hosts. Can you please tell everyone who's watching how much was expended in 2019 on newer and preservation of units as well as support services in 2019?
Speaker 2: I know that in combined in 2018 and 19, I'd have to look to get a breakdown by year. But I know that as part of the housing and inclusive Denver, we've expanded $112 million creating units. And in those in that, we've created 2500. And 80 affordable units. And I can give you a little bit of a breakdown on the income levels that that were addressed through that, because we have actually 51% of what we have that what we have funded serve households at 30% and below of area median income, including a high percentage for homeless. I can go on if you want anything more specific. And in that category we've spent. A total of 86, about 57 million for households at 30% or below.
Speaker 5: Okay. Well, thank you. I just wanted to make the point that that the people of host are working very hard to create new housing units for people at all income levels and to preserve housing and to provide services for people in need. So I just wanted to make that point because I feel like a lot of people come to our council meetings and they don't think we're doing anything. But actually you are all are doing quite a lot. I also know that in 2020, in this extraordinary year we're having, you know, we're spending, you know, $15 million of carers dollars to help people experiencing homelessness and to try and get people into hotels and shelter. So contrary to what we might hear, you all are doing really tremendous work out there. So thank you. Okay, two more questions. Madam President, if you don't mind, I'm making up for the last few months when I've only said here and I . I have some questions for the applicant, Mr. Hill. I have a few questions for you. So you're agreeing to build 49 units of affordable housing that will remain affordable for 99 years. If you had not agreed to this under the current law that the Denver City Council passed a few years ago, how many units would you have to build?
Speaker 0: Oh, you're on mute.
Speaker 1: I apologize. Thank you, Councilwoman, for your question. We would be required to build zero affordable units within the project under current law. Instead, we would be required to pay an affordable linkage fee of $1.50 per square foot, which on this project would be about $600,000.
Speaker 5: Okay. Or you could build five units, right?
Speaker 1: Oh, yes. In lieu of linkage feed, you could build five units instead of the 49 year old.
Speaker 5: Correct. And how much will it cost you to build 49 units?
Speaker 1: Well, it's a great question, Councilman, because of the construction type, which is high rise, concrete and steel. These units cost us $400,000 per unit times 49 units. You're talking about $20 million of affordable housing that we're voluntarily building.
Speaker 5: So under the law, though, you'd only have to pick and read thousand dollars.
Speaker 1: $800,000? That's correct.
Speaker 5: Okay. And earlier this year there you brought a different project to us that council did not approve. How many units were in that project? How many affordable units were how many total units and affordable units were in that?
Speaker 1: Yes, Councilman, to be for your question. So that reason for shut down in May of this year was a 625 unit project also. That was 12 stories, also high rise, 625 units. We were proposing 63 or 10% affordable at 80%. And that was rejected 7 to 6 of the council.
Speaker 5: Okay. And my final question is, do you own the property now for this rezoning?
Speaker 1: No, ma'am, we do not. The current owner that operates the the distribution facility on the site is actually retiring and shutting down the facility, which is why he came to us. So so there will be no jobs remaining on site, whether we like it or not.
Speaker 5: Okay. But if you if this does not pass, are you still going to buy it?
Speaker 1: No, ma'am, we will.
Speaker 5: All right. Thank you, Mr. Hill. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Black. Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Madam President. I have questions for Mr. Hill. She is still with us. And if you could save me some research, I don't have your materials up from the file. How many? Two bedroom. Apartment three. Are you building as part of this?
Speaker 1: A minimum of 20% of the of the affordable units will be two bedrooms.
Speaker 6: In total in the project.
Speaker 1: It's also 20%. So our our affordable unit mix is proportional to our market rate unit mix. The price will be 20%, two bedrooms across both market rate and affordable.
Speaker 6: And how how large are your two bedroom apartments?
Speaker 1: About 1200 square feet.
Speaker 6: Of 1200 square feet. And you said something about that. You had built 168 affordable units in. Where are those? Sure.
Speaker 1: Good question, Councilman. We have committed we've signed three host agreements today. The first one we signed about 18 months ago was at Colorado and Athens, near near the Colorado station light rail stop, just south of the Ford dealership. We're under construction on 360 units. 36 of those are affordable and merely adjacent to that. We have a second phase. It's 200 units. 20 of those will be affordable that we're committing to 49 affordable units here. And the remaining 63 to get the 168 was what we committed to and assigned to be reserved earlier this year, but was shot down.
Speaker 6: Okay. Thank you. The 10,000 square foot green space you talked about on this project is that one chunk of land that. Could be a Frisbee space. Or is this? How's that? What are we doing?
Speaker 1: Great question, Catherine. So we are adhering to not only the Denver Green Building Ordinance, but also the rhino design overlay. Those two things are the driving factors that are leading us to take the option to do 10,000 square feet of ground level, publicly accessible, private, green space. And it's a combination of additional setbacks along really a runway frontage, which is on the nado. So the right of design overlay requires additional setback of 40 feet. And then we're also providing a pocket park, if you will, about 5000 feet in a triangular shape at the southeast corner.
Speaker 6: Of this tank. And my let's see. Oh, why did you opt to build this without going for government tax credits?
Speaker 1: It's a great question, Kathleen. The primary reason is that a project of this size and scale for 2002 door, 300 units to $120 million project, the subsidies that are available to us in the form of tax credits and low interest loans are really not meaningful. It's very small dollars, unfortunately. We're building 20 million square feet of the housing with the 49 years. I believe the budget for affordable housing for 2020 dedicated to actually building for the housing is 30 million. So we clearly they can't give that all to us. So it's not usually material. It's also it slows down the process. We don't know what we're eligible for and we're not. And really, to be honest, because we're market rate developers, we are private market developers, we do not have experience building separate, affordable housing, tax, credit, housing. It's all inclusionary for rising. We do it. Okay.
Speaker 6: My last question.
Speaker 1: Just another.
Speaker 6: Detail. As I remember, you're building parking for, I believe, 360 cars.
Speaker 1: Is that correct? They're about? Yes, sir. Okay.
Speaker 6: Thank you. That's all. Thank you, Mr. Hill.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. Councilman.
Speaker 0: Councilman Cashman. Councilwoman Ortega, you're up next.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. Some of my questions have been asked, but I wanted to kind of hone in on some of the comments that have been made about the fact that there are 20,000 vacant units in the city. And I wanted to ask Deborah or someone from Host if you can verify that and identify how host is looking at those vacancies. I know that some of the rents have started to come down on market rate housing in our city and wondering is there some solution that the city is exploring to figure out how to access those units? Thank you, Councilman Ortega. Since I'm on the production side, I'm also on the preservation side, I should say, but I personally do not know how many units there are at this present time. I know that in the past we have worked with VHA to identify market rate units that were that we felt were being underutilized and created a whole program around that. It was not terribly successful, to be honest with you, and it didn't result in the people taking advantage of those units. That program that was started by Eric Sullivan. Yes. You're referring to. Yeah, I think it was called. Were those all just concentrated on downtown or did any of them look at, for example, some of the affordable units in Councilwoman Black's district? I think to my knowledge, I think it was everywhere. I think they were working to identify units everywhere, and they were working with employers to try to identify people to occupy those units. And there was a whole subsidy set up for two years and and everything, but it was not wildly, wildly tapped into. Okay. Thank you for addressing that. Certainly. I'm going to move on with my next question. And this is to actually partially it's true host, but it's it's really targeted to CPD and. Libby. I don't know if. Anybody else is on representing the upper management of Canada. But I want to know in. In the zoning process. What specifically is being done per the, you know, updated? You know, blueprint Denver plan. That that looks at how you will address zoning applications that are in neighborhoods that are already experiencing displacement. Do you just rely on hosts to play a role, or is there something more that you all do or are looking to do in the process? So let me give you an example. So when the Cedar Site was being looked at as a redevelopment site, I know Councilman Cashman played a big role in making sure that there was a very robust community engagement process that took months and months. Lots of meetings that took place at the school I attended several of them and staff from from CPD were involved in that process, you know, along with the developer who would bring updated details of what was being proposed at the site that required a rezoning. We've had lots of big parcels that have been resolved in the guests area, in the downtown area. You know, we've got a football stadium. We've got a number of big projects that are coming along, the 825 corridor. So some. How do you all sort of decide what that process looks like? Is it based on the size of the parcel? Is it based on the size of the development? Because some developments can be vertical and be as big as some projects that take up more, you know, landmass, but may have an equal or lesser number of of units on larger, larger parcels. So can you just give me an idea of how those are looked at? So first, the question is to CPD them to host in terms of the role you play in that process.
Speaker 5: So I'll take a stab at that. I haven't been with the city for that long, so I'll call on Kyle or Sara to augment my answer if I don't hit on some of it. But we have been more recently doing an equity analysis on sites that are five acres and bigger, where we look at a number of factors related to vulnerability to displacements, access to opportunity and increasing housing and employment opportunities and the rezoning that's going on in the rest of the Navajo Market, because that does cover close to 13 acres that walks through that entire equity analysis and categorizes where these sites fall within those three equity concepts. With these smaller sites. Since this one is one and a half acres, we have considered whether or not we should start doing that more of an equity analysis on this. But so far, we look at we look at the plans, we look at the maps, including the recently developed tracking vulnerability to displacement map, to get a general idea as to what's going on in the area. And quite frankly, five points is categorized as less vulnerable. Whereas gee, as an Elyria swamps, you are very vulnerable to displacement. The socioeconomic factors within five points are quite a bit different.
Speaker 2: Okay. And then I want to focus for just a minute on open space. So when you look at the de narco market property, the entirety of what made up the narco market area. How did CPB decide that? Instead of looking at the area in its entirety and trying to figure out how much open space was needed in general, CPD allowed it to be piecemeal in terms of the development. And that, I think, really did a disservice to the amount of open space that we would have otherwise been able to see developed on the site.
Speaker 5: I don't know that. I don't know Kyle or Sarah. Either one of you could speak to that.
Speaker 2: And this isn't this isn't isolated to this property. We've been seeing this happen with some of the other larger sized developments where, you know, their master planned, but yet they are allowed to be sort of piecemeal in terms of the rezonings that happen. They come at different times. It's not like one massive rezoning that looks at, you know, different scales in different locations. They're all sort of piecemeal. I think this lone flake property was an example of of where some of that happened. It didn't all get resolved all at once. So I'm just curious how you all are making those judgment calls where by doing it that way, I think we're shortchanging how we address the need and the demand for open space in our city as well.
Speaker 5: Sure I can speak to that. Evening, sir.
Speaker 2: Hi, Sarah.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 3: So, you know, it's I can't speak as much as some of the things that have happened in the past, but currently it's one of the reasons why we have the large development review and ADR process is so for larger redevelopment areas, we can have a conversation around whether there is a minimum requirement for open space for sites that are five acre or larger to have at least 10%. So no matter what, that's going to apply to the large site. But then we can also talk about whether there are some qualitative aspects we want to add on beyond just quantity or even additional quantity for for large areas for this area. As would be noted, there is a general development plan which was our, our older flavor of doing LDR. Now you have these larger sites where you need to coordinate development that would specifically look at open space. And when you see that rezoning that's been mentioned a couple of times now that's associated with that, you'll see that open space has been one of the major components that we're coordinating there. But for this particular site, it's small enough that it didn't trigger any of those bigger conversations.
Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you. I had one other question that I wanted to ask, and I think what I'll do is allow my colleagues I see we've got some others that are are plugged in. And so maybe I'll just get back in the queue as a president if nobody else ever asks that question. All right.
Speaker 0: Sounds good. Councilman Ortega, thank you. Up next, we have Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Madam Prince. I want to follow up on the on Councilwoman Ortega's conversation a little bit, because I sometimes my observation is that if we build more density, we increase displacement and gentrification, but if we don't build any density, we also increase displacement and gentrification. So it's like, what do you do? Everything you do makes seems to make the problem worse. But when I look at this site, Libby and maybe Sara also and also Deborah. I look at this site and I'm looking at the map right now. It is completely isolated from Globeville. You can't get there from here sort of thing. You got the river. You got the Burlington Northern Yard. The massive railroad yard. You got the Park Avenue Viaduct, I-25 in some places and into the south, even to get to five points. Although this is in the five points neighborhood, you can't get to five points. It's about a mile and a half away. It's over under the Broadway subway. You got to cross the U.P. and the RTD main lines for the A-line. And it's in an area that's completely industrial. So we're displacing no one here. And so I'm having trouble understanding the theory that adding density here will cause displacement in Globeville or Elyria, Swansea that are so disconnected from this submarket. Can one of you explain? RC Actually, I know Irene Aguilar is in the audience too, so I don't know who would be best to answer that. Lydia, Do you want to take a crack at it first?
Speaker 5: Yeah. And this is, as you noted, certainly an island that is surrounded by a lot of barriers where those impacts to displacement may not be direct. But I think that there's a fear that by creating more of these high end apartment homes, the the median income value of five points is going to go up. And that's going to create more pressure on Globeville and Elyria. Swansea, where they're concerned that their property taxes might increase, their property values might increase, and eventually they won't be able to afford their own homes.
Speaker 6: Mm hmm. Okay. I see Senator Aguilar has come in. Kyle Dalton's face just popped up on my screen to a kind of someone to help me understand this.
Speaker 0: Got everybody here for you?
Speaker 6: Somebody help me understand this. Damned if we do and damned if we don't. Argument for displacement. Irene. Thank you.
Speaker 5: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 5: Members of council.
Speaker 9: So let me address as I think the the biggest concern here, which is that when you build upscale housing, there is sort of a trickle out effect on pricing. And there are some recent studies that show that you can see that happen. I think the other thing that is that the community is concerned about here is whether the return on jobs is the same as what potentially could be held. And that's looking at it from an economic prosperity point of view. I think the broader thing that most I shouldn't say this, I don't know what people who testified here today are thinking about. But one broader question that this always brings is that there isn't that much undeveloped land in Denver. And in some ways it's just an opportunity lost in terms of where could you put affordable housing in Denver? But I think based on what we have right now in our zoning code and ordinances, this is actually a pretty good deal, is the best we could get based on our current law in the city. And so I think that addresses sort of where the concerns come from.
Speaker 6: Okay. Thank you. I don't know, Sara, Deborah, Kyle, anyone else have anything to contribute to that answer that is that pretty much covered?
Speaker 2: The only thing that I would say about this project is and it's proximity to to to Globeville and to downtown is, you know, it's on the edge. I mean, we look at it as an opportunity to house people who work downtown so, you know, minimize their their travel and, you know, the need for vehicles. And, you know, you can walk everywhere downtown. But there are so many places where people work downtown, but they can't live anywhere close by. So that was kind of our approach. And we're we're. Anticipating that through the development. And I don't remember if she said this or not. There are lots of jobs that are that are created through the construction and then into even the operation of the property. You know, I can't speak to what types of jobs those are, but those are some of the way that that we approach this.
Speaker 6: Okay. Thank you, Deborah. Libby I'm flipping through the slides from the presentation. This area, the growth area strategy here is that this will supply 15% of new housing growth in the city and 5% of new employment in this future growth area. Is that I read that correctly.
Speaker 5: Correct.
Speaker 6: So how does eliminating the industrial zoning, how does that contribute or damage the prospects for a 5% increase in employment?
Speaker 5: That. And I can't say specifically how many jobs this site would add and how that is kind of dispersed across this entire growth area that applies to the entire city. But I'd say more so it's driving up the amount of people who can live in this area as well that could provide employees to future jobs. And then also, it's not just about this site as well with that vacant land that's northeast of Tanaka and Del Gagne. If that's free zone, that actually anticipates significant more commercial developments than what would be at this site, the 5800 square feet of commercial space. At this one, the applicant anticipates providing maybe seven jobs.
Speaker 6: Okay. Thank you. Yeah, there used to be a lot of jobs down here. I think the family of one of my kid's grade school teachers had one of those produce outlets down there for many, many years in.
Speaker 5: The old narco market.
Speaker 6: Yeah, exactly. Exactly. Came in on refrigerated train cars, things like that. Last question, Libby, I guess, for you is what's being proposed here seems to fit exactly with all the planning that's been put in place. Right. It's high residential. That's it's it's it's mixed use that fits. And it seems to me that a lot of people who have testified here, actually their argument is with the plans that have been put in place over the years. And I'm wondering if you could opine on that for a second, that what is what what we're really arguing for here is to redo the plans to take out this kind of high density, because when we've spent, you know, Blueprint Comp, Plan River North and we've planned for this, when the opportunity comes along, we have people saying we don't want it. So please applying for me on that. What are your thoughts? And in other words, are we arguing more to redo the plans and lower the projected density? Or. Or is there a way to argue that this does not meet the criteria? Because what you've presented seems pretty clear that it does.
Speaker 5: And I appreciate that. And like I said, we try to be as objective as possible when we're looking at comparing any rezoning requests with these plans. And does it fit or doesn't it fit? And so I certainly believe that my analysis leads to this does fit the plans. It does meet the consistency criteria. Now, what.
Speaker 6: About in other words, it fits. But a substantial number of people are arguing that they don't want it.
Speaker 5: Right. Right. And I don't know if that means that we need to go back when there was that few years of extensive public input put into these plans. But obviously.
Speaker 1: That.
Speaker 5: You're not going to please everybody everywhere either, right?
Speaker 6: Yes. All right. Deborah and Kyle, people are. Madam President, can I ask if any of the other planners or Deborah have a comment on that? Sarah. Sarah.
Speaker 2: Thank you. I just wanted to speak very, very briefly to the alignment of the affordable housing goals from the from the city perspective. And Mr. Hill spoke to what he would pay from a linkage fee. And we know that that linkage fee ordinance in that ordinance, it requires 80% area median income housing. So, you know, this one, they reached a little deeper and and hit the 60% mark. Which which is great. Would we want deeper? Absolutely. But it but it is difficult from an economic feasibility perspective to achieve that. I know that they did make an offer to reach deeper all the way down to 30%, but of course, that results in fewer units. So but this does me what is required in the ordinance.
Speaker 6: Thank you. In other words, we could ask for 20%, 30%, 50%. But it couldn't be built.
Speaker 2: Through.
Speaker 6: Without. Without a lot of your money.
Speaker 2: Yeah. And I guess I would speak to that as well. Is that the money that we earn through the linkage fee and through property tax and all of the sources that have come together to create our funding, our funding sources, is that. Those funds are then used for the affordable housing developers who focus all of their attention on creating 100% of affordable housing. So we do not have funds to subsidize the market rate developers might see. And as they do, that's why we call it voluntary.
Speaker 6: Right now. Thank you, Madam President. That's all I have.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Sandoval.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam President. I have a couple questions, so I have a couple of questions for CPB. We were talking about our large development review process and our ADR. And we've had these conversations about five acres, whether that should be the trigger or not. Yet. There has been some discussions throughout the city and on planning board. If five acres is the actual correct criteria because we're talking about putting like five acres would meet a certain criteria, but rezoning from industrial three storey zoning to 16 storey zoning. Actually puts more strain on some infrastructure than the Audi process does. So my question about the Audi process. There's more. I know. Mr. Hill has been here for several reasons, and some of them are contiguous. They've just broken up. My personal. My personal. Why do we allow that? Why do we allow his former rezoning in the spring with next to this site? It was the it was the storage unit. How do we allow that? I mean, are we monitoring that? Even though, yes, they're separate parcels and he would want to read them them separately. Are we sure we're not? How what would a trigger look like so that we could have them actually go through the process together? That makes sense. You pick an input. I'm thrown down. It does make sense and I haven't worked on the LDR process and I don't know why Hill and his teammates have opted to purchase these kind of one by one. I think he could either speak to that or Kyle or Sara too, if you want to provide a little bit more context as to sort of that where that five acre threshold came from for LDR and whether or not there is a way that we could encourage developers to come to us more proactively with a longer term vision in their areas to do that equity analysis.
Speaker 3: I can I can start and then I Disney record Africa is going to jump in there but to hear a little bit more about their approach here and Kyle please jump in because actually did a lot of the work around creating our new reality, our process. If I get something wrong, please speak up. But yeah, you're you're definitely right, Councilwoman, that we've heard concerns about how do you get the right trigger for when you should be having these conversations about what's coordinated the developments area and we're certainly open to suggestions there. There are all kinds of ways that you can try to identify trigger for example, like if you have enough of a change in intensity or land use, for example, then perhaps that's enough. So it's not just about it could not be about the size at all. That's your point about a change significant enough from something like industrial to allowing a bunch of residential? So I think we're definitely open to having those conversations and learning from there really hasn't been that long that we've had the LDR process in place now. So learning from it and looking for ways to reevaluate the triggers, we certainly, wherever we can encourage, try to look for these connections ourselves and encourage applicants to think about things comprehensively and not go side by side. But right now, under our current rules, there's nothing that precludes this applicant from from doing it that way. So I do think it'd probably be good to give up a chance to, to talk maybe a little bit about how your approach here.
Speaker 1: You bet they do, Sarah. And then your councilwoman cannonball to your question. So we have done a number of reasons recently. Let me just go through each quickly to clarify. So the two phase deal that we did agree, agreement with hosts in Colorado and Evans or Evans not to five, but four. That was five and a quarter acres over the threshold. We actually did a good neighbor agreement and a development agreement with the city whereby we committed to more open space, a 20,000 square foot pocket park and a total of 32,000 square feet of publicly accessible private open space that was above and beyond what the LDR process required . And we did that voluntarily. Then D.A. got a three or four rezoning. There was a period a few months ago where it was kind of a lot like an adjustment and a cleanup. Those two parcels together represented the exact same time and it was still below the five acre threshold. So those were simultaneous free zones. But this this free zone and the one adjacent that was denied it back in March. You're right, those were two separate reasons. The reason for that is we tied up the first site, started the new zone process for 6 to 9 months into that process when this current owner approached us and said, you know, basically you're buying our neighbor, we'd be interested in selling as well. So we had a separate process, 6 to 9 months behind with two different owners. But one one more thing to point out, we were the original buyer and the master developer that's in our market area. So we did do and what the new developer has to do it and also show us there is an application coming up. They still have to do the river activation and public open space along the river that we committed to back in 2007. So that green space will be part of their development but benefit all those around, including us. And then our green space here. The 10,000 square feet that runs along the Navajo is a continuation of that green space that goes all the way down to the river.
Speaker 5: Yep. All right, so I. I understand. And thank you for that answer. I understand. But I still don't understand how, even though they're nine months apart, when I'm thinking about land use, I'm thinking about seven generations. I'm not thinking about nine months. Nine months is a drop in the hat, with all due respect. So the fact that these two parcels together could have gone to an Aldi ah process. It means a lot to me. It really does. It just you just get different outcomes when you go through more of a public process. So my next question is when you. Is there a way that maybe this could be for hosted applicants? It says in the packet, I can't see anything where the development agreement is signed. Is it signed or. Everything that I've read says it will be signed. I don't understand. It will be signed. Is it signed or is it not signed?
Speaker 1: I mean, this is Andrew from Host. And the if you're talking about the voluntary affordable housing agreement, it has been executed by the developer. So we do have that agreement executed by the developer pending a positive outcome tonight vowed and we would complete the city side signature to complete the execution.
Speaker 5: And then did they get recorded on the title?
Speaker 1: It does get recorded against the land. Yes.
Speaker 5: Okay. So if they sold, it would still run concurrent with the land? Correct.
Speaker 1: Correct.
Speaker 5: Okay. So I have a couple more questions. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Oh. Did you have a couple more questions yet? Yeah.
Speaker 5: Sorry.
Speaker 0: Go ahead. No, that's.
Speaker 5: Okay. My family will keep my version working for you. Yeah, well, you gotta. You gotta be careful. Oh, sorry about that. So. One other question. So there was a comment made earlier by one of my colleagues that says this site couldn't be developed if you had 50% affordable. And I just want to know, in your opinion, to the applicant and now I know, I understand I absolutely understand that I may be asking questions that are not relevant to the criteria, but I do feel it is our job at City Council to ask questions that are get around a well-rounded idea of the proposal in front of us. So although some of my questions may not pertain directly to the five criteria we are asking we are required to vote on, this is our only opportunity as council members to ask questions. So with that, Mr. Hill, have you is it your. Business. Two. Do you are you a land long term landholder? So oftentimes I'll give you a reframe my question. Often times developers come into neighborhoods, they buy the property, they resell them, they build them, and then they sell them to for profit entities and they sell them off. Do you do that or are you a long term landholder? What's the longest one long term land that you've held?
Speaker 1: Yes. Great question, Councilman Sandoval. Typically, we stretch for investments for ten plus years. So this is a ten year investment. Could be longer, but we go into this for ten years. There are some comments made by some figures that we're out of town. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, I live a mile from the park. Well, I walk my two year old down river. So this is close to home for me. It's a ten year investment. Long term is all relative, and that might not seem to matter to some. And it does for others. But this is on a ten plus year investment. It'll take that long to get through the multiple phase redesign. And keep in mind, the original investment goes back to 2007 and we're still active building across the street today, 13 years later. So I would consider us long term. Yes. And I think you had a question about the amount of affordability or not. I don't want to miss your question.
Speaker 5: So there was a comment saying that you couldn't be it you wouldn't there wouldn't be a project if you had to do deeper affordability. And I can say my my comment for my comment question, but I believe there is a way to do more, deeper, more affordability. It just means you don't make as much profit for people first. You put people over profit. So is that accurate or not? It's it's all like a business, like. Right. My family's in the family making business. We have to sell them for a certain amount to make profit. So but you are in the business of building buildings and making a profit, correct?
Speaker 1: Yes, I'm in the for profit business. It's not it's not a nonprofit, but it's a great question. Councilman, thank you for asking. At the end of the day, we do have to raise capital for the city to get it built. We have to raise debt financing from a lender that expects their money back, plus interest as well as equity. And those equity investors want a better return to the lender for the additional risk that they're taking. So the capital markets in this environment for urban infill are very challenging. It's very hard to raise revenue of capital right now. So it's not a matter of making less money. It's getting the project off the ground. If you can't build it, there's no money to be made. And we push this to the absolute brink of financial viability and economic feasibility. It's unfortunate that because it's highrise, they cost 40,000 to build. So it's 20 million, but that's the reality of it. I would also point out it's just a small parcel which just over an acre and it's a triangle, so you kind of have to lop off the corners and then you got 10,000 square feet of open green space and you have less than an acre of usable land. So, you know, I agree completely recognize that there is a need for deeper affordability, more of it across this entire metro. But we feel it's a good contribution to the city's affordable housing needs. And we hope this leads directly to others in the area doing similar where we see we could soon see hundreds of units available to states in minus meter.
Speaker 5: Okay. One last question. Do you feel that COVID has changed your profit margin, like your performance? Is that what you said, a comment earlier when you were answering this question and you said that it stretched? Do you do you feel that because COVID has I believe COVID has impacted all of us. None of us have been not impacted. Has it impacted your profitability or your performance in these type of projects?
Speaker 1: Absolutely. Without a doubt. Metroliner down by 10% and your reports are down. More occupancies around the common earlier, about 20,000 available units. I think that's right. And the way I'm getting there is that current vacancy in Denver across the entire city is 7%. There's 250,000 apartments in Denver. 7% of 250 is 17,500. So I think we do have those 20,000 vacant units. So, yes, profit margins are down, rents are down, occupancy were down. And that's all the more reason that it's going to be very challenging to capitalize this project. We're hopeful we can do it, but I know that by pledging 50% affordable to 30 to 50% am I, as was requested by the U.S. coalition, unfortunately, I would not be able to do that to build that project. The capital markets are not there for that depth and that amount of affordability. Especially for.
Speaker 5: The youth. Think of then president.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Sandoval. Councilwoman CdeBaca.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam President. Can you move over, Erika Reiter? No, let me go. And Alfonso Espino. Yep. We should go ahead. This first question is for Erica writer. Erica, can you tell me what the impact your perception of the impact of these decisions on single parent families and their kids about what is affordable? Uh oh. I'm going to let.
Speaker 0: My daughter, who has been.
Speaker 5: Waiting for hours to stay, her piece about how this kind of project would affect a family like ours. My name is Mays Ramirez. My name is Mae Ramirez, and I'm eight years old. I am against the zoning. I want my leaders to care more about people, not buildings. What happened to the homeless people who were made to leave? This is not how people should be treated. Kids are also leaders. Please vote no on this. We are all watching. We are all part of this community. Thank you. Okay. Now for Nola. Nola, can you talk a little bit about equitable, equitable development and what you believe is needed in this neighborhood from developers and perhaps what you asked for from this developer and where there was an inability to. Come to some agreement. Sure. I think one thing, if it's okay, if starting with this is that what we've been missing out of this entire analysis and conversation is an is an actual look at what is happening with displacement. And unfortunately, we don't have that analysis. You all don't have that analysis to look at. But there should be measurements that look at both the data points of vulnerability, like we mentioned, but also even at the change over time when you have extreme amounts of change and this is something that other cities are using, I sent host of Income Risk Index that they're using in L.A. and that's the type of thing that you could look at, where you would both the extreme changes that are happening in particular areas like these, and also points of vulnerability, like the amount of renters and the amount of rent burden in those incidents. So I just wanted to say that because what those types of what that type of analysis could do is look at the all of the changes that are happening in the area. Right. So so guess in specific in some ways that it doesn't have protected affordable housing. So we have very, very little protected affordable housing. You know, we have three units in the field. Those are affordable housing that's protected to put deed restricted, affordable housing. We have very little of there are some scattered sites. There's some habitat units where they could repurchase the homes. But there's very, very little deed, restricted affordable housing, which means that everything is vulnerable. All all the people's homes, the residential.
Speaker 3: Homes.
Speaker 5: Are vulnerable. And we know that nine out of ten of our neighbors are at risk of displacement.
Speaker 3: And I would say during the pandemic.
Speaker 5: It's it's everyone and every single person that we talked to, our most recent survey was rent burden. And 89% of those people were heavily rent burdened, meaning they're paying over 50% of their income on rent, which is an impact major impact health. But getting back to what some maybe equitable things that could be done with the developer, with a private developer or an affordable housing developer could be things like income sharing. One thing that we talked about was ongoing a way to ongoing share that income of.
Speaker 3: The project with.
Speaker 5: The neighborhood. That was something that they weren't willing to look into more.
Speaker 3: They offered us a $5,000 contribution defense fund. That just wasn't.
Speaker 5: Enough. And we know that to address the impacts that are happening. All right. What about community land trust?
Speaker 3: Where part of the land.
Speaker 5: And that also wasn't an option we brought up in in our last meeting. Again, did not have extensive conversations. We didn't have the time to do that. But on a per market, a per market unit impact fee, we again didn't get there with that once. What about working with affordable housing developers, bringing in the types of partners that can acquire?
Speaker 3: And as as.
Speaker 5: Mr. Hill already said, that this wasn't a possibility for this for this project. I could talk more, if you want me to, about the protections that could be put in place by the city and so on. But oh, okay. Can you actually speak to a couple of comments that were made? One comment was about the fact that this is a pretty isolated area, although it's been highly developed over the last few years. I think it's important to have a community perspective about how displacement is impacted or facilitated, even in areas where there is development of space that is not actually physically taking anybody's house away. So can you talk a little bit about that one? Do I mean to talk to or I'll get you another. How does displacement happen if they're not actually taking houses away from anybody? So there's a something called price shadowing, which is when an area starts to feel the impacts of other developments, because not only does that development then brings more attention and demand in that area, but you start to see the impact to property valuation overall, which, as I said, 470%, we're already having huge amounts of change in that area and just we just can't take any more right now. There's so many pressures from so many angles and a 16 story rezoning just isn't what what needs to happen right now. But looking at not only the property value changing, the rent burden going up, you know, every every rental that you see is going to be, you know, in proximity to Reno, you know, like that that dynamic that is is a huge part of what's raising prices. And how about the comment that was made that, you know, there's really it's not really possible to do over 20% affordable housing in in a build like this. Can you talk a little bit about that and what you know about what is possible? Well, I would say that that's not possible potentially in a 16 story building.
Speaker 3: Because of the type of construction cost that that James was describing.
Speaker 5: So in my opinion, a smaller four or five storey zoning would facilitate affordable housing better. But, you know, we've worked with a lot of different types of developers. We've had some really exciting and creative conversations with.
Speaker 3: Helpers.
Speaker 5: That are happening that are interested in in community land trusts, in strategies, in impact, investing in different ways to try to figure this out, because we need that deeper affordability and we need ongoing ways to build the economy in in the areas that have been historically disinvested. Thank you, Nola. You might want to stand by, but that's it for my questions to you right now. My next questions are for CPD. The Rhino Plan doesn't actually call for this tall of a building. Can you explain how we got to 16 stories? Right. As I mentioned, the run up plan did not specify the building height ranges that should be allowed in here. They did allude to the design standards and guidelines, but those actually applied just across the street from the nahco. And so then we had to look at our most recent guidance within Blueprint Denver, and that's where it calls for among the highest, tallest residential buildings within this future place.
Speaker 3: Type and context.
Speaker 5: And so we we have we're not actually measuring this against the Rhino plan. It's somehow out of the boundaries of the Rhino plan. Is that accurate or. When you say across the standards don't apply until across the street? What do you mean? So let me clarify. This site absolutely does fall within the Rhino North neighborhood plan, but that didn't provide any guidance. And so it alluded to the rhino urban design standards and guidelines. But those don't. Those don't impact this exact site, but impact pretty much everything else in the narco markets to the east. And so why would that have been left out of the plan? Is that an oversight or what was that about? I don't know. Considering the plan was developed in 2003, I'm not sure why they left it that open. And so with the parts of the plan that do specify a building height, what is the tallest building height mentioned in the Rhino Plan? Specifically to do Argo market. As I mentioned, it is not anywhere in the regular plan. I would have to look at the final plan. In order to find those other.
Speaker 3: Mentions of heights.
Speaker 5: In other areas outside of the narco market. Do you know of any other single building in the Reno area? That is 16 stories today? No. And can you explain to me how far outside of the 38th and Blake affordability overlay are we with the normal market? I do not know specifically. I just know that that that in terms of hate overlay does not apply to this site. Do you know why? It just fell outside of the radius when that plan was developed. And how far is this from the 38th and Blake Station? Let me pull.
Speaker 2: Up a.
Speaker 5: Map. Although I can say earlier from my report, we're about three quarters of a mile from the station itself. Right. So less than a mile away from the 38th and Blake Station where we designed an entire affordability overlay incentive to capitalize on TOD. Not a single building that is 16 stories in the entire Reno area. The closest tall building is on the other side of the tracks in Union Station. Can you tell me about the. The building height for the river along the river in the rhino plan. What are the building heights allowed in the plan? Along the river. And which stretch of the river on the Arkansas side. And so with the narco market itself, since that's largely where my analysis was limited to the buildings along there are allowed to be only eight stories tall. And. When you. So Councilman Flynn spoke to the building form and said this matches perfectly with the rhino plan. Even though the Rhino Plan building heights are not specified for this building, that would be the tallest building, double the height of the max building in all of Rhino. When he said that it complies even with one criterion of the five we're supposed to be considering tonight while it actually doesn't. Do these rezonings have to meet all five of the criteria or just one criteria? They absolutely have to meet all five of the criteria. And I don't think that Flynn was alluding to the River North Plan so much as that this meets the Blueprint Denver guidance regarding the future context, future place type and growth area strategy. I get that. But he was more alluding to criterion two and five, almost as if those were the only criterion that mattered. And it's very strange that we don't have building heights for a development that is on the river. But I'll move on to my next piece. Can you tell me how CPD defines public health, public safety and welfare? And it can be fairly broad in interpretation for this. We focused on the fact that this is adding sidewalks in an area that currently doesn't have them. It's adding trees. It's adding streetlights. That would create a more safe, walkable environment. It's also introducing affordable housing to the area, commercial space and jobs that will create more of a mix of uses in the neighborhood. And it's complying with the green building ordinance that will add 5% greater energy efficiency than the building code requires. And then we often rely and tie that back to the fact that it's implementing adopted plans and is.
Speaker 3: Associated with.
Speaker 5: Various health goals within those plans. And so how do you also define community benefits in CPD? Those we don't necessarily define because we're not in charge of. Managing or implementing any kinds of community benefits agreements. That's something that is solely between developers and the communities and executed between those parties. But we recently did pass two area plans on East, Central and East Area that highlighted community benefits as a prerequisite for of zoning. But we don't define them in CPD, is that correct? And I am not as familiar with those neighborhood plans and haven't had the opportunity to apply them to a rezoning. So if they're included in those, then that's a step forward in the right direction for how we can help get those types of benefits with future rezonings. But CPD does not have a definition of community health, safety, welfare or benefits. If Kyler Sarah, if there's a spot that I'm missing here where we have a specific definition, please chime in.
Speaker 1: I'm happy to try to jump in here. I'm Kyle Dalton with the Department of Community Planning and Development.
Speaker 7: Thanks for the question. We're tasked with reviewing an application, determining if it meets what's.
Speaker 1: Required in the code language that Libby's outlined, as is the code language that applies. So I think Libby has accurately identified what we heard from the applicants and what we identified as why this application meets those criteria in the circumstance.
Speaker 5: So public health, safety and welfare here is sidewalks, trees, street lights, commercial space housing and 49 affordable housing units.
Speaker 7: And I think Libby also mentioned its consistency with the adopted plans.
Speaker 5: But not the plan of the area that it's in, which is the Rhino plan.
Speaker 1: Again, we review the application against the review criteria and we found it was consistent with the review North.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Can I get a host for my next questions?
Speaker 0: Mm hmm. They should already be on.
Speaker 5: Host What are the current gaps in affordable housing in Denver? Like, what brackets of am I? Are we missing? And to what degree?
Speaker 2: Well, I would direct everybody to the Department of Hosts dashboard, which gives you lots of detail. But I will say that the greatest need excuse me is that the 30% and below area, median income level, and that's where we devote most of our resources.
Speaker 5: And specifically in our neighborhoods that are vulnerable to displacement. What is the bracket that's most needed in those neighborhoods?
Speaker 2: Well, I would imagine that it would be the same. I mean, you know, under 30% area median income. Is anything.
Speaker 5: What. What is the amount of units that we need citywide in those and my brackets.
Speaker 2: Hang on. Have a sec. And I don't have those. Memorize. I'm pulling up our dashboard so tight with me for just a moment.
Speaker 5: While you pull that up, maybe you can answer this one. Was the community contacted during the negotiations with the developer so that host can understand the need of the neighborhood?
Speaker 2: Yeah. Well, we one of the very first questions that we always ask the developer is if they've made contact with the neighborhood. Like the community.
Speaker 5: But a host.
Speaker 2: I'm sorry.
Speaker 5: But does host reach out to the community to discuss their needs with them directly before negotiating with the developer?
Speaker 2: No, that's not part of of what we are we are charged to do. That is the developer's responsibility. So we encourage the developer to do that and we encourage the community to they they need to have a two way conversation. That's where community benefit agreements are created. We're really not a party to those, but we just require that they do engage the community and have a meaningful conversation.
Speaker 5: Does host recognize that there's a fundamental power imbalance in those kinds of negotiations?
Speaker 2: Yes. I you know, we do recognize that.
Speaker 5: And by not engaging the community or acting in accordance with what the community needs, is that equitable?
Speaker 2: Well, it depends on how you're defining, equitable if you're talking about just one particular area. But, you know, I would remind you that we are charged with providing equitable equity across all of Denver. So we have to focus on opportunities that are in all of the different neighborhoods. And so when we're looking at those lower income populations, yes, we do. We do consider that we are looking for, you know, as deep affordability that we can achieve through those discussions. But we cannot mandate we I want to remind you that we cannot mandate what developers do. We can encourage. We can negotiate. But but we cannot mandate.
Speaker 5: But does host have to accept the voluntary units that are offered with your recommendation for a rezoning?
Speaker 2: Do we have to accept what they what they what they offer? No, we don't have to accept it. However, without an affordable housing agreement in place, the project would not be without agreement. In principle, it cannot advance to the planning board without a signed agreement in place. It does not advance here to council.
Speaker 5: So a signed agreement is essentially an endorsement from host.
Speaker 2: It is an acknowledgment that we have agreed to the ability that we think can be achieved through this project.
Speaker 5: But not that host has actually engaged with the community or met community need.
Speaker 2: You know, that's not that's not with as I said, it's not within our purview to. We can't we can't mediate the negotiation with the with the community. We can't we can't mandate what the developer is doing as a result of what the community is requesting. We can only negotiate with what we can do within the parameters of what the ordinance requires and try to encourage that to be as low as possible so that it does meet the community needs.
Speaker 5: And so what does inform your understanding of community needs when you guys are negotiating on behalf of a community?
Speaker 2: I mean, there there are community. There's data on the community. And let me I did pick up. Let me see if I get it. The units. Before I go there, I just want to make sure I don't forget this part. The percentage of households that are cost burdened in the 0 to 30%, which includes homeless, is 86%. And that that's 2019 figures. So the number of units that that represented in 2018 was 38,000 all households, 44,000. And that's just in that area that that median income bracket. So in all households in in Denver, there are 167 households with 105 Casper and we have about 24,000 units that are income restricted with. Looks like about 2000 of those meeting meeting that need we have to chip in to chip away at it a little bit at a time.
Speaker 5: So that's a good start. Add an analysis. Have you all as host done an analysis of the impact to involuntary displacement of this development?
Speaker 2: I have not.
Speaker 5: I understand that. What is your understanding of the potential indirect? Impacts, negative impacts of this development.
Speaker 2: Well, what everybody has spoken to today, you know, but there are you know, there are economic impacts. I mean, any development that occurs, not just this one, is going to have an economic impact in to to the neighborhood. It also has the economic input impact to two elevators in Denver just as a city. So it depends on on where you are in that continuum. But I would also remind you that that the city in host does focus our effort across that continuum. So while there is a huge need and we do devote, I think I said earlier, 58% of our resources toward the 30% and below area median income households. We do also have an obligation to hit the households better in the 31 to 80 and the homeownership as well. So we have to balance all of our resources and we have limited resources. So the way that those 30% units are achieved is through the affordable housing developments that occur using low income housing tax credits, because the way that those tax credits work is they bring in lots of free money. So those investors put money in upfront and they that's the way that the projects work. They have very little net. When you have very little debt, you can make really low in low rent.
Speaker 5: I just have one last question for you. Yes. Is this project meeting any of the gaps that we have in that 30% and my bracket?
Speaker 2: It is not because I believe that the the developer offered those, but they were insufficient for what your request was.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Can I speak to Chase now? Can you tell us, Chase, what the value is of this land with what is currently on it?
Speaker 1: You mean can you clarify the question of what the value is at 16 sort zoning or the value is as a vacant warehouse?
Speaker 5: How about both?
Speaker 1: I'm not I'm not in the business of valuing industrial real estate. But I think your point is that it's worth a fraction of what it would be worth, which seems to presume.
Speaker 5: And was there a real give and take with guys, coalition and or residents in this neighborhood?
Speaker 1: Yes. Thank you, Councilman. Great question. I'm glad you asked it. We included in your your package a letter that was issued on December 9th that outlines our communication goes back to May of this year. So for seven months, unfortunately, we could not find common ground. We tried, but the give and take was was very evident. So let me quickly walk you through how that went. So starting in May and looking at where we are now over countless Zoom calls, emails, etc., we increased and increased our affordable housing by 50% from 10% to 15%. We proposed the Community Benefits Agreement that, in addition to offering that affordable housing provided eight economic and non-economic concessions, that CBA is included in the package as well. So I won't we do that. We also explored deeper affordability because we were told 60 to 80 that nobody in the D.C. neighborhoods would qualify for this experience. So we we proposed 30 to 50% and it was only 21 units. It wasn't as much, but we offered 21 affordable units in the 30 to 50% range. And we came back a few years, as recently as two weeks ago and offered them 21 units of 32, 50 or 49 and 60 to 80, and they accepted neither one, unfortunately. And, you know, they had always kind of dug in on the 50% at 30 to 50. And then in our call last week was the first to progress away from that stance. And it was mentioned that 40% at the full range of amenities, which I assume means to the 90, would be something they would consider or I don't want to I don't want to speak for no other. You can kind of jump in. But another offer was, I believe, 20%, 30 to 50 plus profit share where we gave profits in the units to. For more affordable housing and obviously no as onerous. You can see for yourself that we unfortunately never came. Never found common ground as a bridge too far. And we just couldn't quite get there.
Speaker 5: So your offer did not change. Regardless of the options put on the table.
Speaker 1: No, that's respectfully, councilman. That's not what I said. We're all for change materially. 50 over 50%. So originally offered 10% affordable. We increased that 50% to 15%. We then offered 21 units at 30 to 50, Amy, which is the Amish range they requested. We then offered a CVA, so we did it and we did it. I don't think it's fair to say that we did not move off of our original stance and but they dug in until as recently as two weeks ago on the 50% at 3250. Amy And that's what we could not commit to.
Speaker 5: And so what made you go with the higher AMI bracket versus the deeper affordability for your final offer?
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's a great question. Gasol So you have to remember too that there's there were many different organizations in our lives that we were discussing this free zone with. So we reach out to 13 different RINO's and neighborhood educator organizations of the 13 eight engaged in that with us. Of those eight seven issued letters of support. So GSA is one of those eight. What we heard from the most is organizations, many of which spoke tonight was that they were focused on the amount of affordability. So they wanted 15% of a 16 story building because they got 49 units, whereas the GSA coalition was finding 5 to 8 story zoning, even if it meant 50 units or 80 units, and they might only get 12 affordable units. And there's no right or wrong. It's just a difference of opinion. But the other groups have supported us, one, and we're focused more on the aggregate amount and number of units. So 15% of a 16 story building is more than 50% of the five story building. And so we were focused on maximizing the amounts, hence the 15%. And that garnered a lot of support in the community outside. Yes.
Speaker 5: Are any of the other organizations that support the work involved in equitable development or the equity plan in the neighborhood?
Speaker 1: Gosh, the 13 hour news and neighborhoods issues. I can't tell you the mandates or mission statements of all 13, to be honest. I think you'd have to reach out to them individually or.
Speaker 5: Nola, can you speak to that? So I mean, I think evident in the amount of support for this project was that none of the people that wrote these letters actually came tonight. Most of the the so and is the only R.A. that's of the neighborhood and. They also had a lot of questions that I never saw answers to from the developer. And they had they actually wrote the letter for the previous reason and didn't engage in these conversations at all. They were really interested in benefits for garden place for the school, the elementary school, and Globeville. And I believe there was some sort of agreement about the pickleball court on the last and maybe a donation of some sort was made to the school. So that was that interest. Both the Business Association and I don't know who the other supporters were, but they have stayed very neutral. They don't want to be involved. And I've spoken to members of all of those organizations.
Speaker 3: That.
Speaker 5: Don't agree with that decision because a full, equitable analysis and process was not done. You know, it takes, you say, countless emails. Okay. But, you know, there weren't that many emails. How many emails do we do all the time? We actually had meetings and two meetings with you guys. I mean, that that's not an equitable process and we just touch the surface that the amount of people that have been involved in that process for the Reno Arts District was involved in the in the last meeting that that that consequence they sponsored. And, you know, they have a lot of questions as well. And I just don't think we're at the point through an actual, equitable, equitable process to get to the place where we're this is a good land use. Alfonso, my final two questions are for you. How would you, as a resident of this neighborhood, characterize or describe the negotiation process between the community and the developer? And do you believe that the asks of the community were unreasonable?
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman. So to the first question, as NOLA already said, there was actually only. To. A 1 to 1 an hour conversation that actually happened between the Coalition and our development committee, which is made up of residents and other neighborhood organizations. There's only two that actually ever happened. The rest of endless communication that Mr. Chase is willing to is simple email communication, which I'm sure anybody is used to and would not consider that an actual thorough conversation. It doesn't merit the word, and I think that's what it should have been. Well, it was something that was engaging us in a true way. As Mr. Hill has already said, we were always a bridge too far for them. Right. And I think part of the reason for that is because of negligence on the side of host who is currently taking a neutral stance by saying that they didn't engage in any conversations around what is the actual need in our community because they want the developer to do that. But if they came to that agreement, which they did before we ever engage in those conversations that they say they recommend, they were. Putting us in a very tough position that undermined any process that would have seen a positive outcome. So having to face that, you know, it's difficult to even call those two brief conversations that we actually had as very genuine, the nothing really ever moved. So yeah.
Speaker 5: And and real quick, is this the largest development, either Noella or Alfonso? You can you can respond. The largest development that you all have dealt with in your your work in the community. The the Clayton Street 4041 Clayton.
Speaker 3: Was is larger that was.
Speaker 5: 700 units.
Speaker 3: But as was testified, it's been sitting.
Speaker 5: There for years. Got it. Thank you. That's it for my questions. Madam President.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilwoman CdeBaca.
Speaker 5: Councilman Hines.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. I want to thank my colleagues for asking a lot of the questions that I had already. So and I want to thank all of our staff and all the people who have been here tonight. So great questions. Great answers. I want to ask maybe host just to get a little bit of context. The housing market took off in 2013. Am I right about that here? And that's before host was in existence as a as an entity. But was it about 2013 2014 and my when the ballpark at least.
Speaker 2: About 2012 it started improving in 2012.
Speaker 1: Okay. Before 2012, did Denver have an affordable housing crisis?
Speaker 2: Oh, yeah. Denver has always had an affordable housing crisis.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 2: So I mean, I started in. Amanda Sandoval, well, will attest that my very first nonprofit job was working for her mother and doing an inner city neighborhood revitalization and affordable housing. And that was that was a long time ago.
Speaker 1: So so we've had we've had an issue for a bit since the beginning of Denver, I suppose. Is there a city that we should be modeling? I mean, is there in the US? I know that there are different governments outside the US that make that model a little different, but is there a US city there that we should be modeling that that I should be doing a lot of research on to make sure that I understand how they're doing it right.
Speaker 2: We've actually just recently last year, I guess completed a peer cities study that and it's kind of all related to the linkage fee and, you know, zoning incentives and things like that. But we researched our consultants, researched numerous different municipalities across the country, settled on five, and some of them are similar to what we're doing. Some of them have affordable housing issues that are worse than ours, you know, like San Francisco, things like that. Places like that. I think we did a can't remember Pittsburgh or pencil are Philadelphia. I think we looked at it Austin and I'm forgetting the other two right now. But but yes, the answer is we are outreaching to that. I just finished a series of meetings this past week with poor cities across the nation, like numerous cities across the nation that are, you know, having dealing with affordable housing and trying to collaborate on solutions that work in one area another. So it's kind of like a roundtable discussion where we share ideas. So happy to get you the other cities and let you know a little bit about what what we've found. I don't I don't have them in my memory.
Speaker 1: So that's fine. But but there isn't a city in the US that has no affordable housing issue and is also a desirable city.
Speaker 2: Yeah, not. Not to my knowledge.
Speaker 1: Okay. The last question that I have is, should we be, if we're lucky, to get the Colorado General Assembly to change the Telluride decision? Is the city of Denver working now to determine what our how we might incorporate that change? Into our affordable housing strategy.
Speaker 2: We are. We have been having a discussions. We've got stakeholder stakeholders that we're meeting with. We put a temporary hold on a lot of those discussions, but for a variety of reasons, including COVID and and staff capacity, capacity as a result of COVID and things like that. But. But yeah, we have been working all of last year and it's a high priority for us in the coming year to address that. And yeah, if the news that I hear is that it sounds positive and what that, what that will, you know, it will result in legislation that will help us create a minimum standard for what we can ask developers for. I think we're the we as a city will have some work to do about figuring out exactly what all of the the details are to that. But yes, the answer to your question is yes, efforts are underway.
Speaker 1: Good. I'm happy to hear that, because while that may not directly impact this rezoning, why it sounds like Mr. Hill is interested in an additional development in the city, and so I and certainly the other developers. So thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Hines and Councilwoman Ortega. I want to check with you if it's okay. I'm going to go to Councilman Kinney. We haven't heard from her yet tonight. All right, Councilwoman Canete.
Speaker 5: Thanks, Madam President. To answer a question I wasn't asked, I've seen the best practice research on Inclusionary since I've been working on it for many, many years. There's not a city in America that has a policy that goes above 20%. Just to be clear, most are between ten and 15% because of economic feasibility. And so my questions are going to touch on that a little bit in a minute. But first, I want to give Deborah, who's just a moment, if she would like to correct something she said. Deborah, you mentioned that if there's not a build alternative agreement, the project doesn't get to keep going. It doesn't get to go to, as you know, the planning board or council. But that's not exactly what the law says. So I just want to be clear. If there's not a build agreement, then what happens under the law?
Speaker 2: True. And you probably have to supplement this, you know, with with my limited knowledge here, less than a year. But it does go and it's presented. But then the planning board, I believe, has to decide whether or not they want to advance it.
Speaker 5: And so that's yeah, that's I don't know if the staff wants to speak to it. The law allows developers to pay a fee. That's the short story. Oh, yeah. I just want to be really clear that the law does not require a build alternative plan. It allows that. But if a developer doesn't have that, the law requires one very simple thing, and that's not up to the planning board. I just want to be really clear. The law has and so let's I just want to get the record straight.
Speaker 2: That's fine. I appreciate that. And and I guess I misunderstood your question because I thought, you know, we had discussed earlier that there are opportunities to pay the fee, do the build alternative or, you know, do the of the voluntary. Those are the three options.
Speaker 5: So and I just want to because, you know, Councilwoman Sade Abarca asked you a question and she said, what if host didn't think the plan was good enough? What if you said you've offered us to build this many units and host said, we don't think that plan is good enough? Your answer implied that the project would be stopped and that's not the way that it works. So I just want to get back one final time here so that everyone's on the same page.
Speaker 2: Yeah. My apologies. It is. I mean, people and when we talk to developers, you know, we tell them you've got three options. And our very first initial meeting, we lay that out and, you know, you can pay the fee. And as as Mr. Hill indicated on this particular project, it's like $600,000, which doesn't you know, it barely creates one unit. Or they can do the build alternative, which is a calculation that in this particular instance creates five units, and those are all automatically at 80% area median income. Or they can choose to negotiate with us. And, you know, the way that we presented is you can help us achieve our affordable housing goals in Denver by engaging in these conversations with us and demonstrating your commitment by doing, we always start with 15%. You know.
Speaker 5: Sometimes you end up with that. So, so, so we're very clear if host decided this plan wasn't good enough for yourselves or for the community, you do not have the power to stop the project. Neither does the planning board. I just want to make sure that record is super clear. Yeah, I think the question.
Speaker 2: Is that when it comes to planning board, planning board does ask is there an affordable housing agreement in place?
Speaker 5: Right. So thank you for that. Rick Banks, I want to ask you, you've got a lot of experience in this field. What's the amount of subsidy required to get a unit to 80% of am I to get a unit to 50% of am I to get a unit to 30% of am i i in dollars?
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 0: Oh, gosh.
Speaker 5: And he just turned his camera on. He's going to he's going to he's you can phone a friend. It's 1030. So right after I got my you know.
Speaker 2: The reason that I'm the reason I'm.
Speaker 5: Struggling with this a little bit is because.
Speaker 2: I think of it in terms of the projects that we fund. So the city of Denver provides get financing and we provide only a portion.
Speaker 5: Of that gap is the state. I want the whole what's the whole what how much you know it costs X amount to build to get it down to the same level is a total amount of subsidy. We you're right we only provide one piece that subsidy. Andrew where where are you jumping in to help?
Speaker 1: I was going to my internet timed out.
Speaker 6: The but I can tell.
Speaker 1: You the difference between for instance, a 80% Army unit would be 1800 dollars of maximum rent per month.
Speaker 2: I don't think that's what she's asking. Now.
Speaker 5: I'm I'm frankly asking like a unit costs between 250 and $400,000 to build, depending on the construction type in order to buy down the rent to that unit. Developers typically figure out what the subsidy per unit is. So in in tax credit projects, it might be $150,000 per unit. I mean, I can throw out some numbers that I've heard, but if some you know, if you'd like to if you guys don't have it, it's okay, right?
Speaker 2: I don't have it off the top of my head. But I will say that I think you heard Mr. Hill say that his particular units are costing 400,000 per unit, but the subsidy, the cost for an affordable housing unit is probably somewhere between 180 and $200,000, just just to construct that unit. And so when you're talking about the amount of subsidy required, it's going to depend on how big that project is. So say you have a 37, $37 million project you're going to be getting, you know. 7 to $10 million in tax credit equity. You're going to come in with.
Speaker 5: I don't want to take us. Yeah, it's okay if you don't have the number, but it's $5 million. Sorry. I'm going to cut you off if you don't have it. Let's just. Let's just go with this. Does it take more subsidy to get a unit affordable to 30% of BMI than it does to 80% of BMI? Yes. Yes. And where does the subsidy come from in this type of a project?
Speaker 2: In this project. It comes from the developer's pocket.
Speaker 5: Well, let's be more specific. What? What, what? What money is coming into the developer's pocket? What subsidizes the affordable units?
Speaker 2: We don't subsidize that affordable unit in with a dime.
Speaker 5: But when money comes into the project, it comes in for the market rate units. Right. So the market rate units are what subsidizes the affordable units? Yes, absolutely. Okay. So if there are fewer market rate units, what does that do to the amount of subsidy available for the affordable units?
Speaker 2: Well, there's not as much.
Speaker 5: Okay. So I just I want to describe because one of the things that's playing out in the question and answer as well as the testimony is two issues, which is, one, what does the community need to what could this project deliver? Right. There is a question underlying a lot of my colleagues previous questions about feasibility. Is it feasible to do what the community needs? Right. And I think that in order to do that. So let me just say, what's the typical number of units in a five story building? I mean.
Speaker 2: On an affordable it could be anywhere from if it's a tax credit project, it's going to be about between 60 and 80.
Speaker 5: Units. So what? So if we have 60 to 80 units and we wanted half of them to be affordable, we'd have, you know, 30 units, let's just say. But you'd only have 30 market rate units to subsidize them. Right. Am I doing my math? Right?
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 5: Yes.
Speaker 2: You would just have to have really high, high, high rents to subsidize them, depending on what area median income you're trying to achieve.
Speaker 5: The questions I'm asking are intended to show the math that has to happen in these projects, right, where there's no public subsidy. So now I want to ask the question, because one of the ideas was it was implied by one of our speakers that, yeah, we understand there might be a limit to how much they could do , but then they should get tax credits. Are you familiar with any building in the state of Colorado that has been 50% market rate and 50% tax credits? Have you ever seen that? Have you seen it in any other city or state? Is it your impression that the competitive tax credit projects. So this. Yeah.
Speaker 2: Well I'm sorry to interrupt. So you you know, there are there's something called the Safe Harbor Law that if you're doing like a bond deal, certain types of financing, you have to provide at least 20% at 50% area median income or 40% at 60. So if you provide the 20% at 50, the rest of them could be market.
Speaker 5: So in your experience, though, that the tax credits are typically awarded to buildings that are 50% market rate? Have you seen that in Colorado? No. Okay. So I just you know, it's just a question about what's feasible. So one more question about there was a question about doing an economic analysis of the impact of this project. So can someone, maybe the applicant or the the staff from CPD remind me how many acres this project is?
Speaker 1: Just over an acre.
Speaker 5: Just over an acre. So the five point statistical neighborhood, do we know how many acres that neighborhood is? This is this lives in the five point statistical neighborhoods. So I just want to.
Speaker 1: Write I do not.
Speaker 5: Write square miles anything. I was looking it up. If any of the staff have that figure. I guess my question, you know, and you know, we've talked a little bit about studies. You know, I was in the Anti Displacement Network. Has anyone like Irene or the host have seen a tool that allows you to determine what the displacement impact is of a one acre project on a hundred hundreds of mile? You know, my many square miles. Is anyone seen a tool that allows us to mathematically determine the future impact on displacement of a project of this size
Speaker 2: ? I haven't seen one that that speaks to the.
Speaker 5: Displacement.
Speaker 2: Impact. I've just seen studies that refer to the economic impact, the positive economic impact of affordable housing along transit.
Speaker 5: Yeah. And this is again, to this question, it's it's important to say that if we're going to vote on the the completeness of an application or its ability to meet the criteria based on doing or not doing an analysis, it's important to know whether that analysis is physically possible given the math and the tools that we have at our disposal. So I think with that, I will go ahead and let us move on. Madam President, thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Canete. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. I've got four quick questions. So the first few are for Mr. Hill. So if you can, you can you tell me if you are familiar with the Work Now program?
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Ortega. I am not the first.
Speaker 2: Okay. Okay. So this is a program that the city partners with, along with the state, and it is a separate standalone entity that is working with both union and nonunion apprenticeship programs and they are plugging people from various communities. So we're mandating that in some of our city funded projects so that people from impacted neighborhoods can benefit from the construction jobs. So no, if anybody had talked to you about utilizing that tool as a way people hired on the job to do some of the construction jobs.
Speaker 1: I would have to look to learn more something. Okay.
Speaker 2: I will put you in touch with Katrina and work that program. Secondly, can you just speak to you've talked about the square footage or the percentage of the commercial that you're proposing. Can you just speak to what types of jobs you think might be part of that commercial area? And that 5% that you were referring to yesterday?
Speaker 1: And thank you for your question. So obviously, when the product is being built, we anticipate sort of 2100 jobs for the duration of the construction, which is 2 to 3 years. So they're short term jobs. What's the project is built? We anticipate there being nine full time staff for the apartment project and another six or seven within the commercial space, depending on what it is, is that a restaurant would be hire. Is it a dry cleaner? Would be less. But on average, we expect six, seven, eight in the retail commercial space, plus nine full time staff in the building for the rest of.
Speaker 2: And in your guess, were you. Committing to at least make those job notifications available and create the opportunity for local residents to maybe take advantage of those through the application process.
Speaker 1: Yes, thank you for your question. Or the CBA that we proposed that we sign. They have not signed it yet, but we intend to honor everything in that agreement despite accepting it. And there were eight different bullets aside in the affordable housing. Two of those technologies when you mentioned so an affirmative marketing agreement was mentioned in the CBA where we commit to explore and institute a neighborhood affirmative marketing agreement for five points and neighbors.
Speaker 2: So that's in the residential and.
Speaker 1: Executive jobs program so that the first opportunity to apply for the affordable units developed on the site and as well as. Not only the people within the retail space but also target GST and five points businesses as a as a hopeful ticket and a commercial space. So the CBA does touch on that.
Speaker 2: Okay. Great. In the. Report from the staff. It spoke to. Drainage. So input from which water spoke to the drainage issue and the fact that you would need more in-depth engineering on the site and potentially need to do a detention pond or something along those lines to address runoff from the site. So have you done any of that analysis and is there any expectation to have the city fund any of those costs?
Speaker 1: No, ma'am. We're not asking the city to fund those costs, but we have done our investigations. And what we determined is that because we actually fall outside of the target market, metro district and GDP or just across the street, we can not benefit from their onsite attention to the district. We have to do our own on site attention and water quality. So we'll have an underground detection pulse likely beneath our garage. This is exactly what we're doing across the street right now. And furthermore, this is in large part if not, I don't say excuse me, but this is in large part why the Green Water Foundation supported our project. Is it current? Industrial use is not exactly good for the river, which is the main block away. And furthermore, it's a brownfield development, as I believe you know, comes Ortega, but not all. They realize that this is a brownfield development. It's been historically contaminated site. It was part of an undocumented landfill. So we have engaged CDP to go through a voluntary cleanup plan, a vehicle to arrive at a no further action so that we can ultimately build and occupy this this site as residential so that those cleanup efforts will be have to be completed for to ratify the building. And as well, the water quality one or two issue ought to be handled on site within our within the boundaries of our site without any city or state assistance.
Speaker 2: And will you just clarify that if you were just doing commercial or just some other type of industrial, that the cleanup would be different than doing it as a residential?
Speaker 1: That's correct, Councilman. If it maintains we maintain it as industrial, no cleanup would be required to complete it. Can you continue to operate it as industrial site without the cleanup? But to do residential and have people live and sleep on this in this building on the site, we have to get to a ground.
Speaker 2: Okay. And then my last question. Couldn't tell just from the. The site plan if the spur to the west of the site is an active for an answer.
Speaker 1: Great question. The most proximate line is inactive. If you go to the site. The most proximate line is half of the ground and half out of the ground. The next proximate line is actually the elevated light rail line, but the closest line that grade is in.
Speaker 2: Okay. So your proximity to rail then, do you know what the distancing is between you and the the cars? Just on the other side of the RTD corridor is the storage yards, right?
Speaker 1: The closest active line and grade is 60 feet from our site boundary, and then our building is 75 feet off of our boundary. So 85 feet to the nearest active line of crude.
Speaker 2: Okay. So that's. In your application, were you asked to check the box on your proximity to where you were?
Speaker 1: Well and accurately, Councilman, your your concerns with the adjacent property that was denied the museum in May kind of brought all this to light. And so we reached out to CDP as well as started our safety investigation with our civil engineer to make sure we were accounting for this. And our first residential unit because of the 12 over 412 levels of residential over four level garage, our first level of apartments are 50 feet above the ground.
Speaker 2: Okay. So so essentially you're using your garage as sort of that buffering, if you will. That's okay. Thank you. Madam President, I have no further questions.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilwoman CdeBaca.
Speaker 5: Just a couple of questions that have come up based on other comments. Nola, can you speak to. The idea that just because we aren't currently assessing the economic impact or the impact of potential displacement, can you speak to that? And is it possible for us to extrapolate to determine what the impact would be if it is? What kind of things would we analyze and assess? So I think obviously some.
Speaker 3: Some of the things.
Speaker 5: That I said before about property, the property value changes, what the sales data of homes selling. The conversions from homeownership to rental which we've seen a 17% drop in Globeville in the last three years. The Rent Burden. There's a concept called the rent gap, which I don't want to totally get into, but the idea is a similar analysis to what land speculators do when they look at this is a piece of land where I'm going to get a lot of income out of it. And it's the percent change of property value, minus the percent change in median rentals over a certain period. So, you know, land speculators would look at that and say this, this is the place where I can raise rents significantly and make quite a bit of money and the land steeper. So the analysis would be the reverse of that, to say there's a vulnerable neighbor, vulnerable renters in this in this neighborhood that need to be protected . I think also looking at what are the amounts of like D.O.D., for instance, there's four duty stations right in this area looking at public investment like I-70 and National Western, and it's improvements and parks and all of these things, you know, maybe separately. But but, you know, how much of that public investment is happening just to look at the pressures that are happening in the area. Another thing that's important, like I said before, is are there affordable housing, existing protected protections around affordable housing in the area? Are those going to expire and do. Yes, they aren't going to expire because we don't have any. So those are some examples. So so it is possible. Also, can you speak to the criteria about public safety, health and welfare of a neighborhood? How would the neighborhood? Because I know you've spent a lot of time on this with the healthy block captains and social determinants of health. How would the neighborhood define something that furthers the safety, the health and the welfare of this community? That's for you, Nola. How how would the neighborhood define a development that did that or. Yeah. What would make a development that furthers the safety, the health and welfare of this neighborhood. You know, I think just because of the circumstance right now, the first thing that we always talk about is the affordability because of the displacement that's happening and that that is is the priority because otherwise we won't have neighbors anymore or the the ones that are currently there. And many have been living there for generations. I think, you know, other other. Things that people care about or would look to would be something that builds the local economy, that builds a sustainability and ongoing improvement in the pollution and conditions in the neighborhood, something that involves the neighborhood equitably, so that the neighborhood feels like they're a part of that. They can be they can enjoy that bus stop and they can enjoy.
Speaker 3: The types.
Speaker 5: Of amenities that that might come to be. So something that builds builds community is community development. And do you believe this development does that? No, I don't. Alfonso, can you can you speak a little bit? You mentioned it briefly in your comments, but can you speak a little bit about the acreage? We are talking about one and a half acres, as if it's only one and a half acres here. And this is a unique situation, as Councilman Sandoval highlighted, because we're basically multiplying that one and a half acres by 16. Can you talk a little bit about why this is different and why this shouldn't be treated like just one and a half acres?
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman. So if you were to do the calculation of an acre and a half, 60 story development that comes out to over 1 million square feet, to be exact, it's 1,045,440 square feet. So to imply that is just because it's only one and a half acres, it's a small project and it doesn't have an impact on our communities, is a false narrative. It's objectively untrue. And I think that council needs to recognize that this is a small project and it will have an impact on our communities. Earlier, some council members expressed a misunderstanding as to how a development project that sits seemingly disconnected from the residential areas that have been historically here can impact the property values or increase displacement. And, you know, even though it's just an acre and a half, this is proof of that. I mean, the entire grain corridor is proof of that. If you actually look at how many housing units have been built in the original land use that is residential in the communities of GS and five points, you would see that not a lot has actually been changed. But yet there's been, as I alluded to earlier, a 470% increase in property values. And those two things are not disconnected.
Speaker 5: Thank you. And so what you're basically saying is that the buildable area in in this project is exponentially higher than what you would have anywhere else in the city. And so when you take buildable area into consideration, this project is well over the five acres, actually over 21 acres, I believe, of buildable area that's impacting this neighborhood . So thank you for both for highlighting those things. Thank you. That's it for my questions.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman CdeBaca. The public hearing for Council Bill 20 Dash 1159 is closed. Comments from members of council and. Just a quick reminder here as well, we still have two other hearings on the agenda tonight. And so if your comments could be brief, we'd much appreciate it so we can get the other folks up. First up, Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 5: Thanks, Madam President. I needed to go first before I fall asleep. I'll go as fast as I can. You know, having Mayor Pena here tonight for the proclamation was a reminder of where Denver has been. I know a lot of the people that we hear from didn't live here back in the 1980s. Some of them weren't even born yet. But as a Denver native, I do remember this terrible recession that Mayor Pena reminded us of. And during that recession, people were leaving Denver. Our economy tanked. Downtown was a ghost town and housing was really cheap. I remember looking at a house in 1990 that I could not afford in Washington Park. That was $69,000. I should have bought it because today I'm sure it's worth millions and millions of dollars. Even in this century, a little over a decade ago, there was a good supply of housing in Denver. And when the supply is high, prices are low. And it's basic economics. Stopping new housing developments and limiting the supply will not make it more affordable. Lower supply will, combined with an increasing population, will result in even higher housing costs. Since 19. Since 2010, more than 100,000 people have moved here, including many of the people who speak at our council meetings and public comment. It's expected that by 2030, another 150,000 people will move to Denver City. Cities across the country and the world are growing and are experiencing housing shortages. People want to live in cities. We cannot address the housing crisis and the shortage by stopping development of new housing. This developer, Cyprus, came to council this spring with a project that would have included 63 affordable units. It met the legal criteria and aligned with the plans, but it was voted down. That's 63 affordable units for 63 families that won't be built tonight. Cypress is back for another proposal that includes 49 units for 99 years and houses negotiated a good agreement. If it's voted down, that's 49 units of affordable housing that Denver won't have. If you combine that with the 63, that would be 112 units that we won't get. Is spending many millions of dollars every year to address homelessness and to find housing. Of course, it's still not enough, especially during our current crisis. We talked earlier about the millions being spent recently, and even tonight we approved a financing to help the Colorado Coalition for the Homeless construct 90 more units. The city and county of Denver does care and we are working on solutions. That said, our country is a nation of laws and private property and Denver cannot take units from their owners and redistribute them. Alternatively, we need to encourage developers to build new units, whether by carrot or stick. I think we're all hopeful that some state legislation will pass and in the future we will be able to require units from developers. But those units will be in new developments that are not yet built. Stopping development is not the answer to our housing crisis. Unless people start moving away from Denver, we will need more housing. And of course, we will need to ensure that until we are out of this current economic crisis, we will need to extend the eviction moratorium. This project meets our legal criteria, aligns with our plans, and will provide much needed housing. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Black. Councilwoman Canete.
Speaker 5: Thanks, Madam President. Before I speak, we do have a custom of typically allowing the district councilperson to go first, even if they aren't fast enough to chime in as we all kind of jump in. And I did just want to if my colleague would like to go first, I'd be happy to see the floor to her since it's in her district.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much for for doing that. I appreciate that. And sorry about that. Councilwoman CdeBaca, please go ahead. First, as you might imagine, I've been looking at this screen since about 430 this afternoon. So apologies.
Speaker 5: I rather actually close this out. So go ahead. Okay. Thanks. So I, I really appreciate the discussion we've had tonight. I think it's a really important one. And I am sorry that it's happening so late and before other topics, because it's really important for us to spend time on it. And I want to say that I, I believe the things that I'm hearing from residents who are opposed to this project tonight. I believe that growth and development is a factor in displacement pressures and prices. I, i we may disagree about whether you can back out the transit stops, the parks and the thousands of other units to attribute what the impact is to one building. But I I'm not at all trying to argue the fact that there is there is impact collectively of all of these things and that each building or development contributes to those impacts and that we need to do more to study and evaluate them. I think the debate that we're having in so far tonight is about whether or not this tool of market development is the answer to mitigate all of those concerns. And so we have a scale mismatch, right? The scale of the pressures that NOLA and all of those who testified, you know, described are so great. Right. The pressures of population growth that Councilwoman Black mentioned, the pressures of, you know, transit infrastructure and the pressures of, you know, all of those things. And so to be able to say that each one individual project can meet the scale of that is, I think, the concern I have about the the asks. So I believe in asking development to mitigate its impacts, but it has to be within the the market economy that it operates. That's the tool. It's not a tool for public ownership of land when you're leveraging and redevelopment, generally speaking, unless you're in a bigger area. So the more you know, I do think it is unfortunate that the city didn't have a mechanism to sweep this in. I actually thought we did have a mechanism to sweep in disparate developments, even if they happened at slightly different locations and at slightly different times. I did think we had a mechanism to sweep them into LDR. So I will commit to spending time with staff to figure out why that didn't happen. Maybe we just were a little too far apart in time, but that allows developers to game it. So if we have a bigger redevelopment area, then our potential to mitigate impacts grows because you can, for example, put a tax credit project for 30% or 50% of housing on one spot, which works because they have to generally be self-contained to get to those and my levels. And then you can do workforce or you can do business, you can. The bigger the site, the more you can try to get to the scale. But even still, you're operating in a market economy. And so the challenge I have is, you know, I think it's legitimate for a community to say we can't take any more development and what we want to do is oppose this project. If that is what we're happening, that we absolutely be within the right, that would be you know, I'd suggest you talk about the criteria, you know, of the zoning, but but you don't have to say we could possibly support this. But what becomes hard is when the testimony before a council is, hey, listen, we really don't want the development, but if you did these totally unrealistic things that don't work in a market economy where someone has to pay for the land, they actually have to pay for the construction materials, they have to pay for the construction workers . And yes, they have to pay their lenders. Their lenders are going to charge them interest. Those are not optional things. The challenge is trying to use this tool to solve those problems at that scale. And I will just share with I my colleagues have been very enthusiastic about the legislature making changes. The number one concern I hear from people about the state legislature making this change is they believe that local governments or the community have unrealistic expectations of what inclusionary can deliver. They think that we're out there saying it can solve homelessness, it can solve all these things, and they think it's a set up for them. And so the more we can demonstrate that we understand that this is a tool and we need a whole bunch other tools, like we need the things that, you know, Nola described. Right? I agree that we need them. I've advocated for them. We might have different timelines, different ideas, you know. But I think that in a place where people have to pay for land, they have to pay for construction materials and workers, and they have to pay interest on loans and lenders to get money. There are limits to what we can do in a particular project. So I say all this not to say that I know this is the magic great number I think we've out tonight has surfaced a lot of issues. I've said before, we are not focusing enough on the displacement conversation and to the extent we're only doing it in rezonings, we are not doing a service to Greece or to any other neighborhood. You know, we had the folks in East Colfax here tonight is we can't just have this conversation around rezonings because it's already private land . When they're before us, it's already too late. Right. It's not going to be public land or it's going to be a parcel and you're only going to be able to do one thing on it, not five. And the neighborhood needs five things. So I think that so we surface that issue, we surface the fact that we are not as a city consulting with the community in the process of doing our negotiations over the development agreement. That's a problem. It's not the way every city does it. San Francisco seats the committee takes input before they negotiate with developers. We could do that. So that is an issue. We've surfaced and we have surfaced. The incredible pressure that this neighborhood is under. I think the only issue I'm taking is about the ability to solve all those things in scale in this tool. Right. So I want to just touch on the criteria real quickly. I think that the project does meet those criteria, and I think for those reasons I will support it. But that is not a vote against the things that this community is asking for. It's a vote to try to pursue them at different scales and with different mechanisms that are better designed to get to them. You know, could could this project have done 3% more? They certainly offered to do some 30% of my units. And the concern was they weren't enough. I'm not saying it was perfect, but I'm saying it seems in the realm of what these projects typically can carry, and that is when there has been independent analysis by city consultants on the feasibility, when they put in all those costs in cities across the America have done these feasibility studies and they all come out about the same place, which tells me we're not missing something by major degrees of magnitude. It tells me that we're in the realm of what this tool can deliver, and we should keep pushing it. We should keep pushing this tool, right? We should keep pushing the the envelope. But we are not out of the realm of of what other cities and other places with like less restrictive laws and similar economics can achieve. So that tells me something. And in light of the criteria, I have to vote for this tonight, but we'll keep doing the work. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Kinney. Councilwoman CdeBaca.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam President. And while brevity is convenient for us at 11 p.m., a project that's going to impact a neighborhood forever warrants deep care and thorough consideration that might be inconvenient. So this will not be brief. Before I begin, I want to restate what's being considered tonight. We're considering a development that is 16 stories where there is a current warehouse, there are no height specifications. In the end, the plan for the development of this area, specifically the Rhino Plan, despite it being adjacent to the river and the project itself is designed to capitalize on the river activation. The tallest allowable height in all of the Rhino Plan is eight stories. There are also no affordability incentives for this area, despite it being built next to the 38th and Blake Park Station less than a mile away. As you heard, the community benefit of housing was negotiated without community at the table defining their needs. This rezoning is being proposed by a developer who has yet to buy the land because of the exponential value increase resulting from this rezoning and it being necessary in order for them to purchase the land. Our task tonight is to make sure that this rezoning meets five criteria. I want to speak to criteria one and three. First, I want to inform you that I attempted to serve as a convener for residents of our neighborhood and the developer. Between the introduction of this bill and tonight's meeting. At that meeting, my hope was deeper negotiation around community benefits. I was disheartened but unsurprised to see a consistent issue arise, an issue that will increasingly become a worse issue with our newer area plans that have just been passed. That issue is the definition of community benefits, affordability, public safety and welfare. As a city, we've passed area plans that require community benefits as a condition of rezoning. Yet during this meeting, I had reflected to me that we as a city do not define when we as a city do not define community benefits. We're essentially tossing the ball to developers to define a community's benefit for us. The power dynamic of a rezoning such as this is set up with that imbalance from the very beginning. A developer with millions of dollars to spend and millions of dollars to be gained have the responsibility of conducting a process of convincing low income residents that they need this developer's project. They have all of the tools to literally and figuratively paint a picture of what could be without telling the residents what the unintended consequences of the project might be. They have millions of dollars to convince you and the residents that their perception of the community and what it needs is superior to what the community says themselves they need. No matter how many residents show up, no matter how much research they present to prove their experience is valid, we default credibility to the developer who knows better than the community the cost of the development to their bottom line. Never do we assess the cost of the development and the casualties of the class war that we have waged on low income and working class residents. We align with anyone who defines community benefits in the ways that validate the developer's definition of community benefits. Affordability. From the day we decided to align our definition with the Federal Government's shift from public housing to am I or area median income based affordability as our ceiling for affordability instead of our floor, we waged war upon the poor in this city. You see, in this scenario, when affordable depends on the area's median or middle income, densify and an area with higher incomes fundamentally changes the middle value. You flood an area with higher incomes and not only change the middle income, but now bump out any chance for truly taking care of the lowest income individuals. You functionally sentence the poor to a life of homelessness in a city with the so-called booming and growing economy. Finally, public safety and welfare as a criterion interpreted by anyone other than the people who live in a neighborhood is asinine, especially in the context of modern and social, modern social movements and modern realizations of different versions of America that exist depending on our race, class, nationality, etc.. We and I speak to you as an LGBTQ woman of color in a biracial working class family. Do not live in the same America. We do not live in the same America as white or wealthy Americans, where safety to white or wealthy America is primarily defined as safety from people like me and communities like mine. One definition of safety and welfare is incomprehensible. Even tonight, you heard my community defined by members of GMB and others as being derelict in the past or some other iteration of less than. This is exactly how we are perceived. And so we are no longer primarily inhabited by people like us. That's how our neighborhood is categorized as derelict. Until the demographics shift, diluting our poverty or blackness or brownness is the definition of safety that is implied by many of our choices to redevelop our communities. Safety to us is about being able to have our forever home. It's about being able to work a 40 hour workweek and own a home that we can pass down to our children. It's about being able to enjoy the new parks and the new businesses without seeing rent signs or for sale signs that, in different words, communicate to us. No poor people here or no immigrants here or no people of color here. Now, many of you might feel a wound being touched. You want to scream, you want to say, this is not about race or class or nationality. This is an exaggeration and it's completely separate. I challenge you to disregard your own privilege to decide what is valid and not valid and actually listen to the residents and consult the data because the data justifies what we're saying. Last year, Denver was the number one city displacing Latinos in the nation. It was only about 15 years ago that Denver was classified as a majority minority city, with Latinos being that top minority. Look at the data to find out where we lived and where we are now. Either where we're absent or where we're struggling to hang on. Please take into consideration tonight that the comprehensive plan and blueprint direct us to aspire to equity and safe, healthy neighborhoods for everyone in our city, not just the ones who can afford it. While those plans allow for interpretation of equity, community, community benefits, health and safety, you tonight have actual residents in front of you who have done the heavy legwork of explaining to you their lived experience and defining for you what equity, safety and welfare mean from their perspective. We have collectively protected the single family zoning character of wider, wealthier neighborhoods in other parts of our city. We've taken into consideration their fears, their desires, their self-determination and demands for protection and interpretation of our city's goals on their terms. Tonight. Your rezoning on the border of a historically black five points and historically immigrant. Yes, both working class and both redlined. We abused and neglected these families for generations until we decided that the urban core was again desirable. We can not place the entire of burden, the entire burden of growth on a single neighborhood or a single district. We cannot ignore the natives on this riverbank. We cannot continue the notorious legacy of forcible removal of a peoples from their land. The tools of removal have changed, but the outcomes have not. You have the tools in your hand right now. The five criterion in front of you tonight are tools that only ask you to stretch your perspective, to see the perspectives of the people who we should be building this community for. Please let the overwhelming majority of opponents to this reasoning inform your interpretation of what it means to facilitate equity, safety and welfare in this community. This is not about density. This is about the kind of density we need. This is this is not about this project all by itself. This is about a new standard and interpretation of what we need as a city in the middle of a global pandemic, a housing crisis and racial uprisings. This is not about a community's right to complain. It's about all of us having the right to define what makes us each feel safe and healthy in our own neighborhoods. A 16 storey market rate or luxury development will essentially be a bomb set off in the middle of this community. Please do not detonate this bomb in the face of residents begging you to protect them. Just because we have not figured it out as a city, we haven't figured out how to protect the safety and welfare of struggling people. It doesn't mean that we have to be the ones to light the match for the bomb that will erase them. Please, I beg of you. This is my district. This is my home. This is my community. And a 16 storey building is not what we need right now. I'm not saying forever, and I'm not saying a different type of 16 storey building isn't warranted. But this particular one is not consistent with what we've set forth in our plans and our goals for this city and this neighborhood. Please vote no. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Sandoval.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam President. I would just like to go on record and say that. There's five criteria that we have to vote on are antiquated. And then we had a meeting with the planning board. I know it doesn't seem like it. We had it this year, but we really did have a meeting with this year with planning board pre-COVID. And when I asked the question about where the five criteria came from, they came from former Chapter 59. So I think it's time that we update our criteria to council. Can you just point we have to have better tools to solve the problems that we're hearing from the people that we heard from today. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Sandoval. And since there's no one else up in the queue listening to the conversation tonight and all of the questions and folks digging in, our criteria might be antiquated, but they are our criteria and they are the legal criteria for it. And we are talking about one and a half acres of land, albeit possibly a 16 story building. We need the affordable housing and we need that partnership because where the final the financial straits of the city are in. We couldn't build this. And so we are going to have to figure out how to partner and hold developers accountable, especially during this time. And so seeing that it meets all of the criteria, I will be voting in favor of it tonight. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 5: CDEBACA El Nino. Clark.
Speaker 1: Hi.
Speaker 5: Flynn.
Speaker 6: I.
Speaker 5: Herndon.
Speaker 6: I.
Speaker 5: Hines.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 5: Cashman.
Speaker 6: I.
Speaker 5: Can I?
Speaker 2: Ortega. Reluctant. I. Sandoval. No. Sawyer.
Speaker 5: Now. Torres. So.
Speaker 2: Lack.
Speaker 5: I. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 5: Four days. 9 hours.
Speaker 0: Nine I's Council Bill 20 Dash 1159 has passed. Councilmember Canete, will you please put Council Bill 1190 on the floor for final passage, please?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 3225 Denargo Street in Five Points.
Approves a map amendment to rezone property from I-B, UO-2 to C-MX-16, DO-7 (industrial to mixed-use), located at 3225 Denargo Street in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 10-27-20.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_12142020_20-1215
|
Speaker 2: And the max density that could go in on this site is and units.
Speaker 3: Potentially, yes. So that's what the zoning would allow. But obviously there may be certain site restrictions. And so it is based on kind of if there's any site restrictions, but technically, ten units would be allowed.
Speaker 2: Okay. Such as setbacks, etc..
Speaker 3: Okay. Yes. Yeah. So if they're meeting the building form standards, things like that. So.
Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you so much. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. The public hearing for Council Bill 20 Dash 1215 is closed. Comments by members of Council. Councilwoman CdeBaca.
Speaker 5: Comments don't matter here, so go for it. Do whatever you guys got to do.
Speaker 0: All right. We've got a few more folks up in the queue. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 6: I'm about the president. This is clearly completely inconsistent with any of the criteria. I'm amazed that it's come forward. It's completely out of place in this neighborhood and would change the character. And I can't support it. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Herndon.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Madam President. Just reiterating as Councilman Ortega's question, you know, a property owner has a right to go before the the authority that determines land use, and that is city council. No matter if CPD's recommendations or planning boards are counter to that, they certainly have that right as well as they should. I firmly believe the criteria has not been met and I appreciate all the work and planning board and CPD has done, but I will not be supporting this tonight. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Herndon. And up we got Councilwoman Ortega. Go ahead.
Speaker 2: I just wanted to make a very brief comment as well. You know, with so much of the public input that we got around how people wanted to see growth happen in our city, the focus in our, you know, single family neighborhoods was really to try to look at ideas and try to keep concentrate the the growth on the edges of the neighborhood and not begin to erode the fabric of the single family character. Because the minute you start doing that, it begins to have that domino effect. And again, without the criteria really being met here and having that consistency, I'm not going to support this one tonight either. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Well, thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. And I'll go ahead and chime in. This one clearly didn't meet the criteria. And I appreciate you, Sarah, walking us through that. And so because it didn't and it was inconsistent, I will not be supporting it tonight and ask others not to as well. Madam Secretary, roll call, please.
Speaker 5: CdeBaca. No. Clark.
Speaker 1: No.
Speaker 6: Flynn No.
Speaker 2: Herndon?
Speaker 6: No.
Speaker 1: Kinds of things.
Speaker 6: CASHMAN No.
Speaker 5: Can each. No. Ortega? No. Sandoval. No. Sawyer. No. Torres. No. Black now. Madam President.
Speaker 0: No. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce results.
Speaker 5: 13 days.
Speaker 0: 13 days council bill 20 Dash 1215 has failed. On Monday, December 21st, Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 1399, designating 910 Galapagos St as the structure for preservation and the one hour courtesy public hearing on Council Bill 144 for renaming Columbus Park, located at 1501 West 38th Avenue.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 3601, 3603, 3605, 3607 North Race Street in Cole.
Approves a map amendment to rezone properties from U-SU-A1 to U-RH-2.5 (single unit to row house), located at 3601, 3603, 3605 and 3607 North Race Street in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 11-3-20.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_12072020_20-1356
|
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilwoman. And thank you for the staff answering the questions. The next item up we have is Council Resolution 1356. Councilwoman Ortega, we you please put Resolution 1356 on the floor for adoption. We've got you muted. But I just hit the button. Madam President, I move that council resolution 20 1356 be adopted. Thank you. It's been moved and seconded. Questions or comments by members of Council. Councilwoman CdeBaca.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. Just wanted to make sure that we do a vote count on this one. I received over 150 communications this weekend requesting that we either split this up and have separate contracts for the Tasers and separate for the body cams, or that we do not approve this tonight, that we should be waiting. People requested for us to wait until we have our report from the Independent Monitor investigating the use of the tools that we currently have. And so I want to go on record as a no for this this evening.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. I just want to make note for folks that as a result, particularly of Senate Bill 217 this year, it's a requirement that we have body cameras. The current contract we have has already expired in June. And so to not approve this contract would put us out of compliance with the state statute that all of us supported the upgrade in the cameras. The cameras that they're currently using are five years old and they have poor quality, particularly at night. The new cameras, which are actually the minor cost of the contract, the new cameras have much better video quality at night under low light conditions and will be much better for our purposes. And again, I remind you that we're required to have them. And but the major part of the cost is the storage, which is managed by the vendor. So turning down this contract would leave us not only out of compliance with state law, but it would also leave us without a way to access the video that is taken even by the existing body cameras. So for that reason, I urge all of us to support this as we supported Senate Bill 217. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Councilman Hines.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. I actually have some questions. Since this has been called out. I wonder if I could. Get someone to answer. I'll just ask and then you can decide who to direct this to. So we had heard in public comment today a few people saying that the body cameras had never led to a charge or conviction. I wonder. I wonder if anyone can can comment on that, that that seems a little interesting to me, but just because it seems interesting to me doesn't mean that it is true or untrue. So someone else can provide some context. That would be wonderful.
Speaker 0: Great. It looks like we have cheese paisan cued up if if that's correct. To answer that question and I just want to remind folks as well, if we can stay on the topic of the actual resolution and the contract, it would be much appreciated. We've got three public hearings lined up tonight as well, so go ahead, Chief Payson.
Speaker 2: Thanks, Madam President and Councilman Hines. Again, the purpose of the body camera is to document the incident. The purpose is not for conviction in court. It's to document the incident. Use that as evidence that the evidence supports a conviction. And that's what the outcome would be. Of the video evidence itself. But to say that the fact that this that's not the purpose of the body. Okay. And I wonder if also this vendor is not from from Colorado. I don't think they're even based in the United States. Not that that's a huge deal. If we don't have a vendor that can perform the service in Denver. Do you know if if there is a locally based vendor, that that could perform the service? So we did look at it. We looked at different vendors five years ago, six years ago, seven years ago. And again, based on testing and evaluating the different body worn cameras, this is the one that that met our needs to unbundle. Something like this would be extremely difficult. Just it's a workflow issue with the data and the video storage. When we're talking about documenting the the incident, we share this information with the district attorney on criminal cases involving their office. It's shared with the city attorney on criminal cases involving their offices. There's 37 terabytes of information so that the data storage itself is quite extensive. And I think you and the. Is it possible to upgrade the existing body cameras or. And that's that's also something that I've I've heard from from people who are reaching out about this contract. So, no, there is not a way to upgrade the current BWC to the newer cameras, would provide better video footage, better coverage in those low light situations, as well as movement capturing the rapidly evolving situations. So I guess the best analogy that I could give you would be a cell phone. Obviously, there's cell phone upgrades, including cameras on cell phones that have taken place, upgrades in the technology. And it's not just purchasing a cell phone and you can have unlimited data. It is the service plan that goes with that. So that's an analogy that may help understand the costs associated with this. And then to try to put it into context, it's that 37 terabytes of data that needs to be handled, you know, to document when if an officer handles 20 calls for service in a day and a specific date, the specific time when a individual arrest or to document the evidence in a particular case, being able to retrieve that exact file for the district attorney or the city attorney. That's where a lot of the complexities in this type of data storage and management takes place. Thank you, Chief. One other thing that people were asking about was about training. I noticed in the contract that there there is a component of training and it appears that there are also some VR headsets for. I think I think the contract calls for empathy training. Can you talk a bit about the the training component associated with this contract? And can you talk about what what is this? What what is empathy training where the VR headset is meant to perform? So, Councilman, this is something that both the Denver Sheriff's Department and the Denver Police Department really believe in. Sheriff DEGGANS talks about leading with our humanity. We want to be more we want our officers and deputies to be more empathetic when engaging with our community again, to have a better understanding of where individuals are coming from. This is a technology upgrade that would help us in that endeavor from resolving a potentially challenging situation and de-escalating it. One from the officers perspective. But then you can utilize that exact same scenario from the individual who is in crisis perspective for that empathetic view. And that's something that is also part of this. Is it possible for the public to see that kind of training or to have access to the training manual or something along those lines? ABC News did a story on this national news. And you're welcome. I'll get you the link. Yeah. Thank you, Chief. And thank you.
Speaker 0: For.
Speaker 2: For being on the hot seat. I know the sheriff sheriff is also here. Thank you first for taking all the questions. And the the last question that I have is about. What happens if if there's a Taser? Taser has become axon. What happens if there if there continues to be a you know, what if they do that, I think was they change their legal name. But what if the the company is purchased? I guess two questions right now. Who owns the the 37 terabytes? Then second, if the company gets purchased, who owns the 37 terabytes? So City Attorney's office, do you want to weigh in? It's my understanding that the city of Denver owns the data. And that that's spelled out quite explicitly in the contract that if another country or excuse me, another company comes in and purchases a parent company, that that Denver would retain that. Right.
Speaker 0: So we have we have Steve promoted. Go ahead, Steve.
Speaker 2: Hi, this is Steve on at the city attorney's office. In answer to the question, who owns the data, it's very clear in the contract, the city and county of Denver owns the data, which is primarily, well, almost exclusively video footage. If the contract were assigned to someone else, those contractual provisions would carry over and the city and county of Denver would continue to own the 37 terabytes of data. So there's no there's no way for Nexon or Taser or some other company for while they happen to be storing the data. They're not they don't they can't use it for their own purposes or they can. Published snippets of any of that video footage or associated metadata. That's correct. If they did that as a last week, be in breach of the agreement. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Horne.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Torres.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. Hello to Steve Hunt's dog. My questions are probably more for Chief Payson. Chief, if you're still on. Mm hmm. We've got him. Okay. The funding request total. Maybe this isn't or I'm hoping you know this. The funding request total. This is not a supplemental funding request, is it? Or is this using existing 2020 funding from the department's?
Speaker 2: You are correct. This is not a supplemental request. Or Laura, would you like to answer that question? Yes, absolutely.
Speaker 4: Good evening. Members of Council Laura Walker, deputy.
Speaker 0: Director of safety.
Speaker 1: So this is subject to the annual appropriation.
Speaker 4: Within the general fund budget. And we currently do have our budget within the.
Speaker 2: Police and sheriff's general fund budget.
Speaker 4: And 2021.
Speaker 1: The 1.1 million of this contract. That's for a may invoice. Why was that overdue or not paid? And what was it for beyond the original contract? Yes, they are. Thank you for that question. So we had originally started all of the contract amendments.
Speaker 4: And the extension of the contract back in January.
Speaker 1: But due to complications with COVID.
Speaker 4: As well as understanding the Senate Bill 217 and incorporating Sheriff.
Speaker 1: Into the contract. Those conversations occurred.
Speaker 4: Throughout the summer. And so that 1.1 million we were invoiced and made for the additional body cameras.
Speaker 1: In the police department from 800 body cameras in the original contract to.
Speaker 4: 870. So that was all just part of the the police body camera contract.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you, Laura. So, Chief, I don't have an issue in sharp begins with the body worn camera request, but I do have a couple of questions about tasers, which are 3.6 million of the request our use of tasers. Part of the requirements of Senate Bill 217.
Speaker 2: No, they're not.
Speaker 1: The. How long has Deepdale been using tasers?
Speaker 2: We've been using Tasers for nearly a decade.
Speaker 1: Okay. Have. Have we? Well, in Denver, I know nationally we've we've seen deaths from Taser use. Have we seen any in Denver?
Speaker 2: I have not seen any incidents where a taser has been the cause of the death in our city.
Speaker 1: Okay. And then have we done a race or ethnicity assessment of Taser deployment?
Speaker 2: So our use of force and this was something that one of the use of force committee members brought forward. We publish on our website all of the use of force, including the demographics of the officer and the demographic of the individual that force would have been used upon, and that is published annually on or before February 1st of the following year.
Speaker 1: Okay. Okay. Thank you. Those are all my questions, Madam Chair. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I thank you, Councilwoman. Up next, we have Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 3: I think that the president just want to close the loop on a few things, chief. Paisan, is it the case that the new camera, this new upgrade includes a feature that would automatically start the video? Assuming the officer hadn't already started, it would start the camera or when either the taser or the firearm is on the holster by the officer.
Speaker 2: Correct, Councilman. And I want to make sure that we're really clear on this point. So thanks for bringing this up again. The city of Denver and the Denver Police Department were early adopters of the system. And in 2019, for example, we've had over 600,000 interactions with our community or calls for service and a fraction of a percent . A fraction of a fraction of a percent. The officer forgot to turn on the camera. I think 34 incidences out of the entire 622,000 potential calls for service here. What this additional technology does is it serves as a failsafe, doesn't change the policy. Officers are still required to turn them on per policy to include the arrest, documenting of evidence, all of the stated purposes of the body worn cameras. This additional feature that essentially works as a failsafe that correct those most critical situations. We don't want that to be the small fraction of a percent where an officer forgot. We need those to be turned on a body worn system for that accountability for what are demanding. What has been to 17 is requiring. We want to make sure that those are captured.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Chief. I wanted to be clear because some of the email that we were getting, it was a singular email that was being sent to us by by dozens of volunteers. And there was some information in there that wasn't quite what this what this contract actually is. The policy is always that the camera is on when there's public interaction. It's not the case that we only use the camera when when a taser or a firearm is on holster. Correct.
Speaker 2: You stated that. Correct counts, right? Okay.
Speaker 3: The reason I asked that, Madam President, was to address Councilman Himes question about whether you could split the contract up between the cameras and the Tasers. And because of this interaction, I would suggest that that would that would not be a very good thing to do, even if it were possible, because we want that functionality. The cost of the 60 million average is out over the five years to about $3.2 million per year. Laura And I assume that what you're saying is that this is subject to appropriation each year of that annual amount that we're not fronting the entire 16 million next year. Is that correct?
Speaker 1: That is correct, sir.
Speaker 3: Thank you. And just to correct one, one other misstatement that was in the email we got and was repeated here. There was at least one case that I know of personally where an officer was charged criminally with an assault using body camera as evidence. And that case ended in an acquittal. But there was at least that one case that I do know of. Sheriff Diggins, one other thing. One other reason for this expansion is that Senate Bill 217 requires us to equip certain deputies who work in the corrections area to wear body cams. And so we need to acquire more of them. And these are the ones that are now available. Can you tell us how many of your deputies expect you expect to be equipped with this?
Speaker 2: Ken, ultimately, at the conclusion of 2023, we expect that all deputies that have either public interaction or who work in a place where we have people in custody will be outfitted with a body camera. Senate Bill 2217 does call for both of those in subsection D of Section 24th, 31, 92 of that bill. It specifically states that any time there is an anticipated use of force, that a deputy has a body camera. And as you are all aware, that can happen at any time with our staff. So we're looking to be compliant with the provisions of the law by 2023.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Sheriff. Thank you, Madam President. Again, voting down this contract would put us out of compliance with state law. So I urge all my colleagues to vote yes.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Councilwoman CdeBaca, we have you back up.
Speaker 4: Yeah. Thank you, Madam President. And just wanted to clarify that last comment. We already are in compliance with 217. This is upgrading cameras. And so I'm curious for Chief Payson, how many cameras are we do we currently have that we're retiring as we purchase this new technology? And what happens to those old cameras?
Speaker 2: So, Councilman, the cameras that we currently have are entering their service life and they would be returned to the vendor as we get the new cameras.
Speaker 4: And so how many is that? How many are we retiring and how many are we getting online?
Speaker 2: So the again, the requirement is that every officer and again, this is built out in compliance with 217 to get us all of our officers, the body cameras that they need. But let me just go backwards for a second. This is not just using this amount of money to go from the BWC twos to the BWC threes. It is similar to a purchasing a phone. So if you purchase a phone, it doesn't mean that you get to make phone calls or stream video or send text messages. You need that service plan, that data agreement. So much of the cost associated with this is associated to that data agreement. And the upgrade is just part of part and parcel of the contract itself.
Speaker 4: Do you have numbers of how many body cameras you're retiring and how many new ones are coming online?
Speaker 2: We'll get you that number. Councilman.
Speaker 4: Do you have an itemized breakdown of the costs for the cameras, the tasers and the evidence dot com service?
Speaker 2: Again, this is all part of the greater the greater amended contract itself, the data storage, the workflow process here. We do not have that breakdown for you.
Speaker 4: Do they just break down those costs or is that just something you don't have in front of you?
Speaker 2: They don't break down those costs, nor do I have that in front of me. Again, I can't emphasize enough about the data aspect of this that the agreement is about the data access, including the equipment itself.
Speaker 4: And a quick clarification. SB 217 requires broadly that the activation of body cameras in any service call or any interaction with the public happens by 2023. Did you say that we're already complying with that? Or do they only turn on when a weapon is holstered?
Speaker 2: We are currently in full compliance with activating on those and you can take a look at that in our policy manual that talks about when body worn cameras are to be turned on. Section 11910. It talks about the activation we currently do activate. Now, the issue would be if we do not renew this contract, we did not go with the amended contract, we wouldn't have the data. So we have a body worn camera, we'd have the camera itself. But you would not be able to have the video footage of that or access to that video footage. So I can't stress enough that this is more than just going from an old camera to a new camera. This is about that data, the video, the workflow, being able to access that. Know an officer would respond to, say, 20 calls for service. Today, they're being able to access the specific call that was involved in a criminal case or in a complaint. That's where you have to be able to manage that workflow, be able to access that and utilize the evidence that the body worn cameras had captured.
Speaker 4: And how about the tasers? How many are we retiring and replacing, or does this just add and how many does it add?
Speaker 1: Chief. I can answer that one.
Speaker 4: We are currently replacing 1000 Tasers in 2021. Got it. And do we anticipate upgrading any other weapons within the next year?
Speaker 1: There's nothing else in this contract.
Speaker 4: So just this contract, we're just upgrading tasers.
Speaker 1: Within this contract. Yes.
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Flynn, your backup.
Speaker 3: Thank you, ma'am. I just wanted to make it really clear that, yes, we would be out of compliance with 217 without this contract for the points that the chief subsequently mentioned, which is that we would have cameras, but we would not have the ability to use the video, which is, frankly, the more crucial part, having a camera that you can do nothing with, it's pointless. And what we need is the backdrop that action gives us with this contract. And as of now, the contract expired June 30th. So technically we already lack that. But we're we're in a bridge period right now. So, again, I urge people to vote. Yes. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Very good. Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Councilman Hines, we'll be back up, but we're doubling back and we belabor this quite a bit last week. And so hope you've got a quick, quick question here and we can go ahead and vote on this.
Speaker 2: Never mind, Madam President.
Speaker 0: You sure you don't? We got them all here. All right. Very good. Madam Secretary, roll call, please.
Speaker 1: CdeBaca. Now. Clark.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Flynn. I think.
Speaker 2: I. HINES No.
Speaker 1: Cashman.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Can I? Ortega, I. Sandoval. I. Sawyer, I. Torres, I. Black. I. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced.
Speaker 1: Results to raise the Lebanese.
Speaker 0: 11 eyes. Council Resolution 1356 has been adopted. The next item up is Council Resolution 1416. Councilwoman Ortega, would you please put Resolution 1416 on the floor for adoption and remove the Council Resolution 20 1416 be adopted. Thank you.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Amendatory Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Axon Enterprise, Inc., f/k/a Taser International, Inc., to extend the term, increase the maximum contract amount and add additional terms and conditions for body worn cameras, supporting equipment, software, and data storage and Tasers for the Denver Police and Denver Sheriff Departments.
Amends a contract with Axon Enterprise, Inc., formerly known as Taser International, Inc., by adding $15,996,615.10 for a new total of $22,097,650.10 and five years for a new end date of 12-15-25 to purchase body worn cameras, supporting equipment, software, and data storage and Tasers for the Denver Police and Denver Sheriff Departments (202054764). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 12-21-20. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 11-18-20. Pursuant to Council Rule 3.7, Councilmember CdeBaca called out this resolution at the 11-30-20 Council meeting for a one-week postponement to Monday, 12-7-20.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_12072020_20-1416
|
Speaker 0: 11 eyes. Council Resolution 1356 has been adopted. The next item up is Council Resolution 1416. Councilwoman Ortega, would you please put Resolution 1416 on the floor for adoption and remove the Council Resolution 20 1416 be adopted. Thank you. It's been moved and seconded. Questions or comments by members of Council. Councilwoman Sawyer. You're good. All right. I tried to make sure I.
Speaker 4: Got about 15 screens happening here. Give me just 1/2. Let me pull up my next screen. Thanks so much.
Speaker 1: Hang on.
Speaker 0: No worries.
Speaker 4: There we go. Okay. Thanks so much for your patience. I really appreciate that. So I called this out for a vote because I'm going to be a no vote tonight. I spoke to Chief Fulton and David Foster of 858 tonight. And we talked through my reasons, which are mostly just consistency. I'm incredibly grateful for all that our firefighters do and the relationship that we have with them. And I don't mean to belittle or demean that in any way. And I want to thank every single one of the brave individuals that our fire department in our fire department for putting their lives on the line for our community. However, just like the Police Protective Union contract, this ammo you includes raises. And given the city's financial status, I just can't support that. While I recognize that this is a different circumstance because Local 858 was already owed raises under the terms of their contract, I'm just not comfortable giving one set of employees raises while others see pay cuts during an unprecedented financial and public health crisis. Council staff and Denver's career service employees were furloughed this year, and they'll be furloughed again next year. And let's be honest, a furlough is a pay cut. All members of this council, except one give back, are raises and salaries for those furlough days in solidarity with our coworkers. And I will commit to doing that again next year. But no raises means no raises. And so in the interest of fairness and on principle and consistency, I cannot support this MRU. Just like I did not support the pay contract. So I'm going to be a no vote tonight on this and I just wanted to go on record as saying that. Thanks so much, Madam President.
Speaker 1: All right.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Sawyer. Councilman Herndon.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. In just I will be in support of this, and I'm going to remind my colleagues that this is a different set of circumstances than with the pay of the sheriff's, because Local eight five did not have to come forward to renegotiate. But recognizing the fiscal challenges that they that the city is in, they wanted to be a partner in and recognizing that they wanted to as well make some sacrifices. And so I applaud them for doing that. If we vote this down, then their current contract will remain in effect and the current contract will give them a salary increase next year. And we will lose the savings that we're going to get with this contract if we approve it tonight. So once again, thank those eight, five eight for coming forward. And I certainly hope my colleagues to support this today, as I will. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Herndon. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 1: Sawyer? No. Torres. I. Black I. CdeBaca. I, Clark.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Flynn.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Herndon.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Hines.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Cashman. I can each. I. Ortega.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Sandoval. I. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 1: One name. 12 eyes.
Speaker 0: 12 eyes. Council Resolution 1416 has been adopted. The next item up is Council Bill 1364. Councilwoman Torres, please go ahead with your questions on Council Bill 1364.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much, Madam President. Perhaps Lauren Harvey is in the queue. Yes. Hi, Loren. So I just wanted to go through a couple of the questions. I was able to email you these earlier so you get a sense of what they were going to be. But because we didn't get to see this come through committee, because it was over the holiday week, I just I had questions about what's been spent so far in terms of rental and eviction assistance and how DHS is distributing this money. And additionally, what does DHS consider to be eviction assistance?
Speaker 4: Thank you so much, Councilman Torres, and I do appreciate you sharing some of your questions ahead of time. So pertaining to our general assistance program. Within that bucket, the amount of funding that has been spent on the evictions and rental assistance through October of 2020 is $625,131. And we did see a sharp uptick, especially in September and October, which we believe has to do with some COVID related issues. And we anticipate that continuing through November and December, which is why we wanted to request the supplemental to get out as much assistance as possible to folks. We also we do have that broken out into a few different specific assistance under that. But to your question, the way that it's paid out is through direct payments to the landlord in those cases when it's a rental or eviction assistance for a rental. And can you remind me of what your last question was? Sorry about that.
Speaker 1: Right. How DHS is distributing both the rental and eviction assistance. So kind of the procedural process that you all go through.
Speaker 4: Sure. So by ordinance, this is meant to be shorter term assistance. So basically we take applications and we look at it through some of our qualifications. So the income qualifications as well as if it's something where the person would be requesting assistance on a short term basis. So the duration by ordinance is for no longer than 90 days of assistance. So it's really a short term assistance for that person. And we also look at if they have, they also have to like show us that they don't have other means of paying for whatever the need is. And if for some reason they are not necessarily qualifying for this particular assistance. We do work closely with partners and other agencies. We work closely with TrueCar to try to connect folks to where they might be able to get further assistance. And is that answering your question about how we get this out?
Speaker 1: It is. It is. And I guess I'm just I just want to make sure I'm understanding is are the recipients of the funding already signed up for benefits through Denver Human Services or new people walking in the door explicitly for this funding? Just trying to distinguish this portal from that through a portal.
Speaker 4: I'm sure. So I could ask for that data. I don't know if we. To be honest, I don't know if we ask when somebody applies, if they are receiving other benefits. However, I'm not aware that we disqualify somebody for this assistance just because they might be receiving other benefits. But I can just double check with our folks, if that's a question we ask if they're receiving other benefits. But I'm I'm not I'm not aware that that disqualifies somebody.
Speaker 1: At this juncture for this assistance. Okay. Thank you, Lauren. Appreciate it. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman Torres. That concludes the items to be called out. All bills for introduction are ordered published. Council members remember this is a consent or block vote and you will need to vote. Otherwise, this is your last chance to call out an item for a separate vote.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Memorandum of Understanding amending the 2019-2021 Collective Bargaining Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Denver Fire Fighters - Local 858, IAFF, AFL-CIO, to defer salary increases, suspend the City’s contribution to Post Employment Health Plan, and suspend pay for selected holidays and uniform allowance in 2021.
Amends the collective bargaining agreement with Denver Firefighters Local 858 to defer salary increases, suspend the City's contribution to Post Employment Health Plan, suspend selected holidays, birthdays and uniform allowance. The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 12-21-20. This resolution was approved by the Committee on 12-2-20.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_12072020_20-0285
|
Speaker 0: In the council, their names and cities of residents, and if they feel comfortable doing so, their home addresses when called upon. Please wait until our meeting. Host promotes you to speaker. When you are promoted, your screen will flash and say Reconnecting to meeting. Please 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 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 yield in 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. Councilwoman Ortega, will you please put Council Bill 285 on the floor for passage? And we might need you to unmute, Councilwoman. Okay. Sorry. So we're ready to move.
Speaker 1: 25 to 85.
Speaker 0: Mm hmm. So, Madam President, I move that council bill 285 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. Thank you. It has been moved again. Thank you for the second. The required public hearing for Council Bill 20 0285 is open. May we please have the staff report?
Speaker 2: Hi. Good evening. Members of Council Jason Morrison, senior city planner with Community Planning and Development. First rezoning in front of you this evening is at 22, 24, 26 and 28 South Garfield Street. The request is from an old code PDP 472 RH three, which is within the Denver zoning code. That's General Urban narrow house district of up to three stories. Rezoning is in council districts ten. It's within the Cherry Creek neighborhood. And the subject site is on South Garfield Street between East Ellsworth Avenue and Bayard Avenue. The subject site consists of a four unit pad, which was adopted in 1999. The property owners at 28 South Garfield Street, which is one of the four units desires to construct a horizontal addition to the rear of their property, which is not allowed under the current PWD for 70, but would be allowed under the grade three zone district. The proposed rezoning two grades three is consistent with the Zone District purpose, and you'll find that it is also an extension of the surrounding context as well as the existing grade three zone districts. As I mentioned, the current zoning is a former Chapter 59 PWD. It's adjacent to grade three to the north and east and adjacent to multiple pads to the west and to the south. 5470 allows for four adjoining units with two car garages within the maximum building coverage can't exceed 60%. And there is a height limitation of two stories and 36 feet maximum height. The subject property is within the Cranmer Park View plane. Therefore the subject site has a height maximum of 131 feet maximum. However, the proposed zone district of the RH three has a lower height, maximum of 35 feet. The site is currently occupied by multi-use residential surrounding uses, including multi-unit residential, two unit residential and single unit residential. This is an image of a bird's eye view of the subject property. And we're looking east. And these four images represent some of the multi-unit two unit and single unit residential adjacent and nearby the subject site. The Map Amendment application was unanimously recommended for approval by Planning Board and moved forward by committee. The property has been properly posted and since the staff report was published, we received one comment in opposition concerning over construction in the neighborhood. As you know, there are five of you criteria when analyzing the appropriateness of a request. And we'll start with consistency with adopt plans. In addition to Plan 2040 and Blueprint Denver, there is one neighborhood plan and that is the Cherry Creek Area plan. But first, we'll take a look at comprehensive plan 2040. The proposed MAP amendment is consistent with several strategies from Plan 2040 listed here and detailed in the staff report. Specifically, the request is consistent with strategies under the equity vision element because it will enable development of housing units close to transit and mixed use developments. It will also create a greater mix of housing options in every neighborhood. The request is also consistent with strategies under the environmentally resilient vision element for several reasons. The site is at an infill location where infrastructure is already in place, and it will encourage the creation of a mixed use community where residents can live, work and play in the Cherry Creek neighborhood. The requested rezoning is shown on the context map within Blueprint Denver as General Urban. The requested grade three zone district is consistent with the future context that is mapped in this area. The future place of this area is mapped as low, medium residential, which is generally a mix of low to mid scale multi-unit residential options where building heights are generally up to three stories in height. South Garfield and East Ellsworth Avenue are on designated local streets. Bayard Street is to the south is a residential collector. With the allowance of building forms of up to three stories. The requested grace three zone district is consistent with the future place mapped in this area. This request is also consistent with the blueprint growth strategy, which maps this area as all other areas of the city. These areas are anticipated to see 20% of new housing growth and 10% of new employment growth by 2040. Finally, when thinking Big Picture Blueprint Blueprint Denver recommends rezoning properties from the former Chapter 59 zoning code, as well as custom zoning to the Denver Zoning Code, which is proposed with this application. I'm looking at the Cherry Creek Area Plan. General recommendations from the plan include creating a connected, distinctive and green and prosperous neighborhood. The subject site is located in the Cherry Creek East Sub area, which is characterized as moderate density residential. Furthermore, the subject site falls within the urban residential land use category, which is defined as containing a variety of housing types, including low and mid-rise multifamily. And the subject site also falls within the three storey maximum building height category. Jerry. Its three is consistent with the general recommendations and sub area recommendations of the Cherry Creek Area plan. 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, providing additional housing units that are compatible with the neighborhood. The adoption of the Denver zoning code in 2010 and the retention of a former Chapter 59 zone district on the subject. Property, including custom zoning, is an appropriate justifying circumstance for this proposed rezoning. The requested grades three zone district with the neighborhood is consistent with the neighborhood context description, zone district, purpose and intent. And based on those findings, CPD recommends approval, but because all review criteria have been met. Thank you very much, President Gilmore.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Jason, for the staff report. Council has not received any written comments on Council Bill 285 and we have three individuals signed up to speak this evening. And our first speaker is Jessie Parris.
Speaker 2: Yes. Members of council cannot be heard. My name is Justin Harris and I'm representing for Denver Homicide. While Black Stocks a movement for self defense as the best in command for social change as well as the party of Colorado and Mile High News and I will be the next mayor of Denver in 2023. I am in favor of this rezoning tonight. It meets all the criteria. So there's nothing I can say that's going to change your mind on this. Um. I just hope the person complains about the construction. Isn't too upset about this. Know. So I'm in favor of this. I know it should be approved tonight. It's. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Jesse. Next up, we have Cathy Doherty. And you might have to unmute, Tess.
Speaker 2: I think that testimony got mixed up. Is this? This is David.
Speaker 0: Okay, David, I've got you on the list as well, so you got to know.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Okay. So I put at four. I just really wanted to say that it's important that we how our words are used to to to create zoning, just as it's important how our words are used when talking about our homeless population. Right now we are currently moving these people and every time they get moved, someone dies. If you know someone's going to die by the actions you take and they do die, you are a murderer. Michael Hancock is a murderer and he needs to be taken out of office. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Next up, we have Tess Dougherty.
Speaker 4: Hi. Sorry about that mixed up. I don't know how that happened. So I. So in the plan, in the staff review, you had said that this would bring greater use of housing availability. And I'm just curious if we're if we're prioritizing that here, how we've so egregiously not been prioritizing that in other parts of the city. And then it also the Prairie Cherry Creek Area plan that it creates a connected and prosperous neighborhood. And I know that right now Denver is not feeling like we're connected or prosperous when it comes to our unhoused neighbors. So I'm again curious how this we're placing priority on this and not our unhoused neighbors. You also noted that additional housing units that are compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods and custom zoning. So we are custom zoning here, but we're not doing the same for our unhoused neighbors. And I'm just I just I really am at a loss for how we. Where our priorities are lying if someone. Feels like they could comment on that at all. That would be great. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. That concludes our speakers for this first public hearing. Questions from members of Council on Council Bill 285. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. Jason, just so I'm clear on as I read through the staff report, essentially the owner of one of the four units in this building, which is has four separate units in one building, is in a period that was approved a couple decades ago and wants to expand, but cannot because of the some specific restrictions in the pad. And is this zone district that we've chosen here, is this a comparable in the 2010 code? Would this be considered comparable to the layout or the restrictions that originally were in the PD?
Speaker 2: Great. Thank you, Councilman Flynn, for your questions. To answer your first question. QUESTION You're absolutely right. I'm one of the owners within the foreign unit. PD would like to have an expansion on the rear of their units. And so there is a restriction within that study. And so with the Denver zoning code, they would be allowed to have that expansion into the rear of their property. In terms of a comparable zoned district, is this is absolutely comparable when you look at the height and storeys as well as the height and feet, as well as the primary building forms that are allowed within the city and then also within the Denver zoning code. So it is a very comparable solution. When working with this resident to get out of the former Chapter 59 zoning code.
Speaker 3: All right. Thank you, Jason. That's that's what I want to be clear on it. We're not creating a new set of entitlements here. We're just allowing some flexibility that A doesn't allow, but with a zone classification from the 2010 code that most fits what had been developed there. Is that correct?
Speaker 2: That is correct. And also, if you do look at the surrounding zoning, those properties that are within the immediate vicinity that have come out of the former Type 59 zoning code, they are overwhelmingly grades three. So it is very consistent with what we're seeing in the pattern in the neighborhood as well.
Speaker 3: All right. Thank you, Madam President. That's all I have.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. The public hearing for Council Bill 20 dash 0285 is closed. Councilman Hines.
Speaker 2: Madam President, I'm here for comments. You ready?
Speaker 0: Yep. I am ready.
Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you, Madam President. I am colleagues. This is in my council district. I want to. I want to urge your support of this of this rezoning. I want to read some just some quick comments from the chair accused the registered neighborhood organization that is over this area. I know that there was there was some action on Twitter and we got some emails opposing the rezoning. So I think it's important for us to take to voice to the comments and support from the the R.A. that that oversaw this process. So the Church Trade Association Board supports the rezoning for these reasons. One, he obtained signatures from all corners in the the the feud indicating their acceptance of the zone two. He had obtained agreement from other neighborhood neighbors on his side of the block. Three The rezoning did not require a height change or other change that his neighbors might have deemed problematic, as Mr. Morrison and CPD validated just a moment ago, for Deborah is trying to convert a few days to RH three and in this case RH three, so that the change is consistent with city planning. The one of the principal city planners in Orange was kept informed and five the posting for the rezoning was visible for months. No objections have been made to Cherry Creek East Association during that time, to the best of my knowledge. And and so I recognize that there are some concerns about housing affordability. It really just doesn't apply. First of all, it doesn't apply because it doesn't fit any of the criteria. But second, this this one owner just happens to want to add space to the back of his unit. And so that's really the extent of this rezoning. And and so, colleagues, I hope that I hope that I have I hope that this rezoning has your support. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Hines. And seeing that all of the criteria have been met for this rezoning, I'm happy to support it as well and would ask our colleagues to do so. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 1: Hindsight. Cashman. I can each. I. Ortega, I. Sandoval. I. Sawyer, I. Torres, I. Black. I see the. I. Clark.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Flynn.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Herndon.
Speaker 2: Hi.
Speaker 1: Madam President. I.
Speaker 0: Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. 13 Eyes. 13 Eyes Council Bill 20 Dash 0285 has passed. Councilwoman Ortega, will you please place Council Bill 1133 on the floor for final passage? Excuse me, Madam President, I move that council bill 20 1133 be placed on final consideration and do pass.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 22, 24, 26 and 28 South Garfield Street in Cherry Creek.
Approves an official map amendment to rezone property from PUD 470 to G-RH-3 (planned development to row house) located at 22, 24, 26 and 28 South Garfield Street in Council District 10. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 6-2-20.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11302020_20-1356
|
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. I have a few outstanding questions and a couple that will reiterate from the safety committee. Is there anybody on the call who can answer questions on this contract?
Speaker 0: Mm hmm. We have, I believe, Laura Walker and Chief Payton.
Speaker 2: Got it. We did some digging after safety committee and are concerned about the use of the body cameras and when they will be turning on. And I'm wondering when there will be opportunity, if this is passed tonight for the public and for city council members to weigh in on how the new equipment is utilized and recorded and made available.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you for that question. We'll go ahead and let either Laura or Chief Payson chime in.
Speaker 1: Councilwoman, thanks for the question. There's a policy that was done with community input on release of body cam footage so the upgraded cameras would follow the same policy.
Speaker 2: Will you be reopening that policy after this summer's events?
Speaker 1: We continuously look at policies and procedures for improvement, and we would do that with all policies that dictate performance of officers. What?
Speaker 2: Can you make a commitment that you will be responsive to? The report out from the Independent Monitor's office in a couple of weeks regarding body cameras and the policies surrounding the Tasers.
Speaker 1: So I'm sure if tasers are addressed in the monitors report. But we are looking forward to that report we have signed as well as the executive director of Public Safety requesting this. We consider ourselves a learning organization and we look forward to what the monitors report has and what we can improve upon.
Speaker 2: Great Segway research doesn't really show us that body cams curtail violence and they don't really change officer behavior. And so I'm wondering how DPD is planning to use the body cam footage to identify ingrained police behavior and where training has failed?
Speaker 1: Well, the purpose of the body cam is about accountability. You can identify the officers performance. Overwhelmingly, the body cam footage not only in Denver but across the country has led to meaningful change, has led to meaningful correcting behavior, as well as holding individuals accountable for their own actions. And that's what we would expect to see moving forward.
Speaker 2: And Denver doesn't have a good policy, a uniform policy that lets the public know when video footage will be available or released. And so now I'm wondering when we, as the public and members of council can expect such a policy to be crafted by DPD rather than going with a case by case basis decision making that we've been going with.
Speaker 1: So again, you know, this original policy was crafted with input from the community. There's also additional layers with SB 217 that we are in compliance with and will be in compliance with in the future. We're talking about this camera compared to the last camera. We believe that the policies that are in effect give that level of transparency, particularly with the Office of Independent Monitor, who has access and reviews, body would body worn camera footage on a regular basis.
Speaker 2: And the transparency is a huge gap that we have here in Denver. And I'm wondering, when you became chief, we were expecting a report detailing when an officer points a firearm at someone. And I imagine that this is data that's captured on the excessive amount of body cam footage that we must have stored somewhere. But no report has been released. And so I'm wondering when the public can expect that data and that report.
Speaker 1: Great question. And actually a great segway into how we have worked with our community. Pointing a firearm and documenting that as part of comprehensive reporting is how we worked with the Use of Force Committee on or in June of 2020. We amended our policy and have begun collecting that data as we announced at that time frame. And just like we do with all use of force data, again, part of that that use of force, a committee of diverse community members from all across our city helped us craft. We report out on that on or before February 1st of the following year. So all of that data, just like you can go back and look at 2019 data or 2018 data, it is prominently posted. And that was a suggestion from the use of force committee from a committee member that we have followed through with. And I do want to point out that and give credit to our community, because the use of force policy done in conjunction with our community is as strong and as progressive as any in the nation, and it is fully complies with the eight Can't Wait, which includes what you're asking for in the comprehensive reporting.
Speaker 2: We're definitely past eight. Can't wait as a general public where we're eight to the abolition now. But I am curious about two things. Where in the escalation of force do tasers fit with respect to pepper balls and the tear gas?
Speaker 1: So again, that policy is online, it's open.
Speaker 2: You describe it.
Speaker 1: Is. As far as the use of force policy that is available online, that was designed in conjunction with our community, talks about usage with defensive resistance, active aggression and aggravated active aggression for each.
Speaker 2: Do we use Tasers first or do we use pepper balls and tear gas first?
Speaker 1: There is not a used one before another. Our goal in all of this and is clearly stated in the policy manual, not only in the use of force section, but throughout is the goal is verbal de-escalation is to get voluntary compliance before having to use any type of force. The less force used is good for everybody. Would love to get to a position where no force is used. That's good for our community and it's good for our officers.
Speaker 2: Does every officer read that policy manual?
Speaker 1: Yes. And we have a a system, an electronic system that requires signoff upon completion.
Speaker 2: How many pages is it?
Speaker 1: The use of force policy manual?
Speaker 2: Yep.
Speaker 1: I don't have the exact number of pages.
Speaker 2: So when I download it, it's over 800 pages. And when I've asked different officers about different sections in that policy manual, it doesn't seem. Like it is something that every officer reads from cover to cover. And so beyond the sign off that they've read it, what other kind of quiz or testing is involved to make sure that they've read it and know the content within it?
Speaker 1: So there is the academy that has tests, both quizzes and major tests that are associated with the policy manual. There are all updates are pushed out electronically to indicate adherence and knowledge of the particular policy. Any time something has changed, for example, the changes that were made with regards to your initial question on comprehensive reporting that goes out and each officer or supervisor is required to then read that and then sign off acknowledging that they know and understand the changes.
Speaker 2: I'm very concerned with just the signoff and not the the content knowledge. That seems to be the priority. I'm wondering also if this contract has any kind of clause in it that does not allow this company to. Transfer over data if it is purchased by another company.
Speaker 1: How we monitor and protect people's data. We do not allow in our contracts for folks to just to sell data to a third party.
Speaker 2: That's not exactly what I'm talking about. Say, for example, we collect all of this data. We have a full database of body cam footage, and then one day Palantir buys Axn. They buy the the data service. They buy all of the footage. Even though it belongs to us, they have access to it. I didn't see anything in our contract that would trigger. A renegotiation of the contract if the company is purchased or a termination of the contract.
Speaker 1: That would be a city attorney question.
Speaker 2: Is there a city attorney on the line to speak to that?
Speaker 1: And so, I mean, this is Steve Horn with the Denver City Attorney's Office. And my recollection of reading the contract is, of course, as you mentioned, the data belongs to the city. And as with all of our contracts, we can terminate at any point in time. The language is clear that it belongs, that the data belongs to the city. And so what I think you're describing is a scenario where if Axon were to be acquired by another company in that company attempted to access the city's data, that would be a breach on their part.
Speaker 2: And we have a commitment from the city not to collaborate and share data with entities like ICE. Correct.
Speaker 1: I believe that we have an ordinance not to provide certain information concerning citizens in the city. And so I'm not sure if if you're where that intersects with this contract.
Speaker 2: I want certain verification that this contract, this footage is protected under that ordinance and will not be shared with any outside entities.
Speaker 1: Councilwoman. That's something I'd need to come back with.
Speaker 2: Is it? Thank you. Council President. Is it possible to delay this until we have an answer on that?
Speaker 0: We could most likely delay it to a date certain, if you'd. I know Councilman Hines had his hand up as well. If you'd allow us to get a couple questions, more questions up into the queue, and then we can get back to you as to next steps.
Speaker 2: Awesome. Sounds good. That's it for my questions. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: All right. Very good. Thank you, Councilman Hines.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. And thank you, Chief and Sheriff, both for for being here tonight and for doing what is clearly a difficult job in any situation, even more difficult in 2020. So. Hats off to you. I would not want to have your job. So thank you for for being willing to do it. I have received conflicting reports about how tasers are safe. They don't reduce violence on underserved communities like our bipoc neighbors. But there are also a. I get information from constituents that say the data shows that kids, which do not do any of the things that are purported to do, like prevent use of firearms by police or de-escalate police interactions. And so this particular email asks me to tell you to look at data. This particular one also didn't provide any any references to data. So I can't, you know, cite any particular source. But I wonder if if you have any knowledge of data in the police department of how tasers are used, how they reduce violence on underserved communities. I know that's kind of a softball question, but. But here we are. And I got the email today so I wasn't able to provide this to you in advance. So I can tell you that, you know, there have been hundreds of studies on the safety and effectiveness of tasers that has been to you referencing a constituent that reached out to you, saying that their knowledge of of a particular study counters that without seeing in that report, seeing if at source and if it's peer reviewed, it would be impossible for me to answer that particular question. What I can say is we have documented incidences where Taber Tasers have helped in very dangerous and violent situations of armed individuals that have been able to safely been addressed. And, you know, speaking a body cams, there's a city in Wisconsin that delayed the purchase of body cams and regrets that decision and now is expediting, getting those purchased. There's a city in Pennsylvania, a major city that made the same decision with regards to tasers and unfortunately in the very near time have dealt with a subsequent tragedy as well. So it's important that we have safe tools, that we have strong policy, and that we provide training around that policy to ensure adherence to this. You know, I'd have to point to the hundreds of studies, including independent academic, institutional studies, that point to the safety and effectiveness of that. And you'd have to look at that data or those resources to make an informed decision based on what you read. So. Thank you, Chief. Do you do you have data in the city of Denver? You know, specifically as opposed to studies elsewhere? The city of Denver. Do we have data that shows that there there has been a reduction in lethal force because we have used Tasers in a less than lethal situation. So this is this is not part of the use of force report. And this is an area that we seek to improve upon in the future. We don't have a checkbox. And Taser was used to save a life or in a in a lethal force encounter. We do know based on accommodations or situations where we have been able to help an individual that had a knife and is threatening family members where you're able to utilize less lethal tools in order to save individual lives. And again, the goal here is that you have the appropriate tools, the appropriate policy and the appropriate training around it. Thank you, Chief. The and you mentioned that we don't currently have a policy about tasers. I think you have mentioned that our policy document is a living document. It was most recently changed, I think, in perhaps response to some of the protests and speeches 17 that this the new body cameras automatically are automatically triggered when a firearm is on holstered or a taser in a holster. Is that correct? That is correct. That's an available feature that we think is important. With the upgrade in technology. So to that end, that we have this upgraded technology for the body cameras and cameras and supported equipment and software, etc., that would allow police department to more quickly update its document so that as soon as there is a report of a firearm being holstered or a taser being holstered, that could that could immediately trigger some other process. And we have hard data that shows exactly when each of that each of those events happened. Is that is that a fair statement? I yes. Let me just give additional context. So we currently require that report, and now this dataset would be used to cross-reference the reporting of it. So if you know, we had. 36 Taser deployments in 2020. You would then be able to cross-reference the use of force reports that 12 F to say officers completed 36 reports, and then you would have this data to say 36 times. A taser was removed from a holster. And if it turns out one says 36 and one says 35, we can point to just do a quick cross-reference. And we see that the officer that that hasn't submitted their report, correct? That is correct. We would initiate an investigation, an internal investigation that is then shared with the Office of Independent Monitor or Review. And then I also want to just go backwards for a second. You said something to the effect of we don't currently have a policy for Tasers. It may have just been a slip. We have a very strong policy for Tasers. It's part of the use of force policy, the very strong and progressive use of force policy that was done in conjunction with with input from various community members and community groups. So we could say we have one of, if not the strongest, most progressive use of force policy in the country. Over the next 12 to 17 days, does S.B. 217 change our data retention and release policy regarding body cameras? In some aspects with regards to, you know, the highest levels of use of force. It mandates that that that the DA's office that that those types of situations are released much sooner. And so does does it require body camera footage to be automatically released after a certain period of time, like, I think two weeks, 14 days and but like that of mine, my misremembering. For certain circumstances. Yes. In. Okay. Are. Okay. I think that's that's fair. Fair for now. I would agree with Councilmember Hastert about his concerns. I mean, this is the public's information and are that the public purchased the body cameras. And so I think there could be a case to be made to have all body camera information available upon request. But we're not talking about that to do so. So thank you for that. Your your response is the last thing that I would say is a mr. Horn over the city attorney's office mentioned that we have we have we published something regarding. Or rather, we we have a policy regarding publishing information regarding citizens in the city. I think, as members said about his point, was specifically about non-citizens. And so we want to make sure. I do want to ask the question, because you use the phrase citizen and I catch myself often using citizen. So, Mr. Holland, we have a policy regarding releasing information about anyone in this city, citizen or not. Is that is that right? We have a in reference to the immigration ordinance to answer Councilwoman Dukakis question. The city is precluded from use. Any officer employee is precluded from using any city city resources for federal immigration enforcement. In terms of body cameras, the question concerning citizens there is the press sometimes will request. Images or records because they are records under Cora. So it's my understanding that. They could be released under a court request. For citizens or for anyone. For. For the images in general as a record could be released. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Hines.
Speaker 1: Councilman Herndon thinking I'm president, just in the spirit of making sure everyone know their roles and responsibility. I just wanted to remind this council that this is a one reading resolution and any council member can delay a resolution for one week without a vote. And if any council member wants to do that, they have that option. Just reminding folks of what our responsibilities are. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Very good. Thank you, Councilman Herndon. We are back up, Councilman CdeBaca. To Councilman Herndon's point. You are more than welcome to delay this for one week by invoking Council Rule 3.7. In order to accomplish that, we would just need to ask the folks who made the motion and second, to withdraw that. If that's your intent.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. I would love to delay for a week.
Speaker 1: Drawing its name.
Speaker 0: There's no motion or second necessary.
Speaker 2: Point of order. This rule change does not require withdrawal of the motion. It is under the rule. You just cite the rule. And so I just I think that this this additional step has never before been required and I don't believe is necessary. Sorry for the interruption in order.
Speaker 0: No worries. I appreciate that we have a motion and a second that put it on the floor for adoption. And so we would just ask that those be withdrawn because it's not on the floor right at this point, that that's the advice I'm getting from our council secretary right now. And so and then we can allow Councilwoman Sade Abarca to invoke 3.7 on withdrawal.
Speaker 1: Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Hines.
Speaker 1: Withdraw my ticket.
Speaker 2: Very good. Again, you can't invoke the rule for a bill that's not on the floor. I think this is with all due.
Speaker 0: We had moved and put it on the floor. Councilman Flynn had moved that council resolution 20 dash 1356 be adopted.
Speaker 2: Yes. And it has to be on the floor for the rule to then take effect. If we withdraw the motions, it becomes part of the consent agenda again and the rule can't be invoked. So I think the motions were proper. Sorry, I know this is.
Speaker 0: I think accomplishing we're accomplishing the same intent. And that was the direction that I had been given. Either way, we have that motion pulled back and we have a vote. 3.7 will double check on that, but there's no motion or second to invoke that. And so I'm getting the thumbs up from everybody on that. And so if we're all right, we'll go ahead and move on to the next item on the agenda council. Woman Say to Barca, you still have your hand up. Was there an additional question that you had or comment?
Speaker 2: No, ma'am. Just waiting in queue. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Okay. Very good. Very good. The next item up is Council Bill 1320. Councilmember CdeBaca, please go ahead with your questions on Council Bill 1320.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. And I actually got my questions answered on this one, so I don't have any questions on this one.
Speaker 0: All right. Very good. The next item up is Council Bill 1390. Council member State Abarca. Go ahead with your questions on Bill 1390, please.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. I am curious about a couple of pieces that are in this change and that were presented to us. There is a piece that allows the executive director of Human Services the ability to adopt rules and guidelines for this tax. And I wanted to know what is the plan to engage the public, either on the front end or after the rules are changed so that we're aware of what happens under this new power? Good evening. Thank you so much for the question, Councilman CdeBaca. My name is Krystal Porter. I am the program manager for the Ideas Program at DHS, which brought forth these ordinance revisions. And so I'm happy to answer your question about that. Our plan is to engage stakeholders prior to pursuing any rules and to follow the public rulemaking process that's outlined in the ordinance in the DRC. So we would plan to have some kind of stakeholder meetings that we've already had some thoughts and conversations that have been put forward to us from community members and stakeholders as part of some of the advisory groups that our our program engages. And we are looking forward to continuing those conversations. We didn't want to run before we had the ability to do so. So we haven't fully mapped out what that engagement process will look like. But we do plan for there to be several opportunities for people to weigh in. Thank you, Ms.. Porter. And if there's a stakeholder group or a committee set up, can you make sure that our officers get notice of that so that we can have somebody present? I'm also curious about a piece of the PowerPoint that had mentioned a community housing report, and I'm wondering what exists already to tell us a little bit about how our dollars are spent on housing under ideas. So under ideas, we have not pursued a lot of housing initiatives to date. We've worked through our advisory council at DHS to learn from them. What they wanted to see with that initial recommendation from a community needs assessment completed in 2018, what we have done is already invested dollars in housing stabilization efforts ramped that up quite a bit this year in response to COVID 19. So we're already in that space in different ways, but now we want to look at some opportunities to really change the landscape for housing. Opportunity for people with A.D.D. in this housing report will give us a level of detail specific to Denver that we don't have at this point. That'll be awesome. Can you tell me a little bit about classification? And if you require individuals to already have their I.D. classification when they come to you for services, or do you guys do any eligibility or classification services themselves? That is a great question. So the the what the classification or what we call eligibility determinations done through the community center board serving Denver. It's part of the state program administering funds for Medicaid waivers and and supports for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. And so they often go through that process. What our ordinance does allow is it creates space for people that have an intellectual developmental disability but may not have been identified, or it may have at some point left the system and may have themselves experienced homelessness or been shuffled around and want to return back. So we do have the ability, if people have not received that designation before and need to be evaluated, our funds are still able to provide some resources and support to them as they pursue that eligibility. And do we do any of the outreach for that classification service in shelters or the jails? That would be a question that I could take back to the community center board partner that we work with, Rocky Mountain Human Services. I know they do some pretty extensive outreach. We also are looking for opportunities to do presentations and meet with different partners to learn how we can better educate people that are accessing these services from different points. And so if you have some ideas, we would love to meet with you further on that and we can certainly circle back with you on information about what's already happening through our partner with Rocky Mountain Human Services. Absolutely. I've done federal compliance for people with disabilities and find that a lot of people don't actually get the right classification or don't have a classification at all, especially in our jails and shelters, and want to make sure that that is one of the indirect costs that could be included. I'm also wondering if legal services for individuals with ADR are included in the indirect costs that this now allows us more flexibility to spend on. Um, Councilwoman CdeBaca, could you clarify which part? When you're discussing indirect costs, you're talking about indirect costs for our service providers through their contracts with us. Yes. Okay. Thank you. So. So, actually, the kind of services that you're describing would still be considered a direct service. So if we were providing legal services and sports for people with intellectual developmental disabilities, we would engage that service directly. It's a it's a direct labor cost. So the indirect costs that that cap refers to are meant to capture other costs that are necessary to running a business and having good infrastructure to actually deliver those direct programs. And so with your also, since you did clarify that, it's primarily about administrative and overhead costs. I'm wondering if you guys have a gold standard for the percentage split in the nonprofit world that they try to keep overhead to 5% or less. And so I'm wondering if we have set any thresholds or gold standards for us. That's a really great question. I would love to refer you to a memo that Denver Human Services worked on in response to questions kind of of a similar nature from Councilman Flynn at our November 18th safety housing presentation. I can speak briefly to it, though. What they're finding and really what actually the standard recommendation is moving forward is that and how the federal government actually does this with their agreements is to work with partners to understand their costs and to classify those costs so that no, they can actually take a realistic look at what's needed to be able to have a good impact and a good outcome for the people that are on the receiving end of that service. And in fact, there is the possibility that the the rate that you're describing is actually a rate that is insufficient to support the operating needs of an organization, particularly for organizations that are smaller and can't spread that that indirect cost around to various funding sources or projects. Awesome. How will the public get information about that? Because I'm less worried about the small organizations doing a million different things. I'm more concerned about our big boys on campus who, you know, have. Six figure salaries for their executives and the workers are getting $30,000 a year. I don't want to I don't want the city to be paying for those executive salaries. Now, that is a really great question. I mean, currently, the way that we've we've engaged that thus far is twofold. Certainly, people can see the contracts that we execute and can request those from the clerk in recorder's office. And so they have access to the various rates that we've negotiated with our partners. I mean, additionally, we do a lot of our reporting out on how our programs and services are operating through our advisory council based on questions that they've asked and information that they're interested in receiving. For our biggest player, in particular, the Rocky Mountain Human Services contract. They also come and do an annual report to City Council on the services provided and talk about the various aspects of those services and programs. And so I think we have multiple areas where there is the ability for light to be shed on those activities. But if you have some other ideas on how we can be as transparent as possible, that is absolutely our goal with this program and we look forward to hearing that from you. Awesome. And do we collect audited financials from our partners prior to releasing dollars to them either through grants or contracts? That is a great question. I would have to defer to Lori Noble, who is our financial services director, and she's on the call to kind of talk about our general practice with that. Thank you. And that's my last question. So when she answers that, that's it for me, Madam President.
Speaker 0: All right. Great. Thank you, Councilwoman. Go ahead, Lori.
Speaker 2: Hello. Thank you so much, Councilwoman, for your question. Yes, we actually do, as part of our risk assessment, understand what kinds of areas need to be looked at. And part of that risk assessment that is performed by our internal audit function and group is to look at any kind of audit reports that have come out for Rocky Mountain and other contractors. Awesome. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: All right. Great. Thank you. Next up, we have Councilman Hines.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. I guess I'm going to. I think, Ms.. Porter, maybe you could answer this. How is the how is the contract with Rocky Mountain Human Services going? I think they took over on July 1st, right when they the fiscal year rolled over to the new fiscal year. All right.
Speaker 2: So, Councilman Hines, I think you're referring to the state contract for single entry point services for Medicaid waivers that are for that that can be accessed by people with ID, but are actually covering a wide span of other areas of service, including mental, mental health, mental illness, things like that. So talking about Human Services has, I believe, for over 25 years been serving Denver as the community centered boarding has been over the the Medicaid waivers that are specific for people with intellectual developmental disabilities. But to answer your question, from what I what I've seen and heard so far, I think it's going well.
Speaker 1: For the Heidi, 25 year history.
Speaker 2: Sorry. I know I was referring to your question about the recent transition. We do still follow kind of the general updates and activities about that, especially because there are a lot of people with ADT that may have opted to receive services through this other waiver, other waivers that are available to them. And so that transition has gone, I think, pretty well, pretty smoothly so far. And we look forward to hearing more from Rocky Mountain human sources about that.
Speaker 1: I would be happy to provide feedback about that too. I am on the sci fi through my flight, but that's not a waiver and thank you for pointing it out that that is not part of what we're discussing tonight. So, Madam President, thank you. I'm done.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Hines. Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 2: Get a muted here. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 3: So I wanted to ask Christo. You're the DHS point person. Right.
Speaker 2: So we do in a three year contract.
Speaker 3: Just out.
Speaker 0: Of curiosity.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think that's a really great question. We in the past have done longer contracts with IHS. The contract that most recently ended was also a three year contract, and there are some really great opportunities there to ensure that there is some continuity in services. A lot of the services the military is supporting are services that people are accessing day in and day out. And so as much as possible, it just kind of helps us with our planning process and we still have the opportunity, you know, should an appropriation change from what we believe it could be in future based on what we believe revenues would be coming in from this council, then we have the opportunity to go in and amend the agreement. Same if there are any other issues that may come up over time. So the three year the three year agreement is is based on annual terms and performance and negotiating kind of a new budget for the next year. And so even though it's a three year agreement overall, it's segmented out pretty clearly into these individual terms that allows us to kind of evaluate services as we're going. So a number of years ago, it was agreed that.
Speaker 3: DHS would be holding back a percentage of.
Speaker 2: The dollars and allocating them.
Speaker 0: Yourselves, as opposed to the entirety of it.
Speaker 3: All being administered.
Speaker 2: By.
Speaker 0: Rocky Mountain Human Services. Because the history had been that although they could be contracting out.
Speaker 3: Some of those dollars, that wasn't really happening in real practice. So I guess I want to know a couple of things. How, what's what's the amount.
Speaker 0: Each year that's being held back?
Speaker 3: And is that being accrued with other dollars that haven't been allocated? Or are you guys allocating the full amount each year? And then as part of that, one of the provisions that I didn't agree with is that Rocky Mountain could also apply for the same amount that DHS was holding.
Speaker 0: Back and trying to reallocate to.
Speaker 3: Other providers in the community. And I haven't seen any data showing whether or.
Speaker 2: Not they are.
Speaker 3: Applying and getting some of that funding or whether it's actually going to other providers. So can you speak to some of that?
Speaker 2: Certainly I'd be happy to to answer those, and I'll try to kind of track through your question. It's been a lot of questions. Yeah. So firstly, when we look at how we're allocating our funds, we actually aren't basing it on a set percentage. We're not saying, you know, 75, 85, 95% go to Rocky Mountain Human Services. We're meeting with them and working with them and listening to what's happening to services at the state level and listening to what needs are elevated to us through our various stakeholder engagement and community conversations, so that we're actually funding services that are really pivotal to people's lives and wellbeing. And so we don't hold ourselves to a set amount because we want to be responsive to the need. And what is there, I will say of our for our agreement this year, it was a $15 million agreement for 2020. Over $3 million of that was contracted out to providers of various sizes through our Rocky Mountain services for initiatives and projects separate from the community center board that does not include services that are contracted in the day to day as part of our Mill Levy Service Plan program, which basically means if someone is only has it in their service plan to be able to access the program four days a week, the bill of funds can fund that fifth day if if there's a need for that, and so that those funds then go out through contract to those providers that are providing that service for that individual and is based on that individual's selection of that provider. Currently, any funds that are not being spent are through our mutual agreement are either contracted through. We have about five partners, I believe right now, five active partners that are not Rocky Mountain Human Services, that are doing great work in the community. And we're really looking to seek out several more partners in the next year. That's part of what we're hoping to accomplish with some of these ordinance changes, is to create space for those providers because we recognize that there's going to be a lot more diversity than the direct assistance that we provide through Rocky Mountain. So will you clarify.
Speaker 3: If that's just US dollars you're.
Speaker 2: Talking about, or is that a combination of the dollars that they contract out.
Speaker 0: As well as the DHS dollars?
Speaker 2: So that's the DHS dollars. Okay. Rocky Mount Human Services contracts with over I would say last year in their 2019 report, they reported 103 community provider agencies. So completely separate of that, we've got five we're working with, one of which is Rocky Mountain Human Services. We have several more on deck. We're working through those various contracts and projects to get them established. And and we're looking forward to bringing at least two of those to you guys in the near future.
Speaker 3: So it would be helpful to get a list of all of those community provider agencies that Rocky Mountain contracts with. I know that what were the discussions we had some time ago was around trying to meet the needs of individual clients.
Speaker 0: That are currently under.
Speaker 2: The Rocky.
Speaker 1: Mountains.
Speaker 3: Purview, if you will. And, you know, it's it's a lengthy and complex process that people have to follow to get in, to be able to access services. You've got to be on the wait list, you know, all of that stuff. And so I'm just curious to know how that's going in terms of whether individuals ability to get more services now has been expanded as the amount of money has increased since. I mean, COVID has had a huge impact on it. But when I.
Speaker 0: Came on in 2011, we were at somewhere in the ballpark.
Speaker 3: Of about 11 to $12 million a year, and now it's way in excess of that. And so I guess I'm just curious whether we're getting more people in the pipeline and and their services or being met. I know we can do some services.
Speaker 0: While they're on or awaiting.
Speaker 3: Getting on the waitlist. But I just looking at the PowerPoint, which I have in front of me that you all presented to the the committee, I can't tell whether or not we're giving more services to individuals or whether we've gotten more people into the pipeline that need them. And again, it would be helpful to know kind of where are we on the waitlist as well?
Speaker 2: Absolutely. That's something that we connect with Rocky Mountain on fairly frequently. And I would love to set up a follow up with you and possibly share. Happy to do that. Little more. Yeah. Okay.
Speaker 3: Thank you. I have no further questions. I think.
Speaker 2: You know, this is a program.
Speaker 3: That Cathy Reynolds actually was the catalyst in, in moving forward by creating this special mill levy for the developmentally disabled community in Denver. And over time, it has. Since the inception, it's been the same entity doing this. And I know that they have to be approved through the state, but it it almost also violates our executive order that tries to put these things out to be it on a regular basis. And when it started, all of the different providers in our community were getting a share of these dollars to serve their their clients.
Speaker 0: And now it's kind of like the Rocky Mountain is is the sole entity that.
Speaker 3: You know, that is our community service provider through sort of approved by the state. But at the same time, some of those others have tried to gain access to the resources and some have been successful. Others have not been as successful. And so the access continues to be an ongoing.
Speaker 0: Concern and making sure that you all are tracking that. And I know that's part of why.
Speaker 3: You hold those extra dollars aside to ensure that the needs are.
Speaker 0: Being met in our community.
Speaker 3: So it would be helpful to have that.
Speaker 0: Follow up with you, to.
Speaker 3: Just understand a little bit more detail, kind of where are we with the waitlist and where are we in in terms of spreading those dollars further?
Speaker 0: Or are we putting more.
Speaker 3: Dollars into each individual that's already in the you know, in the system?
Speaker 2: Thank you. Certainly. And if it's okay, Madam President, I'd love to just create a couple of points of clarity there. I think you're right in the sense that we've worked with this energy for a really long time, and there have been times where that hasn't gone as well as I'm going right now. What I will say, though, is that they are because of their state designation and the role that they played in the community, they are kind of this nucleus for services in Denver and it is challenging and not really necessarily our intention to create different entry points for services when we have a population that is especially vulnerable and may have difficulty navigating a more complex system. So I would love to have more conversation with you about that. I think we've done a lot to try to diversify our provider network, and we're looking forward to doing more of that. And one of the things I would love to point all council members to, since this deadline is coming up, we actually have one of our new partners, Point B strategies is working with organizations on the smaller side to work with them on projects up to $10,000. And that application window is open until December 4th, which is Friday. And hopefully you you all are able to push that out quickly without.
Speaker 3: Cumbersome contracting.
Speaker 2: Nightmare. We do our best well following what's necessary to adhere to our contracting process, but I hear that feedback. Thank you so much. Okay. Thank you. Madam President.
Speaker 3: Thank you. I have no further.
Speaker 2: Questions or comments.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman Ortega. Ah, and thank you, Crystal, as well. Our next item up is Council Bill 1271. And Councilmember Flynn, would you please put Bill 1271 on the floor for final passage?
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Amendatory Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Axon Enterprise, Inc., f/k/a Taser International, Inc., to extend the term, increase the maximum contract amount and add additional terms and conditions for body worn cameras, supporting equipment, software, and data storage and Tasers for the Denver Police and Denver Sheriff Departments.
Amends a contract with Axon Enterprise, Inc., formerly known as Taser International, Inc., by adding $15,996,615.10 for a new total of $22,097,650.10 and five years for a new end date of 12-15-25 to purchase body worn cameras, supporting equipment, software, and data storage and Tasers for the Denver Police and Denver Sheriff Departments (202054764). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 12-21-20. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 11-18-20. Pursuant to Council Rule 3.7, Councilmember CdeBaca called out this resolution at the 11-30-20 Council meeting for a one-week postponement to Monday, 12-7-20.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11302020_20-1123
|
Speaker 3: Blueprint also has specific policy recommendations. So the housing policy number four talks about diversifying housing choice through expansion of accessory dwelling units. Throughout all residential areas and a city wide approach to enable it to use is preferred. But until holistic approach is in place, individual rezonings to enable you to use in all residential areas, specifically where tools to transit are appropriate. In this case, the request rezoning is a single loading a residential area only one block away from a bus stop. So this rezoning to use on district will have minimal impacts in the surrounding neighborhood and is consistent with blueprint recommendations. The University Park Neighborhood Plan was adopted by Denver City Council in 2008 and applies to the subject site. The overarching theme of the University Park Neighborhood Plan is to create and nurture a community that accommodates wide variety of uses and people in an environment that enhances the quality of life for residents. The proposed rezoning to USOC one is consistent with the following urban design and land use goals. Goal number two Residential neighborhood character stability preserve the single family nature of the University Park Residential Neighborhood and respect their design and the architectural character of established and preferred residential forms. And Goal Number four Diverse housing options in appropriate locations. Diversify the mix of housing types near trusted amenities to allow residents to age in place, live without the daily use of care and accommodate the housing needs of empty nesters, students, young professionals and families. Adopted in 2018. Housing and inclusive. Denver was not adopted as a supplement to Denver Comprehensive Plan 2040, but was still adopted by City Council and can be considered relevant criteria for this MAP amendment. The plan encourages expanding the development of accessory dwelling units to incentivize affordable and mixed use housing. Stuff also finds that of the proposed rezoning to USOC, one meets the next two criteria. It will result in the uniform application of social district building for use and design regulations. And the proposed official MAP Amendment furthers the public health, safety and general welfare of the city through implementation of the city adopted land use, which recommends the expansion of accessory dwelling units throughout all residential areas. The proposed rezoning would also provide the benefit of an additional housing unit that is comparably integrated into surrounding neighborhoods. The justified circumstance for this rezoning is clear of the plan since the approval of the existing yes, you see some district. The city has adopted the Comprehensive Plan 2014 Blueprint, Denver Housing and Inclusive Denver and University Park Neighborhood Plan as stated throughout this presentation. The proposed rezoning meets the intent of this plan's. Lastly, the proposed zoning is consistent with the urban neighborhood context residential districts and the USOC one stone district. Stuff that's to recommend approval based on finding or review criteria has been met. And that concludes stuff. Presentation. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Fran. Council has not received any written comments on Council Bill 1123 and we have one individual signed up to speak and we will go ahead and get started. We have Jesse Paris. App and friend will go ahead and ask you to pull down the slide deck for us and.
Speaker 4: The member of the council. My name is Jesse Harris and I represent a four member home of now Black Star Action Movement for Self, the fifth Positive Action Commitment for Social Change, as well as the related party of Colorado and Mile-High News and I will be the next November 2023. I am in favor of this rezoning tonight. Good job, Cash. Man, you got this. I support especially dwelling units all over the city, just like I support tiny villages that say Balboa camps. So I am here tonight and got this cash. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Jesse. That concludes our speakers questions from members of council. All right. Seen no questions by members of council. The public hearing for Council Bill 20 Dash 1123 is closed. Any comments by members of Council? All right. I'm not saying. Oh, there you go, Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Thank you, Madam President. I just wanted to say, I believe this application clearly meets all the criteria. It's a great location for a block off of University Boulevard. It's about a ten block walk from a light rail station. The University of Denver campus is just across the University Boulevard and a block up. And my my only concern I just wanted to express about AIDS in general is I wish we could figure out a way to keep them from being used as short term rentals. I really love 80 used as an addition to our housing stock for residents. And as much as I believe paid short term rentals probably have a place in our community, I don't like to see them taking up accessory dwelling units, personal opinion. But I will be supporting this and I hope my colleagues will join me.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Councilman Cashman, seen no other comments by members of council. I'll just throw in that saying that this meets all the review criteria. I will be voting in favor of it as well. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 3: Cashman.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Can. I. Ortega. I. Sandoval. I.
Speaker 3: Sawyer.
Speaker 2: I. Torres, I. Black Eye. CdeBaca, I.
Speaker 1: Park I.
Speaker 2: Flynn.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Herndon.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Hi.
Speaker 1: Hi.
Speaker 2: Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 2: 13 Eyes.
Speaker 0: 13 Eyes Council Bill 20 Dash. 1123 has passed. Councilmember Flynn. Will you please put Council Bill 1124 on the floor for final passage?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 2483 South Josephine Street in University Park.
Approves a map amendment to rezone property from U-SU-C to U-SU-C1, located at 2483 South Josephine Street in Council District 6. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 10-20-20.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11302020_20-1124
|
Speaker 0: 13 Eyes Council Bill 20 Dash. 1123 has passed. Councilmember Flynn. Will you please put Council Bill 1124 on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 1: Certainly I moved the Council Bill 20 1124 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved again. Thank you, Councilwoman Sawyer. The required public hearing for Council Bill 20 Dash 1124 is open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 3: Okay. Let me know if you can see this one. All right. Okay. Is that working?
Speaker 0: Uh huh. Thanks, Fran.
Speaker 3: Okay. This is going to sound repetitive because it's very similar. So. My name is from Benefield, and I'll present an overview of the MAP Amendment for 1634 Cynthia Street. This one is located in Councilman Chris Herndon's District eight. In the East Colfax neighborhood. The subject. Property is only a block and a half north Jim Colfax Avenue and one block west from Yosemite Street. The city limit with Adams County and the studio Ferrara is approximately 6250 square feet and is currently occupied by a single unit dwelling. The property is currently in the urban edge single unit, the Exon District, and the applicant is proposing to rezone to urban edge single unit d1s to allow for an accessory dwelling unit. The ESU de one x requires a minimum standard of 6000 square feet and allows for the urban house suburban house on the Dutch expressway detached accessory dwelling unit building forms. The maximum height for the house is 30 to 35 feet and 24 feet for the detached 82. The subject property is stone. Yes, UTX, as I said, and the surrounding properties are stone PSU decks with some e RH 2.5 to the Southwest and some MSR five to the stealth. Site is occupied by a single unit dwelling and it's surrounded by other single unit uses. But we can see that there's some public possible link to the north and some two unit multi-unit, residential and mixed use and commercial use to the south along the Colfax corridor. This slide shows the existing area with the site of the proposed rezoning on the top left and just some images to show the character of the neighborhood on the top right and the bottom left. In regards to the rezoning process and informational notice of the application was sent on July eight, 2020. Planning Board recommended approval on September 14th. The City Council public hearing was properly notice on October nine, and as a result, no letters of opposition have been received or support. No letters of support for opposition. To approve a rezoning, it must be found. The request map amendment is consistent with five review criteria from the Denver zoning code. The first criteria is that the rezoning request must be consistent with adopted, must therefore adopt the plans that apply to the request. Rezoning. Comprehensive Plan 2040 Blueprint. Denver. The East Area Plan and the Housing and Inclusive Denver Plan. The rezoning request is consistent with a comprehensive plan because it will allow infill development that broadens the range of housing types available in an area where infrastructure and services already exist, consistent with strong and authentic neighborhood vision elements, as well as environmentally resilient vision elements. The rezoning request is also consistent with Blueprint Denver. The subject properties mapped as part of the urban edge neighborhood context. This context is described as containing predominantly residential uses with single and two unit low scale homes on short walkable blocks. The future places map designates the subject property. A slow residential low residential place type displaced types have predominantly single and two unit uses, and accessory dwelling units are provided. Sonya Street is designated as Local Street, which is mostly characterized by residential uses. The growth area in Denver is for other areas of the city. This area is anticipated to see a 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. And Housing Policy five recommends removing barriers to strengthening energy use as this rezoning would accomplish. The recently adopted East Terrier plan designates the subject property as urban edge future neighborhood context a low residential unit for your place. Consistent with Blueprint Denver the proposals eat as you would want. Exon District would allow for the development of an accessory dwelling unit that is consistent with the urban edge, future, neighborhood context and low residential future places. The proposed rezoning would contribute to the preservation of the neighborhood's existing character, while allowing comparable new construction and uses consistent with the recommendations of the East Area plan. Housing an inclusive Denver encourages expanding the development of accessory dwelling units to incentivize affordable and mixed use housing. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the recommendations in the Comprehensive Plan Blueprint Denver, the East Area Plan and Housing and Inclusive Denver because it will expand, expand housing options and allow the development of accessory dwelling units. Stuff also finds that they 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. It justified a circumstance for this rezoning is a client of the plan. Since the approval of the existing ESU de zone district, the city has adopted the Comprehensive Plan 2040 Blueprint Denver that you stereo plan and housing in inclusive Denver stated throughout this presentation. The proposed rezoning meets the intent of this class. Overall, the proposed rezoning is consistent with the Urban Itch neighborhood context that exists in the surrounding area and with the purpose and intent of the ESU one district. This meeting that if criteria and conclusions does recommend approval based on finding or review criteria has been met. And that concludes the presentation. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Fran. Council has not received any written comments on Council Bill 1124, and we have one individual signed up to speak this evening. Jesse Paris.
Speaker 4: Maybe even a member of the council. My name is Justin Shoppers and live in district eight county district representative member homicide well black star action member for Self-defense positive action committed for social change as well. Party of Colorado and Mile-High News. And I will be the next mayor of Denver in 2023. I'm in favor of this rezoning tonight. I just had a question or two. I want to know what was going to be the aim item for this property in question. Because as you already know, and if you are aware, we have a housing crisis, we have upwards of ten to close to 20,000 people on the streets right now. And this is only going to get worse until we actually try to make a dent in our affordability crisis. So I would like to know what the AMA level is going to be for these properties. And if it is at all possible with the demographics of the people that are going to be occupying this or currently occupied this property. Ah, I would greatly appreciate if someone could answer those questions. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Jesse. Questions from members of Council on Bill 1124. Seen no questions of members of council. The public hearing for Council Bill 20 1124 is closed. Comments by members of Council. Councilman Herndon.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. I and I believe that this meets the criteria, and I would ask my colleagues to support it. I'm just excited to see the East Area plan is already being considered as we go through rezoning. So happy that that was approved and now we're using that as criteria in this area. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman Herndon. And seen the criteria for this rezoning has been met. I will be supporting it as well. Madam Secretary, roll call, please.
Speaker 2: Herndon.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Hines.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Cashman.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Can each. I. Ortega. I. Sandoval. I. Sawyer. I. Torres, I. Black. I. CdeBaca, I. Clark.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 3: Flynn.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Madam President, I.
Speaker 0: Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 2: 13 Eyes.
Speaker 0: 13 eyes. Counsel Bill 20 Dash 1124 has passed. Councilmember Flynn, would you please put council Bill 1162 on the floor for final passage?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 1634 Xenia Street in East Colfax.
Approves a map amendment to rezone property from E-SU-Dx to E-SU-D1x, located at 1634 Xenia Street in Council District 8. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 10-20-20.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11302020_20-1162
|
Speaker 0: 13 eyes. Counsel Bill 20 Dash 1124 has passed. Councilmember Flynn, would you please put council Bill 1162 on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 1: Certainly. I move that council bill 20 dash 1160 to be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded by Counsel Min Hines. The required public hearing for Council Bill 20 Dash 1162 is open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. This is James and his CBD. Are you able to hear me? And soon.
Speaker 0: We are. Thanks, James.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Time before you. We have a proposed rezoning of 2580 South Clarkson Street. The rezoning request is to go from VCAT to ESU one to allow for the detached EDU building. Properties located in Council District six in the Rosedale neighborhood. The parcel is approximately 70 to 130 square feet and is a single unit residential use. The ESU D1 zoned district allows for the Urban House and detached accessory dwelling unit building forms at the max building height from 30 to 35 feet and 24 feet for the interview minimum. What size for the center district is 6000 square feet. Existing zoning is sued and is surrounded by other sued parcels. There's OSA in the form of Harvard Gulch Park to the north as well as Camp two and H1-B to east. Existing land uses single unit residential surrounded by other single unit residential uses as well as parks and open space and public and quasi public uses. Some photos of the surrounding neighborhood for context. The proposal in question is the upper right hand photo. This application was heard before the planning board on their consent agenda and recommended unanimously for approval on September 30th on Rudi's consent agenda October 20th, and here tonight before Council on November 30th, we have received no public comment letters on this application. Here are the five review criteria the council must find the application to be consistent with to approve the application. Starting with review criteria. Number one, consistency with adopted plan series. We have that plan 2040 Blueprint Denver as well as housing and inclusive Denver. The application is consistent with several strategies in the Comprehensive Plan 2014, including some strong and authentic neighborhood goals and climate goals. Moving on to Blueprint Denver. This application is located in the Urban Edge Zone District, which is a nursery context, which is predominantly residential homes, are typically low scale and single and two unit with some small scale multi-unit residential embedded. They offer good walkability with short and predictable blocks. Future place type is low residential and predominately single in two unit uses and accessory dwelling units are appropriate in a residential future place type. Clarkston Street is a local street. Growth area strategy because all other areas of the city which you anticipate seeing 10% job growth in 20% housing growth by 2040. Some additional policies that the application is consistent with include. Housing policy number four, diversity of housing choice through the expansion of accessory dwelling units throughout all residential areas as well as housing policy. Five Remove barriers to constructing accessory dwelling units. The application is also consistent with several provisions of housing in inclusive Denver, including legislative and regulatory priorities. Two Recommendation to expanding the development of accessory dwelling staff finds that the application is also consistent with the next two criteria uniformity of district regulations. There is no. No variation to the districts being requested, as well as furthering public health, safety and welfare predominantly by implementing adaptive plans and providing an additional housing unit that is comparatively integrated into the surrounding neighborhood. Justifying circumstances. City Adopted Plans Plan 2040 and Blueprint Denver have been adopted since the base zoning was implemented. Steph also finds the application to be consistent with the neighborhood context zone, district purposes and intent to. But should say council pass. CPD recommends council approve the application. Apologies for not updating that site, finding it consistent with all five of the criteria. That's it for me.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, James. Council has not received any written comments on Council Bill 1162, and we have one speaker signed up, Jesse, Paris and James. We're going to go ahead and ask if you would stop your screen sharing for us. Thank you so much. All right. We'll go ahead and have Jesse. All right. Go ahead, Jesse, please.
Speaker 4: A member of the council. My name is just in the past and I'm representing the Denver homeless now. Black Star Action Member for self-professed positive action campaigning for social change after being to be Party of Colorado in Mile-High News. That will be the next November in 2023. And I live in District eight and Christopher Hampton's district. I am in favor of this approval, of this rezoning. Tonight. I have stated previously I support accessory dwelling units. I would love to see them all over the city along with two whole villages and safe outdoor camps. So cashing in once again, it's a slam dunk for you. You should get this approved with no problems. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. Thank you. That concludes our speakers questions from members of Council on Bill 1162. CNN. The public hearing for council bill 20 dash 1162 is closed. Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. Once again, I think this clearly meets the five criteria. My memory is from an early discussion with the property owner that the plans were to use the ADU for a relative. But this property also is directly across the street from the Porter Hospital campus, so it would be a great location for a health care worker. Anybody wanting a spot in a wonderful neighborhood should less, I believe, less than a block from Harvard Gulch, parked about three blocks from a great growing little retail strip along Downing. So somebody is going to get lucky with a nice, nice place to live. And I obviously plan on supporting this and ask my colleagues to join me. Thanks, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Cashman. And seeing that it does meet all of the criteria, I will be supporting it as well. Madam Secretary, roll call, please.
Speaker 2: Cashman. I can reach. That was in. I sorry, Ron, but Ortega, I. Sandoval, I. Sawyer, I. Torres, I. Work. I see tobacco. I. Clark.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Flynn.
Speaker 1: All right.
Speaker 2: Herndon.
Speaker 1: I. Hines, I.
Speaker 2: Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 2: 13 Eyes.
Speaker 0: 13 Eyes Council Bill 20 Dash 1162 has passed. We're going to now convene as the board of directors for the Reno Denver General Improvement District Council is now convened as the board of directors of the Rhino Denver General Improvement District Councilmember Flynn.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 2580 South Clarkson Street in Rosedale.
Approves a map amendment to rezone property from E-SU-D to E-SU-D1, located at 2580 South Clarkson Street in Council District 6. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 10-20-20.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11302020_20-1267
|
Speaker 0: 13 Eyes Council Bill 20 Dash 1162 has passed. We're going to now convene as the board of directors for the Reno Denver General Improvement District Council is now convened as the board of directors of the Rhino Denver General Improvement District Councilmember Flynn. Will you please put Resolution 1267 on the floor?
Speaker 1: Yes, Madam President. I move the council resolution 20, dash 1267, be adopted.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. We've got Councilman Herndon with the second the public carrying for resolution 1267 is open. May we have the staff report, Michael?
Speaker 1: Evening Board members. I am Michael Kerrigan with the Department of Finance, Capital Planning and Programing Division. I am before you tonight to give the staff report and request approval for the Reno Denver General Improvement District 2021 Annual Work Plan and Budget and the 2020 Budget Amendment. The district is located northwest of downtown and includes residentially and commercially assessed properties around the Brighton Boulevard corridor. Generally, the grade 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 and by the and to the west, by the Burlington Northern Railroad Line to Girard supports infrastructure enhancements and maintenance in the Reno area, including streetscape enhancements to Brighton Boulevard. City Council approved the formation of the Rhino. J.D. The Rhino Denver. J.D. by ordinance number 309 Series 2015 and established City Council as the ex-officio board of Directors of the District. The ordinance also created a district advisory board comprised of property owners within the district. The ordinance specified that the that the Advisory Board should subject to the approval of the Board of Directors, conduct and manage all affairs of the District as the authorized agent of the Board of Directors. The District Advisory Board has created the Budget before you to meet the 2021 Budget proposal proposes overall expenditures and fund transfers of $1,593,396, and overall revenue and overall revenues of $1,162,707. Of these revenues, the district will generate approximately $923,107 through the levy of four mills, a 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 basis on properties adjacent to the Brighton, adjacent to Brighton Boulevard for the repayment of debt used to fund capital and capital enhancements along Brighton Boulevard. City staff has reviewed the budget and work plan and recommends it for approval. Tracy Will is here tonight on behalf of the district to answer any questions as well. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Michael. We have two individuals or actually we have two individuals signed up to speak. The first one is you, Michael. So for the for the public hearing, do you just want to introduce yourself again? And I know you're available for questions.
Speaker 1: Sure. Michael Kerrigan available here for questions.
Speaker 0: Very good. And our second speaker is Jesse Paris.
Speaker 4: Council members, Jesse Bishop and I live in District eight, in Christopher Council member Christopher Hammett's district and I represented down the homicide row next door, actually moved for self defense by the maximum name for social change as well as the party of Colorado and Mile High. Moose and I will be the next November 2023. I have a few questions for the board member. Why is the level so low for this proposed business improvement district? Earlier tonight, we had a discussion about the five point the school improvement district and the fact that they are paying such a high level levy and comparison to other business improvement districts. So I would like to know why the lobbyists follow the windmills and. Is this money being used to also sleep on house neighbors from this colonized area that is now known as Rhino? It's the marketplace. Answer that question. I would really appreciate it. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Jesse. That concludes our speakers questions from members of council. All right. Seen no questions from members of council. The Public Caring for Council Resolution 1267 is closed. Comments by Members of Council. All right. Seen no hands raised for comments of members of council. Madam Secretary, roll call, please.
Speaker 2: Like I said, America, I. Clark.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Flynn.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Herndon.
Speaker 1: I. He writes I.
Speaker 2: Cashman. I can eat. I am. Ortega, I. I.
Speaker 3: Sawyer.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 3: Torres.
Speaker 2: I. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 2: 13 Eyes.
Speaker 0: 13 Eyes. Resolution 1267 has been adopted. Council is now convened as the board of directors of the Denver 14th Street General Improvement District. Councilmember Flynn. Will you please put Resolution 1268 on the floor?
|
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, imposing Capital Charges and Maintenance Charges, approving a Mill Levy, and making appropriations for the 2021 Fiscal Year, and approving an Amended Work Plan, adopting an Amended Budget, and making appropriations for the 2020 Fiscal Year, as necessary.
Approves the 2021 Work Plan and Budget and amends the 2020 Budget for the RiNo Denver General Improvement District in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 11-10-20.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11302020_20-1268
|
Speaker 0: 13 Eyes. Resolution 1267 has been adopted. Council is now convened as the board of directors of the Denver 14th Street General Improvement District. Councilmember Flynn. Will you please put Resolution 1268 on the floor?
Speaker 1: I guess I will. Thank you. Madam president, i move that council resolution 20 dash 1268 be adopted. Dagen.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded. The public hearing for resolution 1268 is open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 1: Leaving board members once again, I'm Michael Kerrigan from the Department of Finance, Capital Planning and Programing Division. I'm here to provide the staff report for the Denver 14 Street General Improvement District and request approval for the District's 2021 budget and work plan. The district is 22.66 acres in size and is located along 14th Street from market to Colfax and generally includes all persons along both sides of 14th Street. It was created by council and approved by the electors in response to the 14th Street Initiative to create downtown Denver's Ambassador Street. The initiative began in 2005 and visualized 14th Street as a promenade and major gateway to the downtown area. The plan contemplated streetscape enhancements and related public infrastructure improvements. Stakeholders included private property owners, public officials and business organizations participating in the establishment and conceptual design for 14th Street. In 2019, City Council approved the formation of the 14th Street G80 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 end to annually at least to at least annually pass a work plan and budget. The District Advisory Board, after a notice and hearing, recommends to the Board of directors the proposed workplan and budget, including maintenance charges and capital charges before you tonight in 2021. The district plans to continue maintaining district amenities, including but not limited to tree planter and flower pots, landscape maintenance, signage, repairs, trash removal and sidewalk landscape and sidewalk lighting maintenance. The work plan, budget and charges include total revenues of $555,816, which is comprised of $248,306 in maintenance charges in Banner River Banner rental revenue plus $306,010 in capital charges for the repayment of debt used to fund the capital handsomeness along 14th Street. City staff has reviewed the 2021 Budget Work Plan, Budget and Work Plan and recommends it for approval. Beth MALESKY and Mark Katz are also here on behalf of the district to answer any questions. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Michael. We have three individuals signed up to speak. The first one is Beth Moisi.
Speaker 2: Any evening. I'm here on behalf of the 43 General Improvement District and available to answer questions.
Speaker 0: Very good. Thank you, Beth. Next up, we have you, Michael.
Speaker 1: And Michael Eric Michael Carrigan here to answer any questions regarding the 14th Street.
Speaker 0: All right. Very good. And Jesse, you're up next.
Speaker 4: So many members of council are. Watching at home just to watch. Your parents and I live in district eight and Christopher have this district and I represent the Denver now black star salute for self defense positive African-Americans social change as well as the party of Colorado and Mile High knows that would be the next November in 2023 . I had a few questions for Michael or Beth. I want to know which is General Improvement District, where these funds are going to be used for because I heard something about trash cleanup. And it is my understanding, with several people's understanding, that our unhoused may be treated like trash if swept every night and day. So is this money going to be used to sweep undesirables from the 14th Street Promenade? The smoker. Please answer that question. I would greatly appreciate it.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Jesse. That concludes our speakers questions from members of council. All right. CNN, the public hearing for council resolution 1268 is closed. Comments by members of council. CNN. Madam Secretary, roll call, please.
Speaker 2: CdeBaca. I. Clark.
Speaker 1: All right.
Speaker 2: Flynn.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Herndon.
Speaker 1: I. Hines, I.
Speaker 2: Cashman.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Kimmich I. Ortega, 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 2: 13 Eyes.
Speaker 0: 13 Eyes. Resolution 1268 has been adopted. Council is now convened as the board of Directors of the Gateway Village General Improvement District Council member Flynn, will you please put Resolution 1269 on the floor?
|
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 2021 Fiscal Year.
Approves the 2021 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 11-10-20.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11302020_20-1269
|
Speaker 0: 13 Eyes. Resolution 1268 has been adopted. Council is now convened as the board of Directors of the Gateway Village General Improvement District Council member Flynn, will you please put Resolution 1269 on the floor?
Speaker 1: Certainly. Thank you. I move the council resolution 20, dash 1268, be adopted.
Speaker 0: I think we had a typo here. Can I get you to 1260?
Speaker 1: That. I think there is a second.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 1: All right. The council resolution of 20 Dash 1269. It's very.
Speaker 0: Good. And we have the motion and we got your second. Councilman Herndon, we got that 1/1.
Speaker 1: That's what I get for reading verbatim.
Speaker 0: All right. The public hearing for Resolution 1269 is open. May we have the staff report, Michael?
Speaker 1: Leaving board members once again. Michael Kerrigan with the Department of Finance, Capital Planning and Programing Division. I am afraid tonight to give staff, report and request approval for the Gateway Village General Improvement District 2021 Annual Work Plan and Budget. The district is located northwest of the I-70 and Chambers Road Chambers Road intersection. It consists of approximately 243 acres on the eastern border. A border of Montebello is completely developed and primarily consists of residential property. Responsibilities for the district include maintaining landscaping and parks. City Council approved formation of the Gateway Village District by ordinance number 551 series 1994 and established City Council as the ex-officio board of Directors of the District. The creation ordinance was created, also created the District Advisory Board made up of property owners within the city. The ordinance specified that such advisory boards 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 332 Series 1995, Denver City Council authorized the District Advisory Board to create a work plan and budget for approval by the District by the Board of Directors annually. The Gateway Village 2021 budget proposes overall expenditures of $824,016 and transfers to the capital fund of $435,000, with total revenues of $687,884. The district plans to assess 20 miles on real property within the district during 2021. The district anticipates starting on the next phase of its major landscape improvement project, which will address the landscape issues along Chambers Road. Additionally, the district plans to contribute to continue landscaping, irrigation maintenance, snow removal, external drainage maintenance within the district. City staff has reviewed the 2021 budget and work plan and recommends it for approval. Jeff Erb is here on behalf of the District to answer questions as well. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Michael. And we have two individuals signed up to speak this evening. And the first one is you, Michael. And so you're here available for questions. And our second speaker is Jesse Paris.
Speaker 4: It was a council I was watching at home. It's just a missing person. And I live in District eight and council had in this district. And I represent the Denver homicide well, black star examiner for self-defense. I was the first to come in for social change, as well as the Unity Party of Colorado at Mile High Noon . And I will be the next November in 2023. Honestly, I have no questions on zoning or this board approval. This gentleman from the district. There's nothing I'm going to tell you that's going to change your mind or any of this. So you just go ahead and do what I do. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. That concludes our speakers questions from members of council. So, you know, no questions from members of council. The public hearing for Council Resolution 1269 is closed. Comments by Members of Council. Seen none. Madam Secretary, roll call, please.
Speaker 2: Black. I. CdeBaca, I. Clark.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Flynn.
Speaker 1: I. Herndon High.
Speaker 2: Hines.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Cashman.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Can each I. Ortega, I. Sandoval. I. Sawyer, I. Torres, I. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please closer voting and announce the results.
Speaker 2: 13 Eyes.
Speaker 0: 13 Eyes. Resolution 1269 has been adopted. Council is now reconvened and there be there being no further business before this body. This meeting is adjourned.
|
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 2021 and approving a Mill Levy.
Approves the 2021 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 11-10-20.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11232020_20-1216
|
Speaker 2: All right. Thank you. Councilman Hines saying no other questions. We're going to go ahead and move on. The next item up is Council Bill 1216. Councilwoman Sandoval, will you please put Bill 1216 on the floor for passage?
Speaker 0: I moved that bill. 20 deaths 1216 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 2: Thank you. It has been moved. May get a second. I guess. All right. Thank you. Questions or comments by members of Council Councilman CdeBaca.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam President. Just want to call this one out to go on record voting separately on this one again. It's the budget, and I am a no. Thank you.
Speaker 2: All right. Thank you, Councilwoman. We have Councilman Flynn. You're up.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. I just wanted to point out that under the charter, 7.2.1, this annual appropriations ordinance must be passed. It's our role here is similar to today, what we witnessed in Michigan with the state board of canvassers. This is the annual appropriation ordinance that fills in the budget that was passed last month. And there have been times when I have voted against the budget, but once it is passed, it has to be appropriated. So I urge my colleagues to vote yes. Thank you.
Speaker 2: All right. Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I have two specific questions and I'm sorry I didn't give the agencies a head up. I wasn't planning to call this out, but then when I saw it was called out, I wanted to ask the questions. There are two items in the long bill. One is the Denver Department of Public Health and Environment is. Allocating. It's $1.6 million. And I was it's it's for the relocation of the medical examiner's office. And it wasn't that long ago that they relocated to a site that used to be on the Denver Health campus, and they're now just south of Sixth Avenue. And I wasn't aware that they were moving again. So can you talk a little bit, Will, about what's going on with the medical examiner's office?
Speaker 4: Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. Here's. Here's what I'll say about about that office. I mean, you know, to be true. Just from seeing kind of monthly reports from Dr. Jim Caruso, the medical examiner, we you know, throughout the year, this year, we've seen an increase in, you know, all types of deaths and their their office because of the nature of the work, because of the medical certifications and the different folks that they're required to hire. They've had a hard time kind of attracting and, you know, and keeping the best folks. And they they do they do put a lot of effort into hiring the right people. So what I know is that what I know is that their office, not just this year but has seen a large increase in their work volume.
Speaker 3: And I.
Speaker 4: I am not aware of of the strategy and how that all played out. And I'll just tell you that candidly. But I can tell you honestly that. You know, even though my my colleagues from other divisions would would frown on me for saying this, that office is I won't say overworked, but they do they do a ton of really important stuff. And I know this doesn't address your your question directly as far as how that all came about. But what I can tell you is that there, you know, I've seen just recalling now I've seen pictures from inside of the facility, the kind of state of the art stuff that they have now. I don't know that they had some of the support that they always that that they needed and now they do if that makes sense.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So I guess my question is specific to the million $645,080 that is listed in the long bill that says it's for the Office of Medical Examiners relocation. So I don't know if that cost that applied towards that when it was relocated or if it if that's regarding a new relocation, because it wasn't that long ago they had a big grand opening. We all walked through the facility, got to see, you know, all of what this new facility. And it's much, much larger than the old one when they were in the basement down on Bannock Street on the Denver Health campus. So that's what I'm trying to understand here.
Speaker 2: And we can only have Stephanie Adams that we wanted to bring up into the conversation.
Speaker 1: That would be great here.
Speaker 2: And so we'll go ahead and. Get Stephanie into the queue to answer this question. And let me see. Stephanie. Yeah. Stephanie. If you could raise your hand in the attendees.
Speaker 3: Okay. There you go. Hi.
Speaker 1: Hi. Hi, everyone. So canceling our ticket, they are not relocating again. I think that that that is actually a capital a capital allocation. So let me talk I will talk to my friends and keep it. My hunch is that the annual cost of that, it's those costs of the relocation and we happened to name it that India should probably revisit that particular name. Okay. That's helpful clarification. Thank you for that. Of course, you may be want to stay on for my next question. And this one is regarding wastewater management came in under wastewater management, there is a cost of $300,000 for public restrooms. Why is water management paying for restrooms? Typically, that would be a public works cost. It would be a Parks and rec cost. It's not normal that that is a wastewater management cost and it's helpful to know where those are proposed to be as well. Certainly. So again, I believe that the capital cost is actually been on the books for the last two or three years. They've had an allocation associated with public restrooms and I know that they had worked with that was sort of that roaming restroom. You knew how they had the restroom that was going through the city that was actually paid for by wastewater. And I do know that they have been working with parks in particular to understand how they could leverage those dollars for additional restrooms or enhancing restrooms. And I'll find out exactly what the current plan is for 2021. But that actually has been a cost that that wastewater had ALEC has allocated for the last couple of years. Okay. And this is actually for the is that because they want to make sure that we don't keep stretching what we asked the Wastewater Enterprise Fund to cover if they're not allowable expenses. And given the bill that was on the ballot, you know, that was a statewide bill that dealt with the creation of a special. Special funds. Enterprise funds. I want to make sure that we continue to do everything we can to protect this. We all know that the need for restrooms is important. I don't want to minimize that by any means, but I want to make sure we protect that in a fund and not get ourselves in a situation where we jeopardize that. So that's why I brought it. Certainly council and I'm I'm very sure that we cleared that with the city attorney's office before we would have done that a couple of years ago. But I will I will follow up with that. And just to clarify as well, and actually, I did receive a text that that particular allotment is for the second downtown restroom. Okay. All right. Thank you. Of course. All right.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilman Ortega. Councilman PANITCH.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I just wanted to chime in on this discussion. My colleague, Councilman Ortega, was having I was involved in this discussion with our former director, Jose Cornejo. And the reason for this source for the restroom funding is because when there is public urination and defecation, that those things end up in our inner storm water sewers and they end up in our rivers, and it ends up as part of a water quality issue. And so public restrooms are a mitigating factor to that, particularly, you know, risky environmental issue. And so so so that's the nexus with the fund and the reason why those dollars were dedicated quite some time ago as a partial cost, not for the entire I think it was at one point a 5050 cost sharing. So if that context is helpful to my colleague, just wanted to share that. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Very good. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Kimmich. All right. Seen no other questions? Madam Secretary, roll call, please.
Speaker 0: No.
Speaker 4: Course I. When I. And I.
Speaker 3: Hi.
Speaker 4: I'm.
Speaker 3: Cashman.
Speaker 4: All right.
Speaker 3: Kenny. I.
Speaker 5: Ortega.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 5: In the bar.
Speaker 0: I. Sawyer. I. Black. I.
Speaker 1: For it, I.
Speaker 0: Madam President.
Speaker 2: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 0: When they us.
Speaker 2: 12 Eyes Council Bill 1216 has passed. That concludes the items to be called out. All bills for introduction are ordered published. Council members remember this is a consent to block vote and you will need to vote. Otherwise, this is your last chance to call out an item for a separate vote. Councilwoman Sandoval, will you please put the resolutions for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor?
Speaker 0: I move that resolutions be adopted and bills and final consideration be placed upon final consideration and due process.
Speaker 1: In a BOC.
Speaker 0: For the following items. Series 20 1263.
Speaker 1: 1286 1288.
Speaker 0: 1289.
Speaker 1: 1290.
Speaker 0: 1291 1292 1293 1294 1295 1296, 1297, 1298, 1299 1300 1301 1302 1306.
Speaker 1: 1309 1151 1153 1244 1266 1287.
Speaker 0: 1307 1082 1312 1229 1217 1218 12 1912, 2112 22 1224, 12, 25, 12, 26, 12, 2712 3012, 33, 1197 Trouble one.
Speaker 1: Trouble 203 trouble.
Speaker 0: For trouble five trouble 612 seven trouble eight trouble 912 1012, 11, 12, 23, 1231 and 1232.
Speaker 2: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded by Councilman Herndon. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 3: Black I. For.
Speaker 5: Sorry. This is out of order, Torres.
Speaker 3: I think about that.
Speaker 0: I. Clark.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 5: Flynn.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 1: Herndon.
Speaker 4: I. Hi. I.
Speaker 3: Cashman.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 5: To me.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 5: Ortega.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 3: Sandoval. I saw your.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 3: Madam President.
Speaker 2: I. Madam Secretary, please close of Iranian announced results. 1313 ays 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 1086, changing the zoning classification for 1010 West Colfax Avenue, 1050 West Colfax Avenue, and 1443 Kalama Street. A required public hearing on Council Bill 1127, changing the zoning classifications for 26, 55 and 2659 Downing Street are required public hearing on Council Bill 1128 Changing the zoning classification for 4820 West Hayward Place A 30 minute courtesy public hearing on Council Bill 1138 approving the 2021 Denver Health and Hospital Authority Operating Agreement and a 30 minute courtesy public hearing on Council Resolution 1236, approving a proposed third and mandatory agreement between the city and County of Denver and Brother's Redevelopment Inc. to revise the scope and services and to revise the scope of services and budget, increase the maximum contract amount and extend the term for the temporary rent and Utility Assistance Program. Anyone wishing to speak on any of these matters must go online to sign up during the recesses of council. If there are no objections from members of council, we will take a ten minute recess. Council members, please remember to turn off your cameras and microphones and we will return at seven. 50 or excuse me. 6:53 p.m.. 653. We will return from recess. Thank you. All their names and cities and presidents and if they feel comfortable doing so, their home addresses when called upon. Please wait until our meeting hosts promote you to speaker. When you're 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 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 yield in of time. A translated 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. Council Member Sandoval Will you please put Council Bill 1086 on the floor for final passage?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance making appropriations to pay the expenses of conducting the public business for the year 2021 and for the purposes required by the Charter and by other law.
Approves the 2021 Annual Appropriation Ordinance (Long Bill).
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11232020_20-1086
|
Speaker 2: Council Member Sandoval Will you please put Council Bill 1086 on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 0: I move that bill 20 dash 1086 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 2: Thank you. It's been moved. Thank you for the second. Councilwoman Ortega. The required public hearing for council bill 20 Dash 1086 is open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 4: Certainly, Madam President. Good evening, counsel. I'm Brandon.
Speaker 1: Shaver.
Speaker 4: 1/2. Look, get this in presentation. I'm Brandon Schaefer, senior city planner with CPD presenting a special math amendment for ten, ten and 1050 West Colfax and 1443 Kalamazoo St. Three Zoning from before with waivers. You are one year or two to see Annex five and CM eight with waivers. You can see that the subject property is located at the southeast corner of West Colfax Avenue and North Commerce Street in Council District three within the Lincoln Park neighborhood. The subject property is currently a drive thru restaurant.
Speaker 3: Strip mall and.
Speaker 4: Commercial building, measuring approximately.
Speaker 3: 1.89.
Speaker 4: Acres in land area and is requesting a rezoning to CM x five at the southern portion of the property along Kalama Street and CMCs eight, with waivers along Colfax Avenue to allow mixed use development. Current zoning on the site as before with waivers. You one, you two. That is the adult use and billboard use overlay the zoning dates back to 1978. It is a former Chapter 59 zone district meant to provide neighborhood serving users along arterial streets where a maximum floor area ratio of 2 to 1 can be achieved. There's a complete list of the waivers in the staff report, but I just want to make mention of two that prohibit the adult and billboard use overlays, thereby canceling out the overlays that are currently mapped on the property. Adjacent zoning includes campus to the north, rear campus.
Speaker 3: C, Mass five.
Speaker 4: C, max five and GMC 12, all with the adult billboard use overlays with GM's three and two unit zoning to the. Existing land use of the subject property is commercial retail adjacent land uses include public quasi public college campus office mixed use unit residential and vacant land across Lebanon Street. Here are some photos to give you a sense of the building form and on the area with the subject property on the top left, in the top right. You can also see residential structures on the south of the site, on the bottom left, and then the vacant land along West Colfax Avenue as pictured on the bottom right . Here is a side by side compared compared to the table showing the differences between the proposed and existing zone districts, the CM CMC's five and CMC's eight with waivers were introduced build to back and transparency requirements that will result in a more urban, pedestrian friendly built form that is more appropriate for this location. There are also waivers proposed for the portion of the site along Colfax that's rezoning to CMCs eight. These waivers are detailed in the staff report in the application, and they limit the building height to seven storeys and 75 feet. These waivers will not impact the protected district standards imposed by the two unit zoning to the south. These waivers are intended to provide flexibility in accommodating an additional four affordable housing units in close proximity to transit. And they are consistent with CPD's policy of using waivers as a bridge to a future text amendment. As many of you may be aware. CPD is currently working on an affordable housing zoning incentive. And this site is probably going to have would probably qualify as being considered as an incentive area. There's also a development agreement in the form of an affordable housing agreement that has been executed. This agreement goes beyond the build alternative plan as 10% of all units will be income restricted for a period of 99 years at 60 and 80% and my levels, 25% of these income restricted units will be two bedrooms and 10% will be three bedrooms. Further income restricted units will be equitably distributed across the project and constructed of similar quality as the market rate units. As as the project is currently designed, there will be a total of 28 affordable housing units provided. This is in contrast to the four affordable housing units. That would be the results of the build alternative plan calculation. Information on the rest of this application was sent in late November. At that time, the applicant.
Speaker 3: Continued to.
Speaker 4: Engage with the community. They worked with hosts to develop that affordable housing agreement, and they worked with CPD to craft the waiver language. This resulted in a revised application being submitted in late August. At the time, the staff report was sent out. We have received 18 letters of support, including one from the VA on the Lincoln Park neighborhood and one letter of concern and one letter in opposition. Moving to the criteria. There are four plans that impact the subject property beginning with comprehensive plan 2040. This proposed rezoning is consistent with many of the strategies dealing with equitable, affordable and inclusive, strong and authentic neighborhoods and environmentally resilient goals and strategies. Moving the blueprint. DENVER The subject property is mapped as part of the general urban neighborhood context. The predominant land use in these areas is multi-unit residential and there is a regular street grid with consistent alley access. However, this application is proposing the urban center neighborhood context, which is more appropriate as the site is across the street from light rail station in close proximity to downtown Denver and nearer to campus. As Blueprint Denver master at a citywide scale. Limited flexibility can be interpreted as long as the request furthers planned goals and fits with the overall intent of the context map, which this does.
Speaker 3: And is consistent.
Speaker 4: The future place map designates this property as a community corridor. Here we envision a mix of office, commercial and residential uses with buildings generally up to eight storeys in height and given the street type of Colfax Avenue being a downtown arterial. The increased height here does make sense, and it is still less given the waivers that will limit the property to seven storeys instead of eight. So provide that transition to the neighborhood, to the south. This is part of the community centers and corridors growth area strategy where we envision 25% of new housing and 20% of new employment by 2040. Next, we have the Lincoln Park neighborhood plan. This plan was adopted in 2010 and envisions the area as a stable, mixed income neighborhood that provides connections to the surrounding neighborhoods downtown and the area of campus. The Framework Plan identifies the subject property as both mixed use retail and mixed use commercial, and the application of mixed use zoning as prescribed in these places and also in areas of change which these properties were designated as in Blueprint Number 22. The Building Heights Annapolis plan recommends up to five stories along Colfax and up to two stories along with along Kalama Street, closer to 14th Avenue. However, the plan does anticipate higher intensity zoning changes, and in these instances, applicants must substantially mitigate negative impacts.
Speaker 3: And approve the plan goals.
Speaker 4: So in working with the community, the applicant has been able to. Provide an affordable housing agreement and increase the amount of retail based on the neighborhood inputs. They have also relocated truck access. Based on neighborhood alley concerns. And they've also planted their plan to do live working. That's what they plan streets to better integrate with the residential area. And lastly, they are intending a public art component to be along Kalama Street to better integrate into the art district on Santa Fe. Well, it's not a supplemental plan to comp plan. This rezoning does mean housing and inclusive Denver and it will be providing affordable housing in areas of opportunity and promoting mixed income retail housing. Staff also finds that this reasoning meets the next two criteria as a result of the uniformity of district regulations and also further public health, safety and welfare through implementing adopted plans, facilitating increased housing density in transit, and providing better health outcomes through increased physical activity within walkable distances. There are two justifying circumstances mentioned for this reasoning. The first is change or changing conditions in the surrounding area. Recent physical changes include the opening of new multi-unit residential projects within close proximity to the site, as well as significant public and private investments along the Santa Fe Corridor. And the second justified circumstance points to the fact that the subject property currently zoned before with waivers you are one you have to retain. Former Chapter 59 after the city adopted the Denver zoning code. Lastly, the proposed rezoning is consistent with the urban center neighborhood context that exists in the surrounding area and with the purpose and intent statements for both Cemex five and CMC's eight. City staff recommends approval based on all review criteria met. I'm happy to answer questions. And also we have Andrew from hosts.
Speaker 3: Who can.
Speaker 4: Answer the questions about the voluntary housing agreement. Thank you.
Speaker 2: All right. Thank you very much, Brandon. There has been no written testimony submitted regarding Council Bill 1086, and we have four individuals signed up to speak this evening, and our first speaker is Joe Swanson. All right. I thought we had Joe. All right, Joe, we're getting you promoted up into the panelist. And you might have to meet yourself, Joe. There you go.
Speaker 4: This is Joe Swenson. And everybody hear me? Okay. Go ahead. Great. My name is Joe Swenson. My address is 950 17th Street in Denver, Colorado. I'm a senior manager of real estate development at the Opus Group based here in Denver. And I like to thank you and city staff for your work on this project. We appreciate the opportunity to present to you and look forward to this evening's discussion. You're with us tonight. We have several of our team members. I'll be joined in this presentation by Brian Connolly from Don Johnson. And all of us are available to answer your questions. The oldest group is a 65 year old company based in Minneapolis, has had a presence in the Denver community for over 25 years. We have a strong community focus and commitment to Denver, not only donate millions of dollars per year to community organizations, but also volunteer our time to partner for a greater impact. Our company's focus on community has driven our work on this project, and because of that, we began our engagement efforts over 15 months ago. From the beginning, it was important for us to get early input and feedback and the community's vision for this property. We held six meetings with the registered neighborhood organization before even submitting our zoning application and then a number of individual conversations with our members throughout this process. In addition, we held meetings with the Neighborhood Equity and Stabilization Group hosts Denver Housing Authority, the District of Santa Fe and the Santa Fe Business District. Affordable housing is a very important component of the proposed rezoning request. A project team worked with House to negotiate an affordable housing agreement that runs the land for 99 year period. The affordable component of the rezoning will allow for 60% and 80%, and my units will have a wide variety of unit types and sizes. We've also dedicated all of our three bedroom units to be affordable. The proposed zoning will create conditions that can benefit the community in a variety of ways. Early on, the neighborhood organization told us that this property is viewed as a gateway to the neighborhood in the art district. The new zoning request will help us achieve the vision of the piano as follows. The proposed zoning creates an opportunity for transit oriented projects across the complex light rail station. The new zoning will allow for live work units where an owner can operate a business on the ground floor while living upstairs, decreasing the expense of operating a small business. The proposed zoning requires street level activation along the Colfax frontage, allowing for a variety of users, including restaurants or businesses that serve the community. With the proposed zoning. Opus will partner with the art district on Santa Fe. To assist with art curation and public art features surrounding the property. Finally, the rezoning will create conditions to support a great new project that will offer improvements in the alley, new sidewalks, utility upgrades, pedestrian plaza and added greenspace. Brian Conaway will not talk about playing guidance. Thank you.
Speaker 2: All right. Thank you, Joe. Next up, we have Brian Conley.
Speaker 4: Good evening. Council members Brian Connolly here my business addresses 950 17th Street, Suite 1600. And as Joe mentioned, I am a land use lawyer with OT and Johnson Robinson, Neff and Reagan Eddie. I was asked by the applicant team to specifically touch on the issue of plant support, and we appreciate Mr. Shavers analysis on this topic. So I'll be brief. The proposal will allow for revitalization of an auto oriented, low density intersection and to a much more walkable area that takes advantage of transit access. So in that way, the proposal furthers many of the big picture themes of Blueprint in the Allman Lincoln Park neighborhood plan, including providing access to opportunity, creating affordable housing , establishing conditions to support community oriented businesses, provides mode shift away from cars and towards other forms of transportation, and it provides efficiency in land use and development. Since Brandon provided greater detail on planning guidance, I won't reiterate what's already been said, but we do believe the proposal is most appropriately reviewed under the urban center and neighborhood context and that the future places guidance supports the building height at seven stories along Colfax and scaling down to the south. With respect to the comparison to the existing zoning, the rezoning advances several aspects of planning guidance and brings the property integrator conformance with the plans when compared to the existing zoning. The building height will remain the same as currently entitled in the CM x eight with waivers portion of the site and the zone change will allow for relief from the current are limitation, which makes for less site, less efficient site development and avoids the possibility for surface parking. It maintains protected district upper storey setbacks and reduces height in the CM x five portion of the property, and it will require activation through transparency and street level active uses. So with that, we believe the request is consistent with planning guidance. We agree with staff's analysis. We'd be happy to take questions or discuss this further. We certainly respectfully request your approval. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Next up, we have Jay Fournier. Go ahead, J.
Speaker 4: Hi. My name is. My name is Jay Fournier. I'm also with the Opus Group. I am here to answer questions on the design architect on the project, working with Joe and Brian. I don't have anything formally to request but just offer my mind if you have any questions regarding the architectural design and the urban planning of the project. Thank you.
Speaker 2: All right. Thank you, Jay. And our last speaker on this hearing is Jesse Paris.
Speaker 4: The new members of council cannot be heard.
Speaker 2: Mm, go ahead.
Speaker 4: My name is Jefferson Parish, a representative for Denver homicide. Wow. Blackstock, someone with the self defense, has a passion for social change, as well as the Unity Party of Colorado and Mile High Schools. And I will be the next mayor of Denver in 2023. I was with me not in approval of this rezoning. I figured it was going to be more gentrification than usual. This area town has been gentrified, such as other areas of town, the Westside as well. I wanted to know I had a few questions for the occupants. If. You are going to plan on keeping the existing restaurants and retail establishments along with the laundromat. I also wanted to know why only 10% of units are going to be affordable for 99 years. Also, we wanted to know why the army levels are so high since you're talking about affordability. Is this affordable for 60% to 80%? Army is not affordable. Especially when an average annual income in Denver is about $55,000 a year. So. I say that the occupiers did their research better outreach. They reached out to the Arnolds. They reached out to several neighborhood groups. I seen there was one letter of concern. I wanted to know what that letter of concern was. I want to know what the letter of opposition was. And also I want to know what is the guarantee of this actually being affordable. You said that you came out with a neighborhood a neighborhood agreement. Who is going to enforce this agreement for 99 years? And also how many portable units. Is it going to be more than 28? Or is that just the total that's going to be affordable? How many units in total are going to be at this property? And honestly, it's it's got to be next year. This is going to be residential commercial all the above. So a please answer those questions. I will greatly appreciate it. Thank you.
Speaker 2: All right. Thank you, Jesse. And that concludes our speakers questions from members of Council on Build 1086. Councilwoman Torres. Thank you, Madam President. Brandon, my first two questions are for you on the justifying circumstances. You mentioned that public and private investment along the Santa Fe corridor were one of the things that allowed this to go to higher heights or meet some of the criteria. Can you just give me a sample of what those investments were that qualified for you in your in your analysis?
Speaker 4: Yes, definitely. So staff looked at recent development that has occurred along Santa Fe since 2010 when the neighborhood plan was adopted. So I think in the application, they specifically call out a mixed use building that's under construction right now along Santa Fe. They also talked about another project that is at Colfax in Osage that just recently opened. And then the public improvements, I believe, are still underway. But there is a project underway by Daddy to make Santa Fe Corridor a quieter sidewalks and public art components to make it more of a walkable place. So I think that staff thought that increasing the height and the density at this location was in going with the neighborhood is changing and was a satisfying, justifying circumstance. Hey.
Speaker 1: The.
Speaker 2: Parking minimums here. Can you tell me a little bit more about how how you look at what kind of parking is required here, given either whatever arrangement is made, the type of zoning that it has and its proximity to transit infrastructure.
Speaker 4: Yep, that's a great question as well. I do not know off the top of my head what the parking requirements are for the C-Max and. It depends on if it's for residential or if it's for a commercial use. I can get back to you on that. And then there's also a parking reduction for being in close proximity to the rail station. So I believe that they.
Speaker 2: Did get a reduction.
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you, Brendan. Andrew, question for you at Host.
Speaker 3: If you can give me a little bit more.
Speaker 2: Information in the in the public about the development agreement that was struck.
Speaker 4: Sure. We worked with the there's a voluntary, affordable housing agreement that has been struck on this property. It will be in place, as they've talked about it already for 99 years. It takes a total of the 280 units that are anticipated at this particular time and would say 10% of those would be creating 28 units. This is intended to be. There's a for sale clause and there's a rental clause. But the rental is will generate about 25 units at 80% AMI and about three units at 60% AMI. As we were going through the negotiating process, when we looked at the neighborhood and what we were looking for here was really also trying to get larger family units. So we were looking at things with like three bedrooms. We actually were able to come to an agreement that all of the three bedroom units in this project would be affordable. So there's we they did go the extra mile to actually get a larger family units in this in this agreement. So did you have any other questions?
Speaker 2: You mentioned a for sale clause. What does that mean for affordability?
Speaker 4: So it provides an option. So if you have a rental, if you if the project's all for rent, then it would be everything would be 80 and 60% AMI. But if they operate for sale, then it would be actually it's the same. It's 80. It's sorry. It's sometimes are different.
Speaker 3: Okay. Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Andrea. And then my final questions are for the applicant, Joe or Brian. So several of the businesses in the retail area have closed. I've noticed recently, but I know the restaurant remains. There might be some others. Have you been has there been conversation with any of the businesses that have remained about continuing on with the project? What does that look like so far? I know.
Speaker 4: It's throwing a.
Speaker 2: Wrench and everything, but.
Speaker 4: Yeah, COVID has affected some of the local businesses there. Um, I know the Starbucks, um, the two other businesses are planning to leave. Um, and we worked actually hand in hand with the laundromat to kind of figure out how to relocate them. Um, so we've come to agreement with them. Um, part of our purchase agreement that doesn't allow us to speak with the tenants directly as we have, we've had to go through the landlord. But the project is designed where we can bring back these local tenants, um, and keep them in the project if necessary and if they want to stay a part of our outreach engagement. Over the last 15 months, we met with Irene Aguilar and asked them through our programs to try and help out with a time in between when construction starts and when the building would be open for these retailers. And we hope this is committed to really help these tenants and act as a liaison between the tenants and to try to figure out a way to make that work.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 2: That's helpful. So Andrew gave a little bit of a rundown of the development agreement, and I remember in committee it was clarified that you can designate the affordable units for a certain population. I think my question was, how do you make sure that it's not students, that it really is families and not a set of roommates that might be occupying the three bedroom?
Speaker 1: How would that actually.
Speaker 2: Work in your in your.
Speaker 1: View?
Speaker 4: Sure. So, first of all, we're renting by the unit and not by the bed. And that is typically a natural deterrent to students. You know, they're looking for, you know, to rent a bed and not be held accountable for an entire unit. We also we rent on a 12 month rental cycle, and it's not based on the academic calendar. It's also my understanding that their housing policy allows us to cater towards that family, and that's what we intend to do.
Speaker 2: Okay. On the art curation, I know that you and I saw the letter from the district. Thank you for working with them. What does that look like? Does that look like art shown in the lobby or. I thought I remembered artist studios being discussed at one point. What's the what's the plan for this one?
Speaker 4: Yeah. So we have a few options. I think first off, we have an opportunity and the right of way on the sidewalks that have some type of sculptures and some type of, uh, a pedestal to really make this feel like a gateway to the art district on Santa Fe. We also have the opportunity to have the assistance from the district and art and are united spaces in the building. And I think the kind of the best option is on the east side of the projects are the proposed project along Kalama. We have a co-working space where it would be floor to ceiling glass and the idea would be like a first Friday. Or if there's some kind of event that the artist from Santa Fe is hosting, that we could have a gallery space there, that a local artist could have their work shown and leave it there for, you know, 2 to 3 month period or whatever would be appropriate for that artist.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much. And then on the actual development that the build, one of the big pain points of this particular corridor has been the sidewalk along Colfax. And Councilman Hines might remember.
Speaker 1: When we were.
Speaker 2: First sworn in, a constituent from downtown who uses a wheelchair to get around, made sure that it was on both of our radar, that he can't use this this particular sidewalk, the utility infrastructure is directly in the middle of it. Can you give us a sense of what you envision that looking like for pedestrians, for for for access?
Speaker 4: So part of this site development plan process, we worked with the city and we're basically dedicating the first 20 feet between the building and Colfax Avenue as public right away. So that would be an extended sidewalk as well as a tree line. And then we are upgrading all the sidewalks along the Pan Alley map. And then another thing of note is that obviously we bring on an accessibility consultant to make sure not only the public right away is accessible, but also within the building.
Speaker 1: Great.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Those are my questions, Madam President. Thank you so much. All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Torres. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. Joe, if you could just stay on. I've got a few questions for you as well. First of all, did you guys try to acquire the property to the south of the lodge?
Speaker 4: We did not.
Speaker 1: Okay. That has historically been city owned property. That's where the Community Development Agency used to be before it was CPD and now Dido. And I had asked our planning director some time ago about planning director, but our Dido director to look at that property and tell us what was the status of it, because it has been vacant for years and years and years and it's an eyesore on our community and it would have been ideal to incorporate into the development. But so that's why I was asking the question whether or not you guys even looked at that, because it will continue to be an eyesore on your property once it's all said and done, if it continues to remain vacant as it is today.
Speaker 4: Yeah, yeah. There's there's currently a single owner on the property that we're rezoning and we never consider that piece of land to the south. Yeah, it could have been a good opportunity, though. Yeah.
Speaker 1: It could be. But anyway, so my next question, some several of them were asked by Councilwoman Torres. As far as the it is, is this being done in partnership with new said or did you guys purchased the property from them?
Speaker 4: Sunnyside actually sold this property to the current owner, I think it was in 2005. Okay. The new set is no longer part of.
Speaker 1: Okay. Got it. All right. That's good to know. I guess it's. I don't know. I lost track of that back then. Didn't realize that happened. That Fargo. I want to know if you guys have done a traffic study and if that's going to warrant anything new or different with that many units being put on the property. And can you give us an idea of roughly based on the commercial square footage that you're looking at and the residential? How many cars will be on the site?
Speaker 4: Sure. So we haven't.
Speaker 1: Had a significant reduction because of its proximity to rail. But you're not going to build a project without some parking.
Speaker 4: Right. So the code requires us to have 0.75 stalls per unit. We're currently designing at that point nine stalls per unit with retail spaces as well. We haven't yet done a traffic study, but that would be a part of the site development plan process as we get into that further. We submitted our initial plans in October and we're expecting comments here hopefully in the next 2 to 3 weeks. And at that point, we'll have to engage in a traffic study in the current retail on the site, I think there's about 15,000 feet. And so we'll have 10,000 feet of traditional retail and then six live work units. And those are about 1500 square feet each.
Speaker 1: When you say traditional, you think in a restaurant, some of the neighborhood serving kinds of businesses.
Speaker 4: Yeah. So the way it's designed on the northeast corner, that could be a restaurant like a sit down restaurant and that's about 3000 feet. And then the Inland Retail to be able to pan kind of mid-block along Colfax. That's going to be very flexible where it could be a sit down restaurant or it could be some type of a drop off laundromat. Really could be anything.
Speaker 1: Okay, so have you all begun talking to see about whether or not you're going to be pursuing any kind of curb cut off of Colfax?
Speaker 4: We're actually going to be removing the existing curb cut, and that does require commitment, see done. Um, and so as soon as we get these initial comments back from the step process that will allow us to begin the civil designed documents to engage, see that and start that process just.
Speaker 1: So that typically you're not going to have a curb cut on Colfax, is that right? You're just going to have a calendar.
Speaker 4: We'll have one access point, lots of columns, one off of the pan, and then we also have an access point. Oh.
Speaker 3: So good. Okay.
Speaker 1: Okay. That's helpful to know. I appreciate that. Let me move through. I've got a few more, if you don't mind. Madam President. We already talked about the parking reduction number of parking spaces the city owned lot. Curb cut. Traffic study. I think. Can you tell us whether or not you're looking at securing any lower income tax credits for the project?
Speaker 4: Well, we are not. Yeah. The really the only benefit that we are looking for, this is the extra height in zoning. So it will not be asking for any other assistance.
Speaker 1: Okay. All right. Those are my questions. Thank you much.
Speaker 2: All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Next up, we have Councilman Hines.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. I wanted to thank Councilmember Torres for bringing up the point about access on Colfax. I also want to thank the applicant for, I think you said, 20 feet of right away. Wow. So I use a wheelchair for mobility. I add after customer returns brought up the lack of access. I have tweeted about that location to and from from where I live to go over the metro. I would go along this area and I would go in the in the in the parking lot because there was no way for me to get between the rock obstruction and the trees. And so I want to thank you for your commitment to pedestrian access. Colfax, obviously, is a huge transit corridor, perhaps the busiest in the city. I don't I don't know. I haven't looked at the data, but at least for pedestrians and and mixed use. So I want to thank you for for considering the pedestrian access in that and that large sidewalk access. I think that that will really help you with with encouraging people to to live, work and play there and and use whatever businesses in the immediate area. So I just wanted to throw that coming up. Thank you and thank you, councilmember attorneys for bringing that up. And thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Hines. The public hearing for Council Bill 20 Dash 1086 is closed. Councilmember Torres. Would you like to make any comments since it's in your council district? Thank you so much. This was your group was actually one of the first two that I met with about this particular property. So I know that you've been working on it for a very long time and appreciate.
Speaker 3: All of the.
Speaker 2: Measures that have been taken to make sure that different partners within that neighborhood felt really good about the project, that community members felt like it was reflective of llama Lincoln Park. And I hope I would love for that to continue, not just with the art district, but with that community. That's very much an established and historical Chicano neighborhood that's deeply reflected in the art and in the culture surrounding that. It's also.
Speaker 3: A.
Speaker 2: Highly mobile. And I love the access that you're granting, particularly at Colfax, as we were discussing. But also, I think the what I'm hoping will be the transparency of the building. I remember a hotel, small hotel, boutique hotel that I visited in Louisville, Kentucky, where their lobby is effectively a a a.
Speaker 1: Gallery.
Speaker 2: And an artist studio for the public. And it just made it a really unique space that you don't see too often, especially as you get into the downtown corridor. So I just want to thank all of the partners that have been involved in this and have done it so deeply. And I know this is a project that Susan Stanton was working on, and it was just really a pleasure to be able to to work with her for such a short period of time. And knowing that she had been involved and was involved when we first met, it did breathe an air of confidence of process into this project and I think that has shown through. And just thank you for all the work that you've done. And I'm looking forward to the build and I hope my fellow council members will join me in supporting it. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. Up next, we have help from Sandoval.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam President. I just wanted to echo what Councilman Tory says. I was working in Councilwoman Montero's office in 2012, 2013, when we did the study, pedestrian study and access along Colfax there. And we had talked about the redevelopment of this site and here it is. Now, I'm a council person being able to vote on it, so it's pretty cool. And in season Stanton's memory, I remember being elected and she called me and talked to me about this site and how excited she was about it and the affordability and what were my thoughts about it. And um, even though she's not with us today, her legacy still lives on through all of these buildings. And I miss talking to her and going over things with her. And she would be sitting here with us tonight, surely proud of all the hard work that we need to do so in her honor and her memory. I thank you, Councilman, for bringing that up, because she's been it's been this degree of loss to the families community with through this year. With that, I will also be supporting it this evening. Thank you.
Speaker 2: All right. Thank you, Councilman Sandoval. And and thank you both for bringing up Susan's memory. She is definitely near and dear and had her networks all over the city, if not the region. And so I'm happy to support this tonight as it meets all of the criteria. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 5: For us.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 3: Well, I. Peter Baker. I. Ah.
Speaker 4: All right.
Speaker 5: When?
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 3: Brendan.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 5: Time.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 0: Can I?
Speaker 3: Ortega, I.
Speaker 0: I. Sawyer. I.
Speaker 3: Madam President.
Speaker 2: I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced the results. 1313 ies council bills 20 dash 1086 has passed. Councilmember Sandoval, will you please put Council Bill 1127 on the floor for final passage?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 1010 West Colfax Avenue, 1050 West Colfax Avenue & 1443 Kalamath Street in Lincoln Park.
Approves a map amendment to rezone properties from B-4 with waivers, UO-1, UO-2 to C-MX-5 and C-MX-8 (former chapter 59 zoning to mixed-use) with waivers, located at 1010 and 1050 West Colfax Avenue and 1443 Kalamath Street in Council District 3. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 10-13-20.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11232020_20-1127
|
Speaker 2: I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced the results. 1313 ies council bills 20 dash 1086 has passed. Councilmember Sandoval, will you please put Council Bill 1127 on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 0: I move that bill 20 dash 1127 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 2: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded by Councilman Holmes. The required public hearing for Council Bill 20 Dash 1127 is open. May we please have the staff report?
Speaker 0: Yes. Can you hear me and see my screen? Okay. Awesome. And so my name is Libby Adams, and I'll be presenting the MAP Amendment at 26, 55 and 2659 Downing Street. This application is located in Council District nine. In the Five Points neighborhood. The property is located on the corner of Downing Street and Fremont Place. Its approximately 8080 square feet and is currently occupied by an industrial warehouse in a single unit home. It's currently in the general urban residential office, three zone district and the applicant is proposing to rezone to urban mixed use three stories . As stated previously, the existing zoning is a grocery which is a multi-unit, residential and office district, allowing the urban house, duplex, townhouse and apartment primary building forms. The maximum height allowed is three stories or 35 to 40 feet, depending on the primary building form. The site is currently occupied by an industrial warehouse and a single unit home. As mentioned, it's surrounded by mostly other residential uses with more commercial closer to the Welton corridor. This shows the existing building form and scale. The subject site is on the bottom. Right. And you can see there's some new townhomes across Fremont Place. Some existing row homes just to the northwest. And then a duplex directly north of the site. The MAP amendment was complete at the beginning of May, and a postcard notifying property owners within 200 feet of the site was sent out on May six. This was originally scheduled for planning board in mid-September, but one of the neighboring property owners actually noticed that it was noticed to the incorrect council district. So this was a notice to Councilmember Cashman instead of Councilwoman CdeBaca. So then it was pushed back. And so the public hearing for planning board was held on September 30th once that new notice had been sent out 15 days prior and they unanimously recommended approval. We did receive five public comments about this case and three were emails in support of the proposal, the proposed rezoning, and then two were emails from neighboring property owners requesting more information. One wanted to know about parking and which would be determined at the time of the site development plan. And then the other. They wanted some assurances that this would include some commercial development and not just be residential. There are five review criteria in the Denver zoning code, which I'll go over. The first criterion is consistency, adapt the plans, and there are three that are applicable to this site. The rezoning is consistent with several of the strategies and comprehensive plan 2040, but I'll just go over a few of them. This MAP amendment will promote promote equity by ensuring all Denver residents have access to basic services and amenities. It will promote strong and authentic neighborhoods by encouraging quality infill development that is consistent with the character of existing neighborhoods. And it will promote an environmentally resilient Denver by promoting infill development where there's already infrastructure in place and encouraging mixed use communities. Blueprint identifies the future neighborhood context and blueprint is urban. These areas are characterized by multi-unit and mixed use areas embedded in single or two unit residential areas. The block patterns are regular and there is a high degree of walkability. Blueprint identifies this property as a local corridor place type. These place types provide options for dining, entertainment and shopping. With building heights up to three stories. Downing Street in Blueprint is a residential arterial. These see the highest amount of through movement and are mostly characterized by residential uses with some small retail nodes and other similar uses. 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. And this site is what's also within the Northeast Downtown Neighborhoods Plan and the land use concept identified in this plan is transit oriented development. This is where we want to see a mix of uses, particularly near transit stations. And then the height concept in the Northeast Downtown Neighborhoods Plan is three stories, which is consistent with what the applicant is proposing. Sapp also finds the requested zoning meets the next two criteria. The rezoning will result in uniformity of district regulations, and it will promote the public health, safety and welfare primarily by implementing adopted plans, but also fostering the creation of a walkable, mixed use area near transit. Staff finds there is a justifying circumstance for this MAP amendment with the adopted plan guidance of a transit oriented development as designated in the 2011 Northeast Downtown Neighborhoods Plan. And lastly, the proposed zoning is consistent with the urban neighborhood context and the mixed use zone districts. Purpose and the specific intent of the unmatched three zone district. So staff recommends approval based on finding all criteria have been met. And that concludes the staff presentation.
Speaker 2: All right. Thank you, Libby. There has been no written testimony submitted regarding Council Bill 1127. And we have one individual signed up to speak this evening and we have Jesse Paris. Go ahead, Jesse.
Speaker 4: Good evening from the council. My name is Jessie Pearce. I live in District eight and Christopher Hernandez district. And I represent for the homeless. Allow Blackstar some more for self-defense. Has a passion for social change as well as related party of Colorado and Mile-High News and I will be the next mayor of Denver in 2023. I wanted to know what the AMA level was going to be for this proposed rezoning. What is going to happen to the existing structures that are on the site? The neighbors of the home that Occupy Occupy say notified of this rezoning. This is right next to Councilwoman Casey, the box office. So I'm very familiar with this area. Pretty much grew up in this side of town on the east side called the hood. So I want to know what is being done to minimize or lessen the rapid gentrification that is going on in this side of town as well . And was there a neighborhood agreement put in place to guarantee that there was going to be actually affordable units built on this property for 99 years? And was there a traffic study done? And what is going to be done to minimize or lessen the traffic that already exists in this area. This is the most frequent location down this way and arterial to this part of town. So I would really like to know if someone can answer those questions. I would really appreciate it. Thank you.
Speaker 2: All right. Thank you, Jesse. That concludes our speakers questions from members of Council on Bill 1127. Councilwoman Sade Abarca.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 1: I see Miss Hoover join the call and would love to give her an opportunity as the applicant to speak a little bit about what's proposed for this site and just let my council colleagues know what what's planned here.
Speaker 0: Good evening. Can you hear me?
Speaker 2: Yes. Go ahead.
Speaker 0: Good evening. This is Lorraine Hoover and I reside at 1556 South Lansing Street in Aurora, Colorado. I'm a native of Colorado. This building 2655 Downing was my father's from plumbing business, which we are third generation native of Colorado. It was my grandfather was round tree and son on the five points in the 1960s. And then my dad became more commercial and moved over to. It was artistic plumbing at 2655 Downing. My dad is site impaired and lives in the unit at 2659. Downey And this location for us as African-Americans is very important that we stay in the community so we can develop it along with all of the plans that have been taking place. And at this point in time, we wanted to make sure we could grow to have units as well as.
Speaker 3: Commercial.
Speaker 0: Or commercial as well as retail.
Speaker 3: And then also the capability to grow.
Speaker 0: Up three with residential. At this point, the goal is just to be in line with the community. We have no future plans except were to align with the zoning. So that's where we are at this point.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Miss Hoover. And for my council colleagues. Mr. Roundtree is very involved in our community and just trying to make sure his property is consistent. And we support this application. And I hope you all will as well.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 2: All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Abarca and Ms.. Hoover. See no other questions. The public hearing for Council Bill 20 Dash 1127 is closed. Council members say tobacco. Would you like to make a comment. Consciences in your.
Speaker 1: District.
Speaker 0: Just that we we support.
Speaker 1: It when we don't believe that this will change that corner significantly and it and it doesn't essentially change the height that they could currently go up to. He is just making sure that his zoning is consistent with the plans and up to.
Speaker 0: Date and.
Speaker 1: We.
Speaker 0: Support it.
Speaker 2: All right. Very good. Thank you. Seeing no other hands raised. This looks like it meets the criteria. And I will also be supporting it tonight. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 3: See the market, I. Plus I.
Speaker 4: When I.
Speaker 5: Saw him.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 3: Hi.
Speaker 4: I'm.
Speaker 3: Catherine.
Speaker 4: All right.
Speaker 3: I. Ortega, I. Sandoval.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 3: Sawyer, I. For us, I. Well.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 3: Madam President.
Speaker 2: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. 3913 EIS Council Bill 20 1127 has passed Council members Sandoval all you please put Council Bill 1128 on the floor for final passage.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 2655 and 2659 Downing Street in Five Points.
Approves a map amendment to rezone property from G-RO-3 to U-MX-3 (general urban office, to urban mixed-use); located at 2655 and 2659 Downing Street in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 10-20-20.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11232020_20-1128
|
Speaker 2: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. 3913 EIS Council Bill 20 1127 has passed Council members Sandoval all you please put Council Bill 1128 on the floor for final passage.
Speaker 0: I move that council bill 20 1128 is placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 2: Thank you. It has been moved and I think we got councilman herndon second in there. The required public hearing for council bill 20 dash 1128 is open. May we please have the staff report?
Speaker 0: Yes, Libby again and I'll be presenting the staff report. Four 4820 West Hayward Place. This is located in Council District one in the West Highland neighborhood. The property is located near the near the intersection of West Hayward Place and Wolf Street, north of West 29th Avenue. It's approximately 9450 square feet and is currently occupied by a single unit home. It's currently zoned urban single unit C and the applicant is proposing to rezone to a zone district that allows for an accessory dwelling unit U.S.C. one. As I stated previously, the existing zoning is urban single unit C, which allows for residential uses and some civic uses in the Urban House primary building form. The existing or the site is occupied by a single unit home surrounded by mostly other single unit uses with some two unit uses within scattered around the West Highland neighborhood. And then there's some more commercial uses located along West 29th Avenue. This shows the existing area, just the subject. Property is on the right hand side. There's another single unit home that's just to the west. And then one of the commercial structures along West 49th Avenue. The MAP amendment was complete in mid-August, mid-August, in a postcard notifying property owners within 200 feet of the site was sent out on August 15th. And then this went to planning board on September 30th, where it was unanimously approved on the consent agenda. And to date, we've received one public comment from a neighbor in support of the rezoning. The Denver zoning code has five review criteria, which I'll go over. The first criterion consistency with adopted plans. And there are three plans that are applicable to this site. The rezoning is consistent with several of the strategies and blueprint. Denver But I'll just go over these two. 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 is already in place. The future neighborhood context and blueprint. Denver is urban. These areas are characterized by one and two unit residential areas, with some mixed use and multi-unit residential embedded throughout with regular block patterns and alley access. Blueprint identifies this property as a low residential place type. These place types are mostly single unit residential uses and accessory dwelling units are appropriate and can be compatibly compatibly integrated. I mean, West Hayward Place is a local street and these streets are mostly characterized by residential uses. The growth area strategy is all other areas of the city. This is where we anticipate 10% of employment growth and 20% of housing growth by 2040. The rezoning is also consistent with the land use and built form housing policy for to enable adus in all residential neighborhoods. And then in housing inclusive Denver, which is not adopted as a supplement to the comprehensive plan, but it was adopted by City Council. This rezoning is consistent with the attainable homeownership recommendation one promoting the development of accessory dwelling units. Staff also find that the requested zoning meets the next two criteria. The rezoning will result in uniformity of district regulations, and it will further the public health, safety and welfare by implementing adaptive plans and providing an additional housing unit that can be kept compatibly inter integrated into the surrounding neighborhood. There's also a justifying circumstance for this MAP amendment with the newly adopted guidance for use in all of residential neighborhoods, and that's found in that policy forum blueprint. Denver. Lastly, the proposed rezoning is consistent with the urban neighborhood context, the residential zoned districts, general purpose and the specific intent of the USC one zoned district. Staff finds all review criteria have been met and recommends approval of the SNAP Amendment. And that concludes my presentation.
Speaker 2: All right. Thank you, Libby. No written testimony has been received regarding Council Bill 1128. And we have two individuals signed up to speak this evening. Our first speaker is Jesse Paris.
Speaker 4: The meeting ended with the counsel suggesting Mr. Perry's not present for demo almost and allow Blackstar a moment for self. Defense has a magical moment for social change as well as the Unity Party of Colorado and Mile High. And I will be the next November in 2023. I'm in favor of this reporting. Tonight's. Love, if you will, for the council, men of the council, women of this district. And I have relationships with several people in the neighborhood. I wanted to know who this is going to be voted out to, because this is an area of town. It has been rapidly, if not the most gentrified in the county that never. So I would really like to know the answer to that question because we have a unhoused neighbor crisis. People are being swept like tracks on a daily basis. So I would prefer the venture to be somebody who lived experience. If we're really trying to tackle this crisis that we have called it's. So I thought I could please answer those questions. I was greatly appreciated. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Our next speaker is Comrade Protect.
Speaker 4: Hello. Council members, employers, employees of city and county of Denver. I want to point out that you're not here, by the way, again. So so you are running business as usual, talking about rezoning five points, which is unfortunate because Five Points has a really amazing cultural history and you are planning on completely and totally just destroying it for more rich white people. Instead of coming for coming up with actual responses and solutions for the I think it's about 10,000 on house people. I'm sorry if I mispronounced Jess even mentioned it, but there are unhoused people in this zone. So. So why are we discussing rezoning and rebuilding of or building new property? Ten, 10% of the other 1 to 28 units. Why are we discussing that? Why are we acting like it's business as usual during the middle of a pandemic? Why are we discussing business as usual? Giving more rich white landlords money. Instead of shutting down to the working class, the people who serve you meals, who deliver your food. You stock your groceries. Who are putting themselves at risk daily. For what? You don't care. Not a single one of you care. Except maybe Candy. I like candy. She's cool. In hindsight. But, you know, like, look, nobody is here. Nobody is here. You are staying cozy in your warm homes. Eating all.
Speaker 3: The lovely food that we.
Speaker 4: Pay for. For what? Thousands are going to die in on the streets after being constantly brutalized by the Denver Police Department. And I want to go a little off topic. You might get upset, Madam President, but I don't give a fuck. $16 million.
Speaker 2: And please refrain.
Speaker 4: From partaking in body cam. And I.
Speaker 3: Quote.
Speaker 4: That the Denver police chief said that you would use those those tasers on people with autism. How can you be?
Speaker 3: Don't tell me how to speak, Madam President. I will personally be right. Sotero Thank you very. Please refrain from rousing speech.
Speaker 2: That concludes our speakers questions for members of Council on Council Bill 1128. I see no questions from members of Council on Council Bill 1128. All right. The public hearing for Council Bill 20 Dash 1128 is closed. I don't see any hands raised either on this one. Madam Secretary, roll call, please. Madam Secretary.
Speaker 0: Sorry, Sandoval. I.
Speaker 1: Sawyer. I.
Speaker 3: Sorry.
Speaker 4: I am.
Speaker 3: Black. I. Peter Baker. I. Clark.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 3: When?
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 3: Herndon.
Speaker 4: I. Hi. Hi.
Speaker 3: Cashman.
Speaker 4: Hi.
Speaker 3: Can each.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 3: Ortega.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 0: Madam President.
Speaker 2: Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 3: On the eve of a night.
Speaker 2: 11 Eyes Council Bill 20 Dash 1128 has passed. Councilmember Sandoval, would you please put council Bill 1138 on the floor for final passage?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 4820 West Hayward Place 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 4820 West Hayward Place in Council District 1. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 10-13-20.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11232020_20-1138
|
Speaker 2: 11 Eyes Council Bill 20 Dash 1128 has passed. Councilmember Sandoval, would you please put council Bill 1138 on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 0: I move that council bill 20 dash 1138 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 4: Second.
Speaker 2: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded by Councilman Hines. The 30 minute courtesy public hearing for Council Bill 20 Dash 1138 is open. May we please have a staff report?
Speaker 4: Thank you. Madam President will send here from dpkg with just a quick introduction. I'm joined by Meghan Preso, the Public Health and Environment Contracts and Grants Manager and the Contract Administrator for the operating agreement who will be giving a short presentation. We're also joined by colleagues from other city agencies to address questions. And by Denver Health and Hospital Authority representatives, including CEO, Dr. Rob Winston, associate CFO Brad Kimball and others. And with that, I'll turn it over to Megan.
Speaker 1: Evening. Council members. I'm going to share my screen here. Everyone see? Great. Thank you for having us this evening. Well, already provided introductions. I'm the contract administrator you for the 2021 operating agreement. And thank you for your time this evening. Quickly a little bit about the structure of the agreement. I know many of you are familiar with it. Roughly 16 city agencies and over 40 to 50 people at the city managed the agreement all the way from budget to monitoring performance and many other aspects of the agreement. It's divided into three parts. The first part is considered Appendix A and the course services. These are the services which the city purchases from the authority. That includes examples here, like the medically indigent payment, EMS services, public health, Denver Cares, Prisoner Medical, etc.. The second section of the agreement is Appendix B. These are considered non-core services. These are services which the city may purchase in the hospital but could have multiple providers through a selective bidding process. These examples of these include first line jail, medical services, treatment on demand, and many others. And then the last section of the agreement, Appendix D are the flip and reverse. There are limited services, the hospital purchases from the city. And these some examples include payroll and legal services related to for service employees that are at the hospital. Radio support fuel man one. One call taker and many others.
Speaker 3: A little bit about.
Speaker 1: The 2021 agreement itself. There are 39 sections in the operating agreement. As you can see in the chart here, 28 of those sections remained unchanged. Ten of them had relatively minor revisions, and one of those has been removed or suspended in 2021. In 2017, I believe there was an audit of the operating agreement and lots of robust changes occurred in 2018. Therefore, the minimal changes this year. Couple of things to note. The oversight and accountability provisions that were updated and called out by council in 2020 are remain in the 2020 agreement as well. And as I mentioned, one section of the agreement due to budget reductions has been suspended for the 2020 year and that's the Marijuana Public Health Impact Monitoring and Epidemiology section. I'll quickly try to run through some highlights of each appendix. These lists the general changes in each section with some a few small ones not noted here, but these are the major ones. So for the course services in appendix A key changes to the emerging emergency medical services at the airport. It was just an update updated time that the second ambulance is dedicated to the airport. Some changes in public health services. We added some language around potential mid-cycle negotiations, language around addressing public health information between the two entities. Some routine updates to performance metrics and targets, and then some minor updates to the emergency preparedness procedures. Partially based on my experience with covered medical services for prisoners. We just updated the time the sheriff's department has to arrange for transport of a patient. And then lastly, just some courier services were updated for the Office of the Medical Examiner. Highlights of changes in Appendix B, the caution outline. We clarified some rules and kind of oversight responsibilities within those sections for Nurse Swine. We updated details regarding medical providers that provide that second level triage at Nurse Lynn and broader the options for external language interpretation services. For health care at the jail, added health services administrator position to oversee the nursing functions removed in additional limited term health care staff and added some assurances that the city will provide some space for health services to perform the required requirements outlined in the contract. As mentioned before, the Marijuana Public Health Impact Monitoring and Epidemiology section has been removed in 2021, and then the At Risk Intervention and Mentoring Program updated some some numbers related to the number of individuals that they will provide service to and the number of positions and associated costs, although there was no overall increase to the cost of the program. And finally, highlights in appendix Appendix C and there's obviously just one. And that was just to add Internet access and maintenance for the mobile routers and the paramedic vehicles. A little bit about the budget. Similar to city agencies, the city requested that the hospital take a reduction in 2021 to their operating agreement cost and the total contract amount for 2021 is 61 million plus. It's comprised of a $27.7 million payment for patient care services and the remaining 33.8 million roughly for other core and non-core services . Obviously, it also includes that approximate revenue for the city provided services at roughly $3.7 million. The graph on the left provides a distribution of the core services budget, and the graph on the right talks a little bit about the total cost of the medically indigent patient population. The orange portions of the bar graph representing the city's portion of those payments. And in conclusion, I just want to thank you all for your time. I know that this is a rather extensive agreement and there's many services, so appreciate that it's such an important decision being considered today. I also want to make sure that we keep in mind the importance of executing the contract by January 1st. We're wanting to make sure that we avoid any gaps in critical services for vulnerable residents in Denver. And for many of these services, there are likely other providers that are able to step in, and certainly not at this point in time between now and January 1st to provide those same services with that, that concludes the staff presentation. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 2: All right. Thank you, Megan. We have 22 individuals signed up to speak this evening. And just a quick reminder that this is a 30 minute courtesy public hearing. And so we'll go ahead and start with our list of speakers and most likely will not be able to get through them all, but would ask the speakers if you feel like you're repeating information or information has already been shared. If you could limit your comment so that we can get through as many individuals as possible. And so our first speaker up is Justin Harper. There you go. Go ahead, Justin.
Speaker 4: Hello? Can you hear me okay? Mm hmm. Can you hear me okay? Yeah. Hi, everyone. And thanks for coming. My name is Justin Harper. I'm a paramedic. I'm one of the assistant chiefs with the Denver Health Paramedic Division. I'm a Colorado native. I grew up in Denver in the Capital Hill neighborhood, as a matter of fact. I'm a product of the Denver public schools and I'm this I graduate the proudest I graduate, I should say. I currently live in the park neighborhood of Denver with my sons, who are also attending Denver public schools. So I chose to become a paramedic, and I joined Denver Health in 2000. And it was really my opportunity to give back and to be a part of this community in a different way. And really, Denver health affords that opportunity in many ways for paramedics to contribute. And, you know, speaking of the contribution, the Denver health paramedics were on more than 130,000 calls per year for service. It's definitely the largest emergency medical services system in the state and certainly in the region. And running such a service comes with a lot of challenges. But I think that we manage these challenges well and we find ways to help people, and we find ways to help beyond just the response of the paramedics. We actually in the last two years, we've trained people in CPR. First aid stopped the bleed, over 7000 people in the last two years in these courses. We've also trained over 550 EMTs and paramedics in the last three years. And so the impact of this health care education and it's a great example of how we reach our community in different ways. And it can't be understated. You know, one of the things that we know as paramedics is that people don't necessarily survive out of hospital cardiac arrest if they don't have bystander CPR. We know that you can bleed to death from a major injury for four from excuse me in less than 3 to 5 minutes. And so providing this community training and helping people to be able to help themselves and others we know is vital. And that really speaks to who we are and how we're embedded in this community. The Denver Health Paramedic Division exists to serve our community. Beyond the ambulance response or excuse me, we are a core city service that contributes to the greater good of this amazing city. The Denver health paramedics are based out of an incredible hospital with integrated health care services. And, you know, leveraging the departments that we have within the hospital and bringing that care to the city is really what we're all about. So thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Denver Health Paramedic Division. And thanks for having me.
Speaker 2: All right. Well, thank you, Mr. Harper. Next up, we have comrade defense.
Speaker 4: Hello again. Employees of. Denver residents. Oh, I saw you shaking your head. Madam President, I'm so sorry to inconvenience you one more time for a whole 3 minutes. So I just want to talk about. The fact that I actually I support being able to make sure that our people, the residents and citizens of Denver have access to health care. I believe in something called Medicare for All, though I don't believe that Denver Health, which is a for profit organization, should be receiving more funding. Instead, we should fund Social. Social Security. We should fund Medicare and Medicaid. So that those who are not lucky enough to still be employed in the middle of a pandemic can still get help. And yeah, of course, you know, the emergency rooms are going to accept you and they're going to they're going to treat you as though they're going to kick you out the door. And that person who just got here just got out of the hospital with maybe little to no clothing, might return to where they thought their camp was, for it to be fenced off and for the police to have literally thrown away all of their property. Brutalizing them again. Yeah, I know, I know. I keep bringing it up. And I'm so sorry, Madam President, but it irks you. But honestly, I'm not, because you cannot continue business as usual when we are looking at thousands of people who are unhoused or housing insecure in the middle of a pandemic where they can't even get a job, and those who can't get a job have to wait 30 days for health care coverage. So why do we not instead give money to Medicare, do something like California has done, and build their own their own Medicare? So that we can make sure that we that the residents and our lovely tourists have health care when they need it. Also November 30th. I want to go on record saying this. November 30th, the city and county of Denver plans to sweep. Yeah, I use the word sweep because it's treat it like trash to you as like trash. 300 people that you sent there, the Denver police sent to the Arkin's camp and that, oh, you're going to sweep up. Where are they going to go? You're going to destroy property. You're going to traumatize more people. And so one last time, I just want to say.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam.
Speaker 4: President.
Speaker 2: Thank you for joining us tonight. Our next speaker is Cyprus Charles. Looks like we're trying to get Mr. Charles connected up. All right. I think you're in the panelists, Mr. Charles. Go ahead. All right. We must be having some. Technical difficulties. We'll go ahead and go to our next speaker. Sandra Parker Murray.
Speaker 3: Hello. Good evening. My name is Sandra Parker Murray. I am a member of the.
Speaker 1: Community Workers Alliance for a Healthier Denver. I served on the Paid Family.
Speaker 3: Leave Task Force in 2019.
Speaker 1: I'm here to speak.
Speaker 3: In support of the passage of the Denver Health Operating Agreement and request that you also take measures to protect workers as they protect us, to keep us and the community safe. Denver Health Frontline workers must have proper protections living wages, readily available COVID 19 testing, contact tracing, full pay pandemic leave when they test positive. And just as importantly, the freedom from intimidation and fear in joining their union. Denver have workers cannot do their jobs as caregivers if they do not have these basic protections. I've been a paid family leave and union activist for two decades. I'm here to ask you to hear my message. Those closest to the problems are closest to the solution. Listen to them. Denver health workers and community members have been going to the Denver Health Board throughout the pandemic to raise issues about their safety, their working conditions, patient care, community health, wages, racism and the right to have a union without retaliation or intimidation. They are saying that existing power relationships in the workplace have not been enough to keep people safe. Denver Health Union busting has real consequences on people's lives. My elderly mother suffers from Alzheimer's. She's contracted COVID 19 from a low wage care provider in her nursing home. I believe that if my mother's caregiver had all the workplace protections she needed living wage, paid family leave so she could afford to stay home when sick. A union proper p. E. She might not have made my mother sick. In Colorado, black residents like my mother make up roughly 6.5% of deaths and 10% of hospitalizations despite being 4% of the population. Hispanics are 22% of the population, but have a much higher percentage of cases 38%. I know that listening to the voices of frontline workers is necessary in eliminating racism in health care. The amazing Denver health staff have come together to form a union with an agenda of dismantling racism, and currently top executives approach to their group of workers is to discourage staff from joining the union and to otherwise ignore its existence. Leaders cannot keep workers safe in a pandemic or dismantle racism while at the same time running an anti-union campaign. They cannot claim to listen to workers and ignore their collective voices. We understand now, in this new pandemic world how dangerous that is. What is needed now is worker protections, not worker intimidation. Thank you for your consideration.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Our next speaker is Lisa Ghanem, Gwyneth. Sorry about that. We should go ahead and correct me.
Speaker 3: That's no problem. When I saw it the first time, I stumbled upon it as well. Good afternoon, everybody. My name is Lisa Green and thank you for helping me. I have been with Denver Health eight wonderful years. It's really been the opportunity of a lifetime. I am a professional addiction medicine systems developer. I've been in the field treating this patient population all of my career, and I cannot imagine a different. A different job. So today I'm going to talk to you about treatment on demand and specifically talked to you about the opioid crisis and how we treat persons with opioid use disorder . Historically, most patients have received medication assisted therapy through an opioid treatment program, and opioid treatment programs have very limited access. Typically, we are open Monday through Friday, 5 a.m. to 1:30 p.m., so leaving a substantial amount of time available for persons that may be seeking treatment without access to care. It was within the city's collective impact initiative that treatment on demand was imagined. This program, led by Denver Health and Denver Department of Public Health and Environment, is a collaborative partnership which successfully transformed Denver's system of care for our community members and really.
Speaker 0: Helped leverage.
Speaker 3: Our collective ability to fight the opioid crisis. A Denver Health Emergency Department. We have medical staff and licensed clinical social workers beginning medication assisted treatment services and treatment referral planning onsite 24 hours a day, seven days a week. This is why we call it treatment on demand. All M.I.T. inductees engage in a bio psychosocial evaluation. They work with the physician to inject on buprenorphine, and we do triage planning efforts that begin on site at the bedside and focus on activities needed to prepare the community member for access to their ongoing care. The impact of this program has had on the community. When we put into context that Denver County ranks among the top six counties in Colorado with the highest rates and numbers of both opioid use and fatal overdose. And this program was the first line of defense. The Denver Health Emergency Department is the first in the state to provide an induction and continues to be the only emergency department in the state to dedicate specialized social work teams to fully enroll persons into treatment. This program has successfully increased admissions by 54%. Denver is leading a medication assisted treatment and having access 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It is my professional pleasure to work with Denver Health and the City to make this program available for our residents. Thank you and good evening.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Our next speaker is Valerie Collins. There you go. Go ahead.
Speaker 3: Valerie. Okay, great. Good evening. Thank you for.
Speaker 1: The opportunity to comment.
Speaker 3: My name is Valerie Collins, and I'm an attorney.
Speaker 1: With Towards Justice, a nonprofit law firm that represents workers involved in various workplace.
Speaker 3: Injustices. But most.
Speaker 1: Recently, as you can imagine, a lot of our.
Speaker 4: Work has involved.
Speaker 3: COVID related workplace issues.
Speaker 1: And I'm sure everyone by now has seen all of the kind.
Speaker 3: Of cheesy commercials and yard signs applauding.
Speaker 1: Health care workers while they are.
Speaker 3: Literally giving their all to.
Speaker 1: Keep our friends and our family and our.
Speaker 3: Community safe. And while that community recognition.
Speaker 1: And support is.
Speaker 3: Wonderful, what is far more critical is.
Speaker 1: For health care institutions such as Denver Health.
Speaker 3: To support their workers. And one of the most fundamental ways institutions can do this.
Speaker 1: Is to create an.
Speaker 3: Environment where open communication, including criticism, is, at the very least.
Speaker 0: Doesn't lead.
Speaker 3: To retaliation or the fear of retaliation. And today, I'm here to tell you.
Speaker 1: About a complaint that George just has filed with the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment on behalf of Denver health workers related who in turn are filing on behalf of the state of Colorado. Because Denver Health has fallen short in this area.
Speaker 3: Under Colorado's new whistleblower law, employers can.
Speaker 1: Designate organizations such as Denver Health Workers United to pursue anti retaliation whistleblower legal action based on their own experiences, but on the behalf of the state to protect whistleblowers. And that's what we've done here.
Speaker 3: Specifically, the.
Speaker 0: Complaint explains.
Speaker 1: How Denver Health has.
Speaker 0: Repeatedly retaliated against employees who have.
Speaker 3: Spoken out about the.
Speaker 1: Extraordinary stream that they're under while trying to protect.
Speaker 3: Not only their patients, but.
Speaker 0: Themselves.
Speaker 1: Other employees have faced backlash for asking Denver Health to confront the long standing public health emergency of systemic racism.
Speaker 3: Which has only been aggravated by the ongoing pandemic in the U.S..
Speaker 1: Employees are seeking an order.
Speaker 0: Essentially just requiring Denver Health.
Speaker 1: To comply with the law by allowing.
Speaker 0: Workers to speak.
Speaker 1: Out without the fear of retaliation.
Speaker 3: Now more than ever, it.
Speaker 1: Is just critical to support these workers who speak out regarding.
Speaker 0: Public.
Speaker 1: Health and workplace safety, particularly regarding COVID and systemic racism. Not only is this activity legally.
Speaker 3: Protected by law, it's essential to protecting workers and the public. We ask if the Denver.
Speaker 0: City.
Speaker 1: Council stand with Denver health employees and workers everywhere against any attempts to silence them. I thank you very much for the opportunity to comment.
Speaker 2: Inc u. Our next speaker is Sarah Young. Hello.
Speaker 0: My name is Sarah Jungles. I live in Council District ten and I work as a certified nurse assistant for Denver Health on the main campus and Council District three. I joined Denver Health Workers United because I believe many workers like me are extremely underpaid for the work that we provide. On January 1st, my base pay 14, $14.35 will not meet the city's definition city of Denver's minimum wage increase. And I'm not alone unless most support staff won't meet minimum wage. So even with our less than livable wages, we are expected to provide excellent care to everyone in this community. We frequently have to care for aggressive and combative patients while at work. It's not uncommon to have patients physically, verbally and even sexually assault us while at work. And while this is happening, our thoughts have to be on keeping the patient safe, even over our own safety. Many of times, even if we're not dealing with these types of patients, it's not uncommon for us to be so short staffed that one CNA is doing 2 to 3 jobs at once. This is not safe for us and it's not safe for our patients. The COVID 19 pandemic has just worsened these issues and caused more safety issues for the patients and staff. Frequently, assignments are made not considering the transmission of the virus from patient to patient. I frequently have assignments where only half of my patient load has COVID 19 and the other half does not. Even with the best precautions, I know that I'm greatly increase in the chance of spreading the virus.
Speaker 1: From from one room.
Speaker 0: To the next. Most of us live in constant fear that we're going to be the one who gives COVID 19 to a patient. You don't have it before they enter the hospital. So not only do we have to worry about potentially killing a patient. After a burst back home to our families and doing the same. This intensifies in situations we've been asked to sit inside of COVID positive rooms, to keep a patient safe for hours, and even to.
Speaker 1: Our entire 12 hour shift.
Speaker 3: Without asking.
Speaker 0: Us for suggestions on the many ways we keep both of our our patients and ourselves safe. They have decided to sacrifice us to COVID 19 and increase our chances of catching this violent virus exponentially while paying us an unlivable wage, not even offering us as little as hazard pay. It is for these reasons, and many more employees decided to unionize at Denver Health to try to make our voices heard. We created and have been a union since the end of May, and our executive staff refuse to acknowledge us as why we're here to ask for your assistance in allowing us to continue to make positive change at Denver Health for our fellow staff members, for our community, and without fear of retaliation. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Sarah. Our next speaker is Peter Della.
Speaker 4: Leaving Council. GREGORY okay.
Speaker 2: Go ahead.
Speaker 4: My name is Peter Delvecchio. I'm a Denver paramedic. I worked at Denver Health for almost two years. I'm here speaking on my own account. And as a proud member of Denver Health Workers United, I ask that you approve the Denver Health Operating Agreement. We urgently need the money to pay for the emergency services my coworkers and I provide every day. The vast majority of patients are uninsured or underinsured and rely on the safety net, which the Denver health provides on my right shoulder patch. Officially becoming a paramedic of the city and county of Denver was one of the most difficult and single greatest achievements of my career. I've worked at many agencies over the last decade, but I've never seen the dedication and expertize which I've seen with the Denver health paramedics. If you get shot, stabbed or otherwise brutally injured, data shows that you have a better chance of surviving in Denver than anywhere else in the country. This is due to the speed, skill and expertize of the Denver paramedics and the staff of Denver health. Our prowess in treating medical conditions is followed close behind our trauma care. Prior to the pandemic, working on the streets of Denver with challenging, engaging and extremely rewarding. I still get the same satisfaction from my job during the pandemic, but it comes with an intense level of stress. Since March, fear of spreading the virus to my family comes every time I walk through the door. Frustration comes when an encounter a person society has forgotten. Anger comes when I am assaulted by the citizens who are at the end of their ropes. Fatigue comes from significant daily call volume. Despair comes when my patients die. These things are to be expected during the pandemic. These are things I can handle. I can't handle being issued protective equipment, which won't survive the rigors of the ambulance. I can't handle a lack of regular testing for a virus which spreads asymptomatically. I can't handle seeing turnover of expertize because we're paid significantly less than surrounding agencies. I can't handle seeing Denver health executives paid bonuses, which are equivalent in value to hazard pay. We've been promised I can't handle constant phone calls from the Denver health billing environment for bills, for treatment from being assaulted on the job. I can't handle being actively targeted for making my voice heard. We will make it through this pandemic. But the management of Denver health is making it difficult. I used to think that being a union paramedic would just be a minor benefit. I now know that our collective voice is essential in protecting the welfare of our patients. Denver Health workers are the safety net. We work tirelessly to protect the integrity of this network. We're the first to see when someone might fall through. So it is essential for workers to have the ability to sound an alarm. Strong workers are aggressive in protecting their patients. A strong union means a strong safety net. A strong union means. Lives saved. We all need to do our part to fight COVID 19. The public need to wear masks. Paramedics need to run, call. Nurses need to treat patients. Doctors need to get care. Management needs to support workers. Our leaders need to keep us all protected. I ask you to pass the operating agreement for Denver Health and continue to vigilantly protect our constitutional right to organize. Thank you. If you have any questions.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Peter. Next up, we have Michelle McDaniel. Good evening.
Speaker 1: I am Sean McDaniel.
Speaker 3: I'm the resident in District nine, but more.
Speaker 2: Importantly, I'm an outreach worker for Grasp Congress Science Project as well as a program manager for AIM, the At Risk Intervention, a mentoring program at Denver Health.
Speaker 3: One of the programs funded by the operating agreement you were considering tonight.
Speaker 2: I'm not a numbers person, but I know how important they are. So I will begin with just a.
Speaker 3: Few to put into context how important your investment.
Speaker 2: Is to the program.
Speaker 1: Our budget of.
Speaker 3: $163,993.
Speaker 1: Pays for 2.25 outreach workers to be subcontracted from grasp.
Speaker 3: 2.25 Outreach workers with collectively 38 years experience that are on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
Speaker 1: 51 weeks a year. Yeah, we actually do take the week of Christmas off.
Speaker 3: In 2019.
Speaker 1: 163,000 paid for the.
Speaker 3: 266 interventions that AME and grass provided.
Speaker 2: To individuals at Denver Health, as well as the services we provided to 384 individuals in the community.
Speaker 3: It's supported the 27 critical crisis. We responded to.
Speaker 2: The 40 trainings.
Speaker 3: We provided the two medical pipelines programs that we support.
Speaker 2: The numerous boards, councils, community organizations that we are a member of and partner with. We are still on track to meet, if not exceed.
Speaker 3: Our 2020 goals, not because we are.
Speaker 2: Considered essential workers, but we believe that the work that we do is.
Speaker 3: Essential and because nothing, not even a pandemic, will stop us from serving our community. $463,000 may pay for the only hospital based violence.
Speaker 2: Intervention program in the Rocky Mountain region, but supports the collaboration with other hospital.
Speaker 3: Based violence intervention programs across the country, the Health Alliance for Violence Intervention.
Speaker 2: The hobby and its efforts made towards ending violence.
Speaker 3: Addressing trauma and promoting healing.
Speaker 1: Your 163,000 pays for the hours.
Speaker 3: We sit next to a young person who has just been shot and may be considering what to.
Speaker 1: Do with the rest of their life.
Speaker 2: That is, if they make it. It pays for the minutes we get to spend.
Speaker 3: Apologizing to the mother.
Speaker 2: Who just lost her son. And the second that we have to.
Speaker 3: Stop an angry.
Speaker 2: And confused kid for making a mistake that could.
Speaker 3: Impact the rest of their life or someone else's and has one mission. Capitalize on the teachable moment to provide trauma informed.
Speaker 2: Care.
Speaker 3: To violently injured patients and provide outpatient case management by culturally competent.
Speaker 2: Community outreach workers to prevent recurrent injury.
Speaker 1: And promote client wellness.
Speaker 3: We have one vision.
Speaker 2: Through a reciprocal.
Speaker 3: Understanding of lived experiences. Create a culture of healing throughout the medical community that connects traumatized patients to needed resources and supports the.
Speaker 2: Overall wellness of both parties and health care workers alike. And although technically immigrants were two programs working together, we are one team that needs your continued support.
Speaker 3: Thank you so much for your time and consideration.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Our next speaker is Jacob Otto first.
Speaker 4: What? Can you hear me okay?
Speaker 2: Mm hmm. Go ahead, Jacob.
Speaker 4: My name is Jacob. All too fast. I'm a resident and city council district nine. Councilman Seelbach is district. Tonight, I am speaking as a member of Denver Health Workers United and as someone born and raised in this city. There's little more that I cherish in this community. And Denver Health has a special place within it. I've been a paramedic to Health for two years. The first that I asked you approve the Denver Health Operating Agreement. That money will help fund the Denver health paramedics and allow us to always come for help when called no matter what the problem or the person calling. Denver Health paramedics have a reputation in this region and nationally as the best and the brightest. Our medicine is strong because Denver health pushes us to be strong and because our coworkers expect that when we are working, we don't just represent ourselves individually. We represent the paramedics as a whole. This is truly a privilege. It is not taken lightly by me or by any one of my coworkers. To say that this pandemic has been challenging would be, to put it lightly, setting aside the especially while it's summer, caring for a sick coban patient pre-hospital, he comes with an exceptional number of risks and very little perceived reward. The process by which the virus kills a person is not by any means traditional. Many of the treatments available to us are not effective and increase our own exposure. How would you feel to be responsible for the continued life of a person who is dying in front of you? How would you feel to have no way to give this person even a chance of relief without possibly giving the same disease to your family? How would you feel to have this death disregarded daily in the news this weekend, I was part of patient care with two very sick COVID patients. The first was a man in his thirties who is now on a ventilator in the ICU, who went from a weak and speaking to unconscious and incomplete respiratory failure in less than 30 seconds. The second was a man in his 60 who died in his home in front of his wife, myself, my partner and a fire crew attempting to resuscitate him for nearly 40 minutes while she watched. In my attempt to save these patients lives, I was exposed to the virus. I would and I will do it again in a heartbeat. But during the pandemic, I have never developed symptoms. This could be because I'm careful. This could also be because I'm one of the possibly 40%, according to CDC best estimate, of persons who are asymptomatic and carrying the virus with no symptoms. I have never been tested for the virus. I love my job, I love my patients, and I don't want to be the reason that they're sick. This club is one of the largest reasons I am proud to be part of that union at Denver Health. We formed our union in this pandemic to raise up our voices and work to improve care for our patients and safety for each other. Doing my job and it's we will times without regular COVID testing for myself or my coworkers. I now understand that having union a union to give us an independent and collective voice at work is essential. There is no way for me to change anything alone, but without my coworkers and through the union, we can make change and save. Save lives, our patients, and possibly our own. It's important that we all do our part. People at home need to wear masks when around others and wash their hands frequently. The second hand endeavor needs to improve funds for a hospital with every penny available in order to protect health care workers and the community as a whole. My fellow paramedics and I will continue to alleviate suffering and preserve life. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 2: Thank you. And we had 30 minutes for the courtesy public hearing. And so our last speaker is Frederick Karachi.
Speaker 4: Great. Good evening. Can you hear me okay?
Speaker 2: Go ahead.
Speaker 4: Hi. My name is Fred Karachi. I'm a general and trauma surgeon and I've worked at Denver Health for ten years. Before I began working at Denver Health. I completed a trauma surgery fellowship here under the mentorship of Dr. Jane Moore and obtained a master's degree in public health with a concentration in racial and socioeconomic disparities in surgical care. As a trauma fellow, it was immediately apparent to me that Denver Health was special. Before that, my impression was that hospitals could not simultaneously fulfill the missions of both safety, net care and academic excellence. The Denver health model shattered this misconception because we conducted the primary research, design, the protocols, and developed the new techniques that the rest of the trauma world followed and then apply them to our underserved patients. Since I'm the child of poor immigrant parents, it remains tremendously fulfilling to me to provide the best care to our patients who in many other communities would not have access to it. As an attending, I direct our bariatric surgery center. Weight loss surgery cures debilitating diseases such as diabetes and high blood pressure, and decreases health care costs for patients and their children. Here, our academic focus led us to become accredited as a center of excellence. This accreditation was particularly meaningful for our team because we became only the third safety net hospital in the country to achieve it. And it also opened doors to our community in terms of increased resources to combat obesity at its origins. In addition to clinical excellence, we worked hard to improve access to bariatric surgery regardless of ability to pay and now for completely funded bariatric surgery. Two Denver County Residents Without Insurance. Earlier this year, I had the privilege of becoming the president of the Denver Health Medical Staff. This role brings me face to face with the issue of physician well-being and burnout magnified exponentially during the COVID pandemic. I am proud of the commitment of our hospital to addressing health care worker, mental and physical fatigue, and the numerous free, confidential resources available to keep our practitioners safe and healthy. Next week, I will complete a one day training to join over 50 volunteer volunteer providers in our resilience in stressful events. Arise Employees Psychological First Day Program. Finally, my role in the medical staff leadership has involved sharing our Medical Necessity Committee, which last year alone authorized charity funds to over 900 uninsured Denver County residents to undergo elective surgery procedures to restore quality of life and the ability to work or live independently. In many cases, we approved these surgeries after other hospitals with which the patients had prior relationships had denied them. There are, of course, many other examples of the effect that Denver Health has had on our community. I'm fortunate to have been part of impacting access to high quality surgical care for our city's most vulnerable members. It remains the most important reason that I work here. Simply put, Denver would and could not be Denver without Denver health. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. And I'd like to thank the other folks who had signed up to speak tonight. And unfortunately, that's the 30 minutes that we had for the courtesy public hearing. And we also have another hearing after this one. And so concluding our speakers questions from members of Council on Bill 1138. We have Councilwoman CdeBaca.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. I have a few questions.
Speaker 0: Is there.
Speaker 1: So I have been trying to find a transparent wage and salary scale for all the employees at Denver Health. Does that exist?
Speaker 5: This is Robin went to see them, the CEO here at Denver Health. There's there's not a single published wage and salary scale, depending on the particular position. We use a variety of different salary surveys that are used to set the wage wages for different positions.
Speaker 1: And has there been an analysis of the pay equity within the organization that is public?
Speaker 5: Um, we have, we actually have done an analysis of pay within the organization where we've compared every individual employee's salary to the 50th percentile for that particular job. Within each category, we said wage rate, salary range is based on market information that we have available. Our organization aims to pay approximately the 15th percentile for all of our employees, employees to come in. They start below that and then they can, over time, go above the 50 percentile. We actually just recently completed an analysis of all jobs to see how I would compare to the 15 percentile in total Denver Health with slightly above the 50th percentile for all positions at Denver Health and the positions at the lower end of the wage scale, primarily in our service. In our service, jobs were the highest above the 50th percentile on average. Now, of course, some people coming new into the organization may start below the 50% now, but over time they will increase, the salaries will be increased so that they can get above the 50% jump.
Speaker 1: And since Denver health is a public health entity, I'm wondering if it's not. Is that data public? Lake City employees are salary information is public information. And even without the scale, is Denver Health's salary information subject to Cora?
Speaker 5: It is. And our salary information has been requested via request. And when when it is requested, we provide.
Speaker 1: Awesome. And I believe, Madam President, there was somebody who was present on the line to answer questions about the immigrant workforce at Denver Health. Is it possible to call up Sochi Gaitan?
Speaker 2: We can. So she has her hand raised. We'll go ahead and move around to panelists.
Speaker 1: Hi, Sochi. I'm curious about some of the things that we've discussed regarding the immigrant workforce at Denver Health. Could you talk to me a little bit about what you are aware of there?
Speaker 3: Yeah, the city councilwoman said about the thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you for the opportunity.
Speaker 3: And the question I wanted.
Speaker 0: To share a few thoughts as I identify as a mexican born in Mexico, raised in Denver by immigrant.
Speaker 3: Parents, and.
Speaker 0: I'm a member of the Community Worker Alliance for a Healthier.
Speaker 3: Denver.
Speaker 0: Also speaking as co-chair of the Colorado Latino Forum. And so as an immigrant, I know that in all diverse immigrant communities, Denver Health has been the main resource for health care needs for our community. And so we deem it to be a really valuable one. I personally spent over 90 consecutive days last summer at Denver Health with my immigrant father who passed away of liver cancer late last year. I personally witnessed many inequities taking place for patients, but as well as workers. And so I just wanted to share with you all that there's community leaders like myself that are seeking to eliminate these health inequities, these and trying to keep our community safe, but building equity and solidarity with those workers at Denver Health.
Speaker 3: And so I wanted to share.
Speaker 0: A few thoughts about that. So I appreciate the.
Speaker 3: Question that.
Speaker 0: I believe that city council should be able to uplift the health care workers by really supporting, supporting and voting yes.
Speaker 3: On this bill.
Speaker 0: I believe that our Denver health workers are the true foundation of that hospital. And we know that those that workers rights and community.
Speaker 3: And the.
Speaker 0: Safety of our community, it's all interconnected. And Denver health care workers, they should have a right to free association in unions and.
Speaker 3: They don't have that right right now.
Speaker 0: There's public funds being spent on diverting from patient care and worker safety to anti-union tactics. And we were hearing reports.
Speaker 3: To the Colorado Latino Forum that the custodial.
Speaker 0: Workers were discouraged from forming a union. So we're really concerned.
Speaker 3: And we know that this pandemic has compounded those inequities for our marginalized workers, especially our custodial workers, nurses, etc.. So justice.
Speaker 1: Is required and we're.
Speaker 0: Carrying that burden as people of color. We're carrying the burden of racism.
Speaker 3: And COVID 19. So thank you for asking the question, allowing me to share a little bit about.
Speaker 0: What we're hearing from workers at Denver Health.
Speaker 3: Please recognize that there's that paradigm.
Speaker 0: Paradigm shift is taking place.
Speaker 3: Right now in institutional racism. So I want to urge.
Speaker 0: You to vote yes.
Speaker 1: And real quick, is it possible to ask Miss Valerie Collins, the attorney addressing the U.N., asking for more information on what the response from Denver Health has been since they have filed their complaint?
Speaker 2: Sure if we can get Ms.. Collins to go ahead and. Raise her hand and we'll get her moved back into the panelists.
Speaker 1: Are we are we not seen?
Speaker 2: I'm not seeing this, Collins. I don't think she's still in the meeting.
Speaker 1: Can can Denver help respond to how they're correcting the allegations of union busting? How is that being addressed?
Speaker 5: So again, this is Robin Wisniewski. Denver Health is not engaged in any any activities of union busting. So I can't tell you that I can't respond to that because we aren't doing it. And Ms.. Ms.. Collins mentioned a complaint, but we haven't seen anything, so I can't it would not have been a response since we haven't seen anything from from.
Speaker 0: Let's let me reframe the question.
Speaker 1: How our employees how are workers in this time being helped or supported in their efforts as they try to exercise their rights to unionize?
Speaker 5: All our employees are being supported in many ways as we go through the COVID crisis. I think that you heard from a number of the people who spoke about COVID and the impact that it has had on health care. Workers speak about some of the things, including the PPE, that we are providing to our employees who certainly have a great deal of expertize in infectious medicine. Dr. Pryce spoke about the work that she has been doing. We have highly, highly infectious disease teams that go out and do education for our employees. We're making sure that they have the appropriate PPE and a work environment that allows them to stay as safe as we can possibly manage for them. All of our employees are free to interact with us, and we we do this regularly to find out what issues are of concern to them and how we can address anything that may be getting in the way of their ability to do their job safely and effectively to care for patients. Dr. Pratt, you mentioned the RISE program, and that's one that we have focused a great deal of time and energy on. It really is intended to help health care workers in particular, who are facing extraordinarily stressful events, although I'll confess that a pandemic may have been more than any of us ever expected to have to address and deal with the psychological challenges of living through the sorts of anxiety and stress that our employees are facing today. So we have worked to make sure that they have access to those. We've also been deeply involved in a lot of work around identifying issues and problems that our employees bring forward and then working to resolve those, including things around human resources, policies, work environment issues they may face in the in the workplace. So as we have spoken to our employees and identified issues that are of concern to them, the entire management team is working on different solutions to those issues.
Speaker 0: And as a funder and partner, what kind of assurance can we get as the city of Denver that you all will keep us in the loop about what is going on.
Speaker 1: And what allegations are being made throughout the next year of this contract.
Speaker 5: So I think there are a couple of things that I would suggest in Campbell, and I certainly be very interested in any additional ideas and suggestions you would have. So one of the things that we started to do, and I hope that this is helping our employees and I hope it's valuable to city council as well. We have a number of initiatives that we feel are particularly important to Denver Health and the people that we serve. We've got work going on and I think I've talked to most of the council about this as an anchor institution in the community. Denver Health provides a great deal of health care, of course. We also are deeply involved in education and research. But the other piece of who we are and who we stand for is as an anchor institution. And for Denver Health, what that really means is, in addition to providing for the the physical and mental health and well-being of the people that we serve, we have an ability to offer economic opportunity to the to the community that we serve. So everything from the work that we're doing to try to make sure that our employees can earn a living wage, some of which will be through salary. But there are many other things, and I've spoken about some of those career pathways, making sure that the kinds of work supports that are available to people like child care support, earned income tax credits, those types of things that can really help support families and strengthen them during the kinds of economic challenges we're going through. We've got a lot of work going on in that. We're also addressing issues of diversity, equity and inclusion. And I've said to all of the council members that I've spoken to, Denver Health is made up of people, and like any organization, like any group of people, there is work that we can do to improve diversity and equity and to address what really is the structural and systemic racism that exists in our society. Denver Health has signed on to racism as a public health crisis and really committed to addressing issues of diversity disparity both inside our organization and in the communities that we serve. And then finally, we have been working with our employees and identifying anything that gets in the way of their being able to do their job effectively, to have a work environment that allows them to flourish and to truly do what they came here to do. This is an extraordinarily mission driven organization, and I can tell you without exception, every single person who works at Denver Health cares to the core of their being about who we are and what we do. So we are we send out about every other week. We send out a communication with all of the different things that we're doing. And we're summarizing that. And we sent it off to City Council a number of times now, and I hope that that has been helpful to you. As I said before, I will come and talk to all of you or any of you individually. If there are issues or concerns that any employee brings to you, please send them to us and let us have an opportunity to employees. We want to make sure that we hear concerns and then we have an opportunity to address those and to make changes where we need to. Because undoubtedly there will be times when changes are necessary.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And my last question is for Katie Bakes. Is Ken Baker still on the line?
Speaker 1: You got me. There's a handsome.
Speaker 2: I will get her promoted. And then.
Speaker 1: This is the last question I.
Speaker 2: Have. Great. All right.
Speaker 1: Thank you. All. Katie, my question for you is about the employee survey. Can you tell me a little bit about that employee survey that we discussed? You mean the Press Ganey survey? Yes. I have not seen it in its totality, but my understanding is that it is pretty dismal and much worse than it was previously and is peppered with concerns of lack of trust for executive leadership. I did have a statement prepared.
Speaker 3: I know and appreciate everybody's time.
Speaker 1: I personally have been targeted for speaking up and speaking up about concerns about equity. I run the same program that Michelle McDaniel so eloquently described.
Speaker 3: My job is currently.
Speaker 1: Under threat because I have spoken.
Speaker 3: Up and.
Speaker 1: I unfortunately am very disappointed by our leadership.
Speaker 3: I agree that the.
Speaker 1: Staff at Denver Health.
Speaker 3: Make up the heart and.
Speaker 1: Soul of Denver Health, and I have recently joined Denver Health Workers United because I understand that if I, as.
Speaker 3: A.
Speaker 1: Professor of emergency medicine and pediatrics.
Speaker 3: And.
Speaker 1: Being at Denver Health for 20 years can be retaliated against by the highest levels of our administration.
Speaker 3: That I cannot imagine.
Speaker 1: What frontline workers who don't have my title and come from underrepresented minority backgrounds must feel when they are trying to speak up.
Speaker 3: About their workers rights. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Misspeaks Ms.. Signer or Robin. I'm wondering if there's a potential.
Speaker 0: For you to.
Speaker 1: Report out to us.
Speaker 2: On on.
Speaker 0: Terminations and if people were.
Speaker 1: Union affiliated. I'm curious to monitor who is being let go and if they are union affiliated. Is that a possible report out that you could include with your other report outs to us?
Speaker 5: Well, I certainly can't report out to you about union affiliation because I don't know. And we don't if that is something that if an employee is involved, that's up to them. And we don't ask the question, nor do I have any idea who the employees are who might be involved in terms of termination. What I'd like to do, Councilwoman, is just have an opportunity to speak to general counsel. I do want to be careful that when it comes to situations of employees that we're protecting, we're protecting our employees privacy and rights. And I would want to talk to them before I give you an answer on that. If that's if that's okay.
Speaker 0: That would be awesome.
Speaker 1: And if it's possible to have a form at termination, asking the employee if it's if they're if they're authorizing you to release that information, that would be really helpful for us to monitor. Thank you. That's it for my questions. May I make one final comment? May I make one final comment that's related to that?
Speaker 2: Very briefly, please. We've got four other people in the queue of questions.
Speaker 1: I just wanted council to know that I before I joined Denver Health Workers United, I was called by my supervisor and H.R. because I was reported for recruiting people to the union. I was not a member of the union at the time, nor was I participating in that. I think that kind of direct.
Speaker 3: Discussion.
Speaker 1: Puts fear into workers.
Speaker 3: It certainly put it in to me, and I think.
Speaker 1: It goes counter to the statement that there is no effort to undermine the.
Speaker 3: Union.
Speaker 2: I thank you for sharing that, Councilman Torres. Thank you, Madam President. Just one question, and I'm sorry if I missed it. In the prior line of questioning, one of the commenters mentioned that they currently do not have a salary that meets the city's January one minimum wage level. Does Denver health. Come into line with the minimum wage increases. Robin, I see you coming in there. But let me let me finish the question real quick. But I do know that you had mentioned raises. I'm just curious what the status of that looks like and whether or not you're exempt.
Speaker 5: We are not exempt from that. So when the city's minimum wage went into effect last year, I think it went to 1277 or 1287. Denver Health raised the minimum wage here to $13 an hour. And we'll be raising our salary again to meet the minimum wage, I think. I think we may be going to $15 an hour. So and then this year we did the we did merit increases for our employees. And our plan is to do the same thing again again next year. So we will we will be compliant with at least the minimum wage in the city and county of Denver.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you. That was my only question.
Speaker 2: All right. Next up, we have Councilman Hines.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. I thought I was later in the queue, so I was slightly underprepared. I. I want to ask Miss Biggs if she's still here. I want to ask one more question. She might have severe. All right. Well, moving on to other issues. Just so maybe it's you. You said that you had been retaliated against and you gave one example where you perceive the retaliation is do you have other examples or is that the primary example? I'm just curious.
Speaker 1: Yes, sir. Thank you. I do have other examples because of the limitation in time, my statement only included.
Speaker 3: What had happened with AIM.
Speaker 1: But I have experienced.
Speaker 3: Retaliation multiple times.
Speaker 1: For speaking up.
Speaker 4: Would you say provide one more example? I'm not. You're right. Because of time. I don't I don't know if I can ask you for all of them, but perhaps one of their example.
Speaker 1: I've been retaliated against for advocating, for aim and to continue funding that we received through the city. I was told that I had undermined our CEO, Dr. Wittgenstein, because I had spoken to my colleagues in emergency medicine and trauma and they had written in to support the program to prevent it from being cut from the city budget . And I was told by my direct supervisor, Dr. Nussbaum, that Robin had met with him and that she had told him that he did not like me because I undermined her authority because of the support for aim. She was forced to change her mind and keep AIM in the.
Speaker 3: City budget and.
Speaker 1: That she would no longer support me and undermine the programs.
Speaker 3: I run.
Speaker 4: Okay. Thank you. Thank you for. I'm. I'm hesitating because I'm thinking, What do I do? I want to try to go down and try to get by. But thank you for that that that answer. I was trying to decide if I want to get more clarity or not. I think that's good enough.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you very.
Speaker 4: Much. And then one previous person testifying said that claimed that Denver Health is a for profit institution. Is that the case?
Speaker 5: No, no, no. It's not.
Speaker 3: For profit.
Speaker 4: Okay, I've. I figured that. I just wanted to make sure that I was not misunderstanding. Okay. So it doesn't appear that there's anyone who's asking us to vote no on the contract, but there does appear to be some concern about worker protection and worker organization. Is that right? I think the contract is silent on worker organization. Does the contract have any opportunity to to say anything for or against worker organization?
Speaker 1: And this is making the contract administrator and we can also promote the city attorney if we need to hear much better. It does not. It's silent on that, similar to any other kind of labor laws or otherwise. It doesn't dictate how Denver Health complies with those or not.
Speaker 4: Okay. Thank you. And that's why I don't I don't need the attorneys perspective. I think that's fine enough. Thank you. The. I think, Dr. Weinstein, I think you and I had talked about this before. I just want to. Should the Denver health workers want to unionize? Is that something Denver Health would support?
Speaker 5: Our our sense is that working directly with our employees on issues that they raised is the best way for us to resolve those. And that is the approach that we've taken. At the same time. At the same time, we're not we're not involved in or interfering with the union activities that employees may engage.
Speaker 4: Okay. Up. And this is a contract. We can either vote yes or no on and we can suggest amendments. Right. This is I mean, this is like every other contract we can suggest in there. I see a bunch of heads nodding at them. I don't know if everyone watching the Zoom call or Tally can see that, but multiple colleagues are nodding your head. So I'm just going to keep going. The does the contract or I forgot to ask does the contract ask talk about access to PPE for its workers, though it's something else that was also discussed as a concern
Speaker 1: . I think it's dependent on the section of the contract and what what type of work is being, you know, provided in each section. I'm not sure the level of detail in the operating agreement gets to the level of detail that states what type of PPE and the amount of PPE. I think that's somewhat dictated by the kind of overarching services provided and Denver Health's kind of rules and regulations associated with PPE. So I don't think the contract gets into the level of detail you may be describing.
Speaker 4: Okay. That's fair. I mean, it's it's a bunch of money, so I can understand why you might not have. 87 and 95 masks or whatever. I get that. So perhaps I could ask this. Do Denver Health Workers have adequate PPE?
Speaker 5: So. So, Councilman. Oh, I'll start answering the question and then I'm going to ask Dr. Price to jump in, because she really is our infectious disease expert. So Denver Health has adequate stock of PPE to take care of our employees. We have very specific guidelines around the type of PPE based on the risk that the employee has in different situations. Of course, like every other health care provider in the country, the way that PPE is used today is different than the way it was used a year ago. Obviously, the pandemic has been, as I said, it's not just it's not just in health. It's not just Colorado. It touches the United States. The entire world is in the grips of this. So it has changed how deeply is used. But we do have adequate stocks of PPE and that Dr. Price can share with you some of the over kind of the overarching principles that we use. And frankly, we would be happy to send to the entire council the same communication that we send to all of our employees that lists all of the main pieces of PPE that are important for them. And we provide them on a weekly basis a list of all the PPE we have in the stock that we have available to us so that everybody can know exactly what we've got and make sure that they're feeling comfortable because we have a lot of people who were concerned at the beginning, particularly of the pandemic, when it was really hard to get to get some of the items that we needed that we would run out. And so we started sharing with our employees, this is what we have. So perhaps Dr. Price can jump in and just share some information with you. So hello, counsel and hello. Thank you for asking this question. It's this was one of the most stressful efforts during the first wave of COVID. And not only to those of us trying to make sure we never ran out, but to those on the front line. All of us were hearing about shortages nationally of PPE. All of us were hearing about our colleagues running out of PPE and other places having to use their masks for a week at a time, having to bake them at home to sterilize them. We did none of that at Denver Health. We followed our crisis standards of care guidelines for PPE from the state of Colorado. We actually exceeded what the CDC recommended. And as part of transparency, because it's so important when you are going to see a patient that you can feel confident in your PPE. We started sharing with our staff our days on hand of PPE. It wasn't always pretty, but there were always PPE. And what we do is we take our stock and we look at that week of use, the week prior, and we say, okay, based on use for that week, that volume of use, how many days on and would we have as PPE if we started the entire supply chain stock? And we don't take for granted that that supply chain is going to keep coming in. We actually do plan for one day it could stop and we provide those data to our staff and weekly emails and we have been doing that since the beginning of this pandemic. I am happy to include the City Council on all of those data so you can monitor it with us. And my gosh, if you ever see any red on that chart or numbers of days on hands that you don't like, we would happily take your help in sharing the PPE. The other piece of this is making sure that our staff are confident and able to use the PPE effectively that they have. And we have been very deliberate in our training and utilizing these wonderful employees, these talented staff who I've been working with for 18 years to help educate each other and support each other in confidence and use of PPE.
Speaker 4: Okay. And so, Madam President, just one final question. I went to the Denver health paramedics luncheon and they were doing a fundraiser for paramedics because apparently the paramedics don't have enough shirts as they switch shirts from one call to the next. And and so the luncheon was doing a fundraiser for t shirts. For the paramedics.
Speaker 5: Is this. Yeah, the fundraiser, actually, the main the main beneficiary of the fundraiser is the paramedic scholarship. So getting going for training to be a paramedic is, um, you get through school and you pay tuition. The fundraiser is intended to, um, to help raise money for scholarships for that we do. However, also we bought, um, we bought paramedics different out of uniform uniforms. It is. I'm sure you're used to the fact that the Denver health paramedics have traditionally worn a white shirt. What we found when we got into the pandemic is that they were uncomfortable, that they were going from cold, cold, cold with the same shirt. And so we ended up for the summer. We had t shirts for the winter. They're actually going to be longer, long sleeved shirts. They're all blue. Um, and we have, we've had a lot of people say, can I help support the paramedic by donating money for t shirts and shirts, etc.. So, so some of it was used during that. It was, it's a way to connect to the community who really does want to support our first responders during, uh, during this crisis. But the very large bulk of the money that was raised is going into scholarships for people, particularly people of color, people who live in poverty to go through training to become a paramedic. It really you heard from you heard from more than one paramedic tonight. It really is an amazing profession for somebody to get involved in, to have an impact on the lives of people at their most vulnerable point in time. When they i, i, i have called 911 myself. That is a moment in time when you are afraid for yourself or a family member. And when the paramedics show up, all of a sudden, you know, things are going, you've got somebody there who can help and everybody wants to help the paramedics and the first responders. And so it's within that spirit of letting people help by supporting the cost of t shirts and church for the paramedics. But the bulk of the money is going into scholarships for people who couldn't afford to become a paramedic otherwise. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Zoya.
Speaker 0: Thanks, Madam President.
Speaker 3: So thank you.
Speaker 0: For for being here. Really appreciate it. Really appreciate the the comments that we heard and and and the information that we're getting from the Denver health leadership. So I just want to know kind of from the perspective of our legal team and if we were to if there were seven people who felt like, based on the testimony we heard tonight, this was not a contract or a relationship that we wanted to support anymore. What would happen then?
Speaker 1: Hi. I I'm fairly new to the city, but my sense from the years that this has been approved over and over, as there'd be starting January 1st, a pretty huge gap in services that are paid for under the agreement, because I believe language is written that essentially for core services under the agreement, Denver Health has sort of the first right of refusal. And again, maybe we'll call up Mitch Bear, the attorney, to probably speak more eloquently on this than I. But first, right of refusal for those, of course, services. Unless that's the case, there's no backup option. Unless they defer to a second party, there's no backup option. And for the non-core services, we would have to go through a procurement process to identify alternate service providers for every portion of the agreement that wasn't approved for those services. And obviously, the services in the agreement that the city provides back to Denver health would not be provided as of January 1st as well. And we're talking about a huge breadth of potential services and things that are critical on a day to day basis.
Speaker 0: Okay, thanks. So so it would be safe to say it would be incredibly irresponsible governance to vote down this contract tonight and not have any sort of backup option for, you know, our health services in the middle of a pandemic.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, I don't you know, it's hard to, but personally. Yes. And I think it's an obvious yes for the city. The Denver health serves a great number of the vulnerable, you know, residents in our city, even more so in the pandemic. And although these are kind of, you know, difficult conversations to be grappling with today. Yes, I would say yes.
Speaker 0: Okay. Fair. I mean, I agree with you. I'm just but that's what I'm asking the questions. Right? I mean, we're required. And I think it's important for the community and the people who are watching to sort of understand the breadth and depth of what this contract actually does for our communities. So wanted to make sure that we kind of got that out there. So. So but that said, right. There's if this is a concern, what does this look like for 2022? Are there conversations we can be having with Denver Health now to potentially talk about some of these concerns or address some of these issues for the 2022 contract? Or when would that start or what do those conversations look like? I guess how do we address the situation? I guess my question is how do we address the situation proactively in the future so that for the 2022 contract, we do not find ourselves over a barrel, so to speak, with zero backup options in the middle of a pandemic for providing city services when it comes to a health provider and not being happy with.
Speaker 3: The.
Speaker 0: Way our health provider and not having any other options and and not having any other.
Speaker 1: Choice, I guess. Yeah. Negotiations for 2022 start as early as the spring. March-April timeframe is when we start conversations with city agencies around what's working in the operating agreement for the work that they're receiving in the services that are being provided. You know what? What would they like to address and change? And that's when the negotiations start as early as April timeframe. And so, you know, Will is probably best suited to maybe talk about process here. But I think leading into that time frame, hearing thoughts and input from city council, from residents, from folks across the city who agencies that are receiving the services and supporting this work, I think receiving input in that time frame leading up to April, there's plenty of months of negotiation happening between April and say today in the fall, but negotiations start as early as the spring of next year.
Speaker 0: Okay, great. Thank you. Thanks, Madam President.
Speaker 2: All right. Thank you, Councilman Sawyer. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. I first want to make a comment and then I have two brief questions. I want to thank the employees who reached out to talk with me and to share some of their concerns. I also want to thank Dr. Wittgenstein and Dr. Price for giving back to me and their willingness to sit down and meet and talk with the employees who I met with. And so basically where in the in the middle of just waiting to get the names of the employees who who are willing to be part of that meeting to sit down, to share their detailed and specific concerns about what those those issues related to safety and, you know , just practices where they feel like their their safety or the public safety has been compromised, whether it's from the paramedic unit or the nursing unit or any of the the doctors who are willing to come forward. So. And it's not always easy when people have to be brave to step up and speak out. And so I appreciate everybody on all sides and their willingness to sit down and figure out how do we how do we get through this? I wanted to ask Valerie Collins if she could come back on, if she's still available to answer two quick questions.
Speaker 2: I think the councilwoman had tried to call her up before and I don't believe she will.
Speaker 1: Let me see if someone else is available, can answer these two questions. I'm trying to find out if and maybe Dr. Woodson can answer the first one. Are you aware of other public hospitals that have their employees that are unionized? So that's one question. And then the second is, I'm just trying to find out, has there been any identified date or timeframe in which there's a hope and expectation to have a.
Speaker 3: Vote of the employees?
Speaker 2: And we do have Ms.. Collins backup as well. So we'll go ahead and let the Denver health answer and then we have in this column.
Speaker 1: Okay, great. Thanks.
Speaker 5: So, Councilwoman, I am aware of other other public safety institutions that have a variety of employees who may be denied. And I'm not aware of any event, any dates in relation to your second question.
Speaker 1: Okay. All right, Miss Collins. Do you want to address either one or both of those questions?
Speaker 2: We might have to have you unmute, Ms.. Collins. All right. Well, we might not. We thought we had her promoted. Yep, we got her on. But for whatever reason, we're not getting a response. Councilwoman, I'm sorry.
Speaker 1: Okay. All right. No problem. Thank you for letting me ask those questions. And I do look forward to helping facilitate that conversation. That's one of the things that I was asked by the employees when I met with them if I was willing to help facilitate getting a meeting together. And one of the board members was involved in helping to make that happen. And Dr. Weinstein felt that it was more appropriate to have Dr. Pryce be the point person who oversees, you know, part of the operations of the hospital. And so we're in the middle of trying to get that coordinated. So thank you so much.
Speaker 2: All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Sandoval.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. And I'd also like to thank all.
Speaker 0: The speakers in Timber Health for joining us this.
Speaker 1: Evening. So, Dr. Weinstein.
Speaker 3: On Tuesday.
Speaker 0: On May 19th, you received a letter from 14 state senators, 29 state representatives, three U.S. Congress members and nine city council members. Do you remember getting that letter?
Speaker 5: I do.
Speaker 0: Did you respond to any of them? Did you respond to anybody?
Speaker 5: I did not.
Speaker 1: Why what?
Speaker 0: Why wouldn't you respond to a letter that came from 14 state senators, 29 state representatives, three US Congress members, and nine city council members.
Speaker 5: The the letter was a statement of support for employees who are interested in unionize and didn't require a response.
Speaker 0: So as a public hospital, you don't think that acknowledging a letter from 14 state senators, 29 state representatives, three U.S. Congress members and nine city council members doesn't elicit a response.
Speaker 5: Councilwoman. The letter came as a statement of support for activities that the employees were engaged in and didn't ask any questions. It didn't require to request a response. And we did not feel that there was anything that needed to be responded to.
Speaker 0: Okay. I'll just say that I get a lot of letters of support on my council office and I get a lot of inquiries in my council office, and I acknowledge every single one of them. I feel like that's my duty as a public servant is to acknowledge them. So you and I may have just have to respectfully disagree on that one. Um, so under this operating agreement, there's the Denver Public Health and the Denver Department of Health and Environment. There's a shift taking place. I would like to know how long has Denver Health known about the shift that would affect the funding?
Speaker 5: Um. Can you help me understand what shift you're talking about?
Speaker 0: So basically the Denver the Department of Denver will take over what Denver Public Health is doing.
Speaker 5: That is not what is in the agreement. We have agreed that next year and frankly, we were hopeful that we would be past the pandemic when we had the conversations that Denver Public Health and DDP would enter into conversations about how public health services are organized in the city. Obviously, coming through the pandemic, we both had significant learnings about how to handle a pandemic, how services work effectively, where there may have been points, opportunities for improvement. So we agreed that we would sit down and have a conversation about those. There is no wholesale shifting of responsibilities from Denver Public Health to simply an agreement that we will have a conversation. And if we agree that there are any any services where there should be a change based on the mutual agreement of Denver, Denver health and the city, that we would work through that in 2021. We've come through a situation that, frankly, none of us had ever seen before. I think to not sit down and have a conversation about what did we learn and how can we organize ourselves differently, perhaps so that we can better serve the people who live in the city and county of Denver? It wouldn't have made sense. So that's what the operating agreement change said.
Speaker 0: Okay. So I've heard comments about the employee engagement survey. Is there any opportunity to send those to all of the city council members? The results suggest.
Speaker 5: That we that is not something that we would send to city council. I'm happy to to to share with you that the employee engagement survey is something that we do approximately once every year to 18 months. It's a follow up to the work that we did with our leaders in the organization after the situation we had in the spring and we asked for it, we told our employees that we would come back to them and ask them for information about a whole host of things that go on in Denver health, much as we do each year. And we did it again this year.
Speaker 0: So can you can share any like high level results with any of us?
Speaker 5: Um. Let me. Let me pull out what we can share.
Speaker 0: Okay. That would be great. I would like to see that survey. It's been brought up several times in public comment and through the conversations that I have still as a voting member of Council on the operating agreement, I would love to see what the employees of Denver Health are saying. So as much as you could share would be greatly appreciated. And just a few more questions. So regarding diversity, equity and inclusion, are you currently working with the Denver Office of Social Equity and Innovation?
Speaker 5: We are not we're not working with them yet, although we're as we're working right now with the Equity Project, which is an organization based here in Denver that focuses on diversity, equity and inclusion in organizations much like Denver Health, where just we've just started that engagement and we will be working with with them and then we will be engaging the city's office because they've got some expertize there as well.
Speaker 0: Great. Thank you. And one last question. How are you engaging with communities specific necks with this recent surge of COVID cases to minimize and equitable health outcomes?
Speaker 5: Um, there are, there are a number of things that Denver Health does, and there's additional things that we are also doing. We have, as you know, community health centers that are scattered across the city and county of Denver. And so they're deeply embedded in their neighborhoods. We engage with various different neighborhoods and groups that live in those neighborhoods through the clinic. We also have we have a patient advisory committee. We have a the Community Health Services Board. And you heard from Carol Lewis is the chair of that. The Community Health Services Board is the group that oversees all of our community health centers. They have 51% or more of the members of that board are actually patients of Denver's Denver health. And there's a wide diversity of representation on that. We use that as a way to bring in additional information. And most recently, we've started a community engagement committee of the board of directors and paired who is the chair of our board can speak to it. But but really it was intended to be a way for both management and the board to look at issues around diversity, equity, inclusion, or our role as an anchor institution and how we can advance economic opportunity in the community and really make sure that we are continuing to move towards the vision of bringing both bringing opportunity out into the community, but also bringing community voices. And we have a number of community organizations. I think, Councilwoman, it's about ten, although I don't remember the exact number of different organizations from the community that have been asked to join that committee and help bring additional voice of the community back into the organization. We also do things like regular community engagement surveys. We did a community engagement strategic plan about 18 months to 18 months ago or so, obviously COVID. And it's trying to kick in for a lot of things. There are there are differences. And the COVID has had a disparate impact on a number of populations. We are looking at, um, through our public health department and our community health services division. Where has there been different impact on different populations and how can we help to remedy some of that? The mobile health ban you heard about, for example, we have areas of our communities where there are high rates of cases and low rates of testing. That mobile health ban is intended to help rectify that and bring out into the community that has been so significantly affected. Additional resources, both testing but also care and education around COVID. Um, at this time for exactly that reason, we're very concerned about the disparate impact that coping with that. And you've heard the reasons for it a lot of times on this. The people are essential workers. They, they go to work because they have to and then they are at higher risk of potentially contracting COVID. And for many people, um, with, with complications and comorbidities, the impact is even more significant. But I'll let I'll let Pia also speak to that. Good evening, council members and commentators. My name is Pia Dean. I am a Denver native and a Denver resident. I live in area code 80209. I am the chair of the Board of Denver Health and Hospital Authority, and we specifically wanted to get to this specific issue of how do we get more community voice in at the highest level of the organization. So we in the last year have created this committee, engagement committee and are in the process of inviting and I think it's closer to 15 different entities have now agreed to be part of that. We've only had no's from two and both because they were overwhelmed by the requests they were getting for help from their own community. So the goal is to have that information pulled in and to create partnerships. It works toward the entire institution concept where we're both hiring locally and in sourcing locally, but also hearing from the fair communities that we serve. So. That's been the approach from the board level.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 2: All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Sandoval. The public hearing for Council Bill 20, dash 1138. Oh, I'm sorry, Councilman Torres. Okay, you're getting in there. All right. The public hearing for Council Bill 20, Dash 1130 is closed. Councilwoman Torres comments. Thank you so much, Madam President. Denver Health mine is just, I think, a message and a plea. Basically your crucial institution in Denver.
Speaker 1: And I know and you know the work that you do in District three is immense.
Speaker 2: Your main campus is in District three, West Side Clinic, and your clinic and across the street from the Colfax and Perry location. Your value is based not just on transactions and services, but on trust. And it's critical that you regain trust if you lose the confidence of your team. Denver Health will implode. Either this is your commitment to rectify or it isn't. People don't become nurses, therapists, EMTs, medical assistance because they're going to make millions of dollars. They do it because they want to be of service to individual and community health and well-being. It doesn't serve the city to vote down this operating agreement. It does, however, serve the city for you to be a better employer, to respect the right of your employees, to organize and give them a workplace that they feel safe and that they can be proud of. The health of our entire city depends on it, and never more than what we've seen lately in a pandemic. So I just implore you to be that employer, to be that entity and that institution in Denver. And I ask you to let me know how I can help you. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Hines.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank everyone at Denver Health who is here. I, I owe Denver Health my life. I might have said this before, but I think now is a good time to say it again. I was in a crash and ah, ah, ah. Sorry. I was in a crash on August 26, 2008 at 18th and Logan. It's very close to Kaiser Saint Joe's, Purcell, Kindred and the ambulance went the other way and went to Denver Health and and it was thanks to thanks to Denver Health that I survived. I spent eight days in secure surgical ICU and another five days in stepped down. And I, I don't remember much about it because I was on some pretty heavy medication at the time. But. But I do, I do remember snippets of being at Denver Health and I and I and I understand and respect. The work that you do. And I want to thank you for all that you do for for underserved communities, for me and so many other people. I also I invite you to in this time when we have so many health workers just, you know, at wit's end, at breakdown stage, there was a Denver Post article on Sunday that that talked about by National Jewish actually as what it was. And it had some really stark black and white photos. And and I'm I'm concerned that that our workers are are in trouble. I know I'm not a health worker myself, but but from what I hear from other health workers, I'm concerned. So I hope that you lift up our health workers, as you mentioned, your you know, your hospital and just and frankly, any organization and a city for that matter, what is a city but its people, you know, the hospital is no better or worse than the people who work there. And so I just want to make sure that they have what they need to succeed. As my colleagues will recall, I was the lone no vote for providing PPE to the and to small businesses. And the reason I said that is because I wanted to make sure that health workers, front line workers, had PPE. And I couldn't get an answer on whether our health workers in Denver had access to food. So I care very much about our workers. I want to make sure that they can succeed. The the hospital itself, the building did not save my life. It was the people who work there. So so I thank you so much for your for your efforts, for your leadership. I, I hope that you continue to keep workers in the forefront. And, and and I would challenge you to push them even more in the forefront. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Hines. And just a quick time check. I know we still have some folks that are staying on the line. We have one more courtesy public hearing that will begin immediately after our vote on this. And we have three more folks in the queue. Councilwoman Sandra.
Speaker 3: Foster.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam President, and thank you, Denver Health for all that you do. I am looking at your values and you talk about excellence, compassion, relentlessness, stewardship and learning. And I really believe that you do care about those values. I just hope that as these your workers who are unionize, that you respect those values as well, that you expect excellence from them, that you offer them some compassion, that you offer them learning opportunities. I believe that Denver Health is a foundation in Denver. I don't ever remember. I always remember it in general. And my whole entire life I've known that you can go there and you can get services that are needed. And to everyone else's point, you don't go into the health care industry to make a lot of money. You go into service, same as city council. I'm here to serve the people. And so I feel a bit disappointed that once again, a whole entire letter was sent. I in all my years on council, I've never seen so many people come together from the US Congress to city council to state reps to senators, all to sign on a letter of support and to not receive a response does not feel very like bridge building. It does not feel very good. I get tons of emails and my job as an elected official who takes public money is to respond.
Speaker 1: To the people.
Speaker 0: So I implore you to actually work with us. We are not the enemy. We want to see you succeed because your success means success for the people of Denver. Your success means health care for the people of Denver.
Speaker 1: And.
Speaker 0: Health care for those who are disadvantaged. So I will be supporting this tonight, but I will be making sure that I do my homework and check on the operating agreement next spring. So I'm much more involved and we don't have to have a public hearing like this late into the evening next year.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman Sawyer.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Council President. I won't repeat what all of my colleagues have said, but I agree with it 100%. I think everyone is spot on and I'm very appreciative of all of their comments. And I and I agree 100%. And I just want to say how frustrating I think I am, how frustrated I am, and how frustrating I think it is to find ourselves in this position again where we have no other choice. We are out of time. We have no other option. We are forced to vote yes on a contract we are not happy with. As a provider, we are not happy with because we have. No other choice. We've been given no other option, and we were not a part of the conversation to begin with. And I think that that's not acceptable. And so to Didi G to the administration, I think that this needs to be a part of a conversation where we come together and talk about how our values as a government won't need to be reflected in the contracts that we have and in the contracts that we approved moving forward . I think this is something that keeps coming up repeatedly and and has come up several times.
Speaker 3: Over the course.
Speaker 0: Of this fall and this year now. And so, you know, once is maybe a one off. Twice is a pattern. Three times. Four times. Now, this is for sure a pattern. And it's something that we need to come together and and discuss, I think. So I just wanted to put that out there. Thanks so much to everyone who spoke out tonight. I really appreciate it. And I will be supporting this not because I don't know, because I want to, but because I have no other choice. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman CdeBaca.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam President. I echo my colleague's sentiments tonight, and I want to thank the workers for all that they're doing to really put their lives on the line to protect us. And I want a message to be sent to Robin and the board, I think.
Speaker 1: That you all.
Speaker 0: May see tonight's vote as a victory. But this is personal for me. These are my I have friends and family members who have devoted their lives to Denver health. And the ability to know what's going on from the inside is not going anywhere. And so we will be paying attention to exactly what is going on in there. From the emails you send to employees, to the trainings that you're doing, to the PowerPoints that you're doing, we see them all. And the only thing saving this contract in this moment is the fact that we have a city that is dying, literally dying, and we have to vote tonight to protect them.
Speaker 3: But this is not a.
Speaker 0: Vote of confidence in Denver health at all. And I want that to be very clear. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Next up, we have Councilwoman Canete.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. I first want to thank all of the speakers. You know, the high level, you know, surgeons, the front line EMTs. And I think that what is really clear is that there is incredible pride and there is an incredible array of really high quality services being provided by this hospital in our community. And it is special. There's not a competitor. There's not another public hospital that takes every person, regardless of insurance, regardless of immigration status. And that's okay, right? Because that is what a safety net is. A safety net doesn't, you know, compete based on profit or price. It just serves everybody. I really want to appreciate the thoughtfulness of the speakers, and I think it's telling that as frustrated as clearly some of the workers were, they are putting the hospitals best interests ahead of their own personal feelings and were united in supporting this contract moving forward because it's in the best interests of the hospital . And I ask, I think the management and the the the board to really reflect on that. Right. And I think, you know, we don't spend a lot of time talking about what a union is in these debates. It ends up kind of being more of a political back and forth about who did what and how unfair it was. But the essence of what we're talking about here is this idea that there can be value to a collective voice. And this is the disconnect I keep hearing. I heard it tonight, which is we're interested in hearing from our employees directly. And it misses that employees have an opinion about how they communicate and where they choose to communicate collectively. There's a reason there, and it might actually have value to you as a system, as a hospital system. And other employers, for example, will find that you might have 100 requests from employees and you maybe can't afford 100 requests . But if those employees collectively prioritize what they think is most important and narrow it down to two or three, then how powerful that can be for you to work with them collectively on those two or three priorities. Those are the essences here about and problem solving, right? That's the other essence that, you know, we're a collective group of employees can share ideas for efficiency or improve patient care. I heard that tonight. I heard interest in making sure there wasn't disruption in personnel. Right. That that the protective equipment is related to absences. That testing is related to not infecting patients. I heard patients at the center of the conversation tonight, and I guess I would ask that there's a script sometimes I've, you know, watched this for many years where, you know, oh, this must be bad. We must try to stop it. We must have consultants, we must have closed door meetings. And it's a script that that doesn't pause to reflect and what the potential benefits are, what the potential opportunities are, and the value of just being neutral, the value of just allowing the workers to decide how they want to communicate. You don't lose your opinion. And as a management team you don't lose your opinion as a board, you simply have an opportunity to have a more organized conversation. That's the value here. And so I ask that we reflect on those things. I actually am proud to vote on this contract tonight, but I do that with the hope that this conversation creates new questions and reflections, that I don't just keep hearing the same script that that frankly isn't engaging with the underlying question of what's the opportunity here, what's the potential benefit, and what might be better for patients in the long run in terms of an organized communication with a group of employees who can prioritize and not you won't be able to do everything. You are a public hospital, you are as limited as we are as a local government. But I just think it's important to reflect a little bit on these underlying pieces. So so I am proud to support Denver Health tonight and I am proud to support the Denver health workers. I don't believe this is a choice between the two of you. And I don't believe either of you in the end believe that you can make a choice between the two, that that is that that you are inextricably linked and being neutral and allowing the employees to make some of the choices about how they communicate with you. I hope that we aren't here next year, but I move forward with the pride that you are all interrelated and you have the power to improve our community working collaboratively. And I hope that happens. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Madam President.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Herndon.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. I just wanted to win support. Show my support for the contract. I do not feel forced to vote a particular way. I am happily able to support this contract. I remember back in 2011, 2012, when Denver Health opened the Montello clinic and the work that that and I actually have to but I just speak specifically to my Belo the work that that clinic does for that community is just a taste of the great work that you all have done for years. And from the author out, every worker who's a part of this team. Thank you for that and thank you for all you do. I think about losing my grandmother to COVID and who was the health care worker that was with her when she took her last breath. And I think about my family members that I know that work in the health care industry and dear friends and thank you for all that you do during this pandemic and even before, because that's very real and personal to me. And I. Second Councilwoman Canisius, I don't I don't believe this should be about picking a side. I willingly support this because of the great work that you do. And I thank the leadership team because issues have been brought forward today. You did not have the appropriate time to respond to defend yourself. And I could have asked questions. But this isn't the right forum to do that. This should need to be not publicly at a city council. Mary, But I trust that you have heard some of the concerns and that you will address them. And so that's why I feel very good saying, yes, I will support this and thank you for all that you do each and every day. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Herndon, and I'll just chime in. Definitely. Thank you all to all of the speakers and and the hospital care workers who had an opportunity to sit and visit with some of you recently. And really what you're asking for is not off the charts. It's to have a plan. It's to value your safety. It's to improve your work culture. It's to lower the bureaucracy that you work in. And I hope that this gives the folks that testified tonight a voice and an opportunity to share that. But knowing that there's hundreds more that have some of these very same concerns, and I look forward to paying attention to what's happening a bit more and hearing from those employees and folks on both sides so that we can get to a better place to protect people who are, in turn, protecting the public. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 3: Black I. See the Barca I. Clark.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 3: When I.
Speaker 5: Herndon.
Speaker 4: I. All right. I. Cashmere high.
Speaker 3: Can I?
Speaker 5: Ortega.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 5: Sandoval.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 0: Sawyer. I.
Speaker 3: For us. I. Madam President.
Speaker 2: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 3: 39.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance approving a proposed Fiscal Year 2021 Appendices 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 2021.
Approves the 2021 Denver Health and Hospital Authority operating agreement (DDPHE 202056359). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 12-7-20. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 11-4-20.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11162020_20-1229
|
Speaker 0: May 12 EIS Council Resolution 1 to 3 four has been adopted. The next item up is Council Bill 1229. Council Member Hines, please go ahead with your questions on Bill 1229.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. Is there someone available from. Access and license, perhaps.
Speaker 2: I come from a councilman? Mm hmm. Well, here.
Speaker 1: Hi, everybody. So I. So I want to thank education license for the conversation we had before the committee meeting. Was it last week or the week before? Time flies. 2020 feels like it's a million years. But the conversation that we had about short term rentals and about the strike, the short term rental advisory committee, I won't go back over those comments. I also would encourage people to view the committee meeting that where we discussed this bill. I won't go back over that either. I just I do have just a couple of questions about our current short term rental ordinances due to our current short term rental ordinances. Provide any protections for our LGBT community.
Speaker 2: I believe that would be a legal question. We should. Elders Reggie.
Speaker 1: Bullock. I Council on Hines. Thank you for that question. So in our in our current short term rental ordinance, we don't have any any regulations that would deal with that there. Now, that's not to say that there might not be ordinance provisions that are elsewhere in our code that would provide protections for LGBT x rays, others suspect classes of suspect classes. So we could do some more research and provide you with a better answer for that. But that's not what this that wouldn't be in this and organization for looking at the things they. I missed a little bit of the last bit, but I think you were talking about protected classes, including religion, sex, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, race or color, which are I think all the class is protected under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. You. You're saying that our current short term rental ordinances is silent on any of the nationally protected classes? So I'm saying that in Chapter 33, the ordinances that that actually regulate short term rentals, we don't have any that's not in that ordinance provision in those ordinance provisions. That's not to say that we might not have ordinances, other ordinances, specifically with the city's discrimination ordinances, that would protect for those that would provide protections for those classes . We would have to do more research to determine whether or not those provisions are applicable to short term rentals. Okay. I wouldn't be able to provide a thorough answer on that question at this moment. Fair enough. I'm putting you on the spot. Appears Ms.. Stewart also has her henry's. So I don't know if you wanted to add add color for the mayor's office.
Speaker 4: Sure. Thank you, Councilman Hines. Sky Stuart.
Speaker 2: Mayor's office. Reggie is.
Speaker 4: Correct. Our city's anti-discrimination ordinance covers.
Speaker 2: All of those protected classes that you named. And short term rentals are considered a place of public accommodation in that ordinance, so they are covered by that ordinance.
Speaker 1: Short term rentals are considered a place of public accommodation. I want to make sure they're right. Yes.
Speaker 2: Correct. As the ordinance lays out various places of public accommodation where the anti-discrimination ordinance applies. Short term rentals are considered in the same way as hotels and other.
Speaker 4: Places like that. And we can have the city.
Speaker 2: Attorney who worked on the the updated draft last contact to you and walk you through that.
Speaker 1: That would be interesting. Yeah, I think that in addition to the, you know, the folks in all the protected classes in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, obviously did the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act. That also provides particular guidelines for places of public accommodations. So I'd be curious to see how those rules apply to someone's home effectively. So, you know, as they're renting out there a portion of their home or something near you next to their home. So thank you for that. That's. That's all I have. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman Hines. Councilman Sawyer.
Speaker 4: Thanks, Madam President. Hey, everyone. I know you guys. I emailed you this week, and we got a question into our office about some of the language around this in the way it was written just around the hearings. And I so I responded this weekend. And, and I am assuming that this is probably just a drafting thing from the city attorney's office, but wanted to run it by you since I had you in front of me real quickly. And if it's if you haven't had time to look into it, no worries. But since I've got you here, I thought I would just ask. So the question was essentially some of the wording around the hearings process, if there is a complaint, is a little bit seems a little bit strict. And so is that reflective of sort of standard language in the code or is that something that's specific to this language in particular?
Speaker 1: So I can I can take that question. Councilwoman Silver. So, yes, this is reflective of language and other instances that we have in the code. We specifically borrow this language from similar language that we have in the charter as it relates to the hiring of hearing officers for liquor license hearings. It's similar to language that we have in Chapter 24 of the code as it relates to the Department of Public Health and Environment's use of hearing officers for marijuana hearings. It's also very substantially similar to what the state uses for state level hearing officers. And it goes back to the fact that we want to reflect the really get back to the really relay, that these are quasi judicial hearings in nature and that we have to develop a record just in case anyone wants to appeal this this the determination that's made first by a hearing officer to the directors. The director can make a determination and have all the evidence before her and then make a determination. That is the final decision that can then be appealed to district court and then the district court can review, can have all the information, all the records available to them to make a determination as to whether or not that decision was lawful. So, yes, we've probably borrowed language from other provisions in the code. And then the other piece of that was the subpoena information. And we essentially updated that language. It's substantially the same. We just changed a few of the terms just because it's very legalese. And a lot of these provisions were written 50 years ago, so we thought we could be a little bit shorter. But those provisions are substantially the same as what we have for administrative citations that they give hearing officers. I mean, in this case, the director, the ability to issue subpoenas, to compel the presentation of documents or witnesses. And if they don't, if a person is unable to submit those documents or if they don't comply with the subpoena, that would be unlawful. And that's the same thing as as any administrative citation and subpoena that we issued for an administrative citation hearing.
Speaker 4: Awesome. I really appreciate it. I assumed and I said in my email response that I assumed that you it was just a drafting thing and that you were taking it from, you know, or reflecting other areas of the law or other areas of our code. But I just wanted to confirm that with you. So thank you so much for that explanation that was really thorough, and I really appreciate that. Thank you. Thanks, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Zoya and Reggie and Molly and Skye. The next item up is Council Bill 1216. Councilmember Cashman, will you please put Bill 1216 on the floor for publication?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance amending the short-term rentals chapter of the Denver Revised Municipal Code to provide a definition for booking service providers, clarify duties of Excise and Licenses hearing officers, and authorize subpoena power for the Director of Excise and Licenses.
Amends the short-term rentals chapter of the Denver Revised Municipal Code to provide a definition for booking service providers, clarify duties of Excise and Licenses hearing officers, and authorize subpoena power for the Director of Excise and Licenses. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 11-4-20.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11162020_20-1216
|
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Zoya and Reggie and Molly and Skye. The next item up is Council Bill 1216. Councilmember Cashman, will you please put Bill 1216 on the floor for publication?
Speaker 1: Yes, Madam President. I move the Council Bill 22 1216 be ordered published.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved. Thank you for the second questions or comments by members of Council. Council members say to Barca.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President, and just wanted to go on record as a No.
Speaker 2: One.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Not seen in the other hands raised. Madam Secretary, roll call, please.
Speaker 2: Peter Barca.
Speaker 4: No.
Speaker 2: Clark.
Speaker 1: All right.
Speaker 4: Flynn.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Herndon.
Speaker 1: I. Hi. Hi.
Speaker 2: Cashman.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Can each. I. Ortega, I. Several. I. Where? I. Torres. I.
Speaker 4: Black. I. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 2: When they theorize.
Speaker 0: 12 Eyes Council Bill 1216 has been ordered published. The next item up is Council Bill 1138. Councilmember Cashman, will you please put Bill 113 on the floor for publication?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance making appropriations to pay the expenses of conducting the public business for the year 2021 and for the purposes required by the Charter and by other law.
Approves the 2021 Annual Appropriation Ordinance (Long Bill).
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11162020_20-1138
|
Speaker 0: 12 Eyes Council Bill 1216 has been ordered published. The next item up is Council Bill 1138. Councilmember Cashman, will you please put Bill 113 on the floor for publication?
Speaker 1: Yes, Madam President. And I move that council bill 20 dash 1138 be ordered published.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved. Can I get a second ticket? Thank you. Questions are comments by members of council. Councilmember CdeBaca.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. Called this one now because I'm very concerned about the comments we've heard from constituents about union busting activity and the committee meeting where Denver Health explained that they are basically union busting by not using city dollars to do so was very concerning to me. I appreciate Councilwoman Sandoval calling it out for a public hearing, but I would like to see them go back and do a little more work to assure us that there's no union busting going.
Speaker 2: On in an organization.
Speaker 4: That we fund, whether it's coming out of our dollars or their own. And so I am a no on this one this evening.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Hines.
Speaker 1: And you, Madam President, I. I want to thank Councilmember CdeBaca for her comments. I also want to thank Councilmember Sandoval for pulling this off for public comment. I want to keep our public for the public to comment on. I just public comment. Anyway, I want to hear what the public has to say. I want to hear from the folks next week. And and I would ask folks, my colleagues, to say yes tonight so that we do give the public an opportunity to have their their voice heard. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: And Q Councilman Hines. Seen no other hands raised. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 2: CDEBACA No. Clark.
Speaker 1: I. When I.
Speaker 2: Herndon.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Time. Cashman.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Can I? Ortega, I. Sandoval. I. Boyer. I. Right. I.
Speaker 4: Black eye.
Speaker 2: Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced results.
Speaker 2: One made 12 eyes.
Speaker 0: 12 Eyes Counsel Bill 1138 has been ordered published. The next item up is Council Bill 1159. Councilmember Cashman, will you please put Bill 1159 on the floor for publication?
Speaker 1: Yes, Madam President. I move that council bill 22 at 1159 be published.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance approving a proposed Fiscal Year 2021 Appendices 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 2021.
Approves the 2021 Denver Health and Hospital Authority operating agreement (DDPHE 202056359). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 12-7-20. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 11-4-20.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11162020_20-1159
|
Speaker 1: Yes, Madam President. I move that council bill 22 at 1159 be published.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved. And second, Ted.
Speaker 3: Bagon.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Council member Salem Barker. Your motion to postpone.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. I move that publication of Council Bill 20 Dash 1159 be postponed to Monday, February 8th.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. It has been moved. And may I get a second?
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Questions or comments by members of council. Councilmember Herndon.
Speaker 3: Memories. I was I didn't know councilwoman say to back. I wanted to list her reasons reasoning for the postponement. I wanted to hear that first. If I.
Speaker 0: Perfect, perfect, great. I looked up and saw your hand raised. So Councilmember say to Barca, go ahead and and share with us why.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. And thank you, Councilman Herndon, for asking for the clarification on our last opportunity to hear about this proposed rezoning. I was under the impression that they had worked with the neighborhood.
Speaker 2: Group.
Speaker 4: While the neighborhood coalition of several groups. And it came to my attention before this evening's vote that there has not been good faith negotiations. I believe that there might be a representative.
Speaker 2: On the phone call.
Speaker 4: Listed as Alfonso Espino. If we have any questions regarding their meeting, I am asking to postpone it past the holidays to make sure that we give them ample time to come together and figure out a resolution to what feels like major disagreements that could lead to another voting down of their rezoning. I would like to see them put a little more work into the meeting the community needs.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Council woman said Abarca. Councilman Hernan, did you have a follow up question?
Speaker 3: Yes, ma'am. President, I like to know Nate Lucero has been promoted. And while Nate is coming up, I this is, you know for rezonings it's quasi judicial. So council members are not allowed to make a public weighing in on this until we have the public hearing by requesting a delay. That's not coming from the applicant because, as councilman stated, backfill there hasn't been enough community outreach. I feel as if that's being done, which would be in essence against what our are charges. And I just wanted to and I'm curious too about the timeline for rezoning because this is something at my time alluded that I cannot remember happening. So, Nate, any anything to add or just correct me if I just add something incorrect.
Speaker 1: Good evening, members of Council. Thank you, Councilman Herndon. So it sounds like to me the reason for the reason the postponement is being requested is so that the applicant could continue to work with the neighborhood. And that isn't something that is that we're going to find within the review criteria, which council is charged with reviewing for rezonings . And it would seem appropriate that since this application was deemed to have sufficient information to move forward to the full council, that a public hearing on this matter, on the merits should be had. But it's certainly within this council's discretion to postpone it if they find an adequate reason for the postponement.
Speaker 3: The Native. I heard you correctly that the applicant wishing for it. We can certainly grant it. Because that has happened before. And Councilwoman, to back at the applicant requesting this delay or is it.
Speaker 4: No, the actually the community organizations that have set up a time to meet or was trying to meet with the applicant, they made the request and they made the request because the public hearing is on December 14th, which only leaves them about a week or two to to come together with Thanksgiving coming up. And that is a challenge with multiple RINO's who are part of a coalition. So we were just asking to skip over the holidays and give us some time to be able to pull them all together.
Speaker 3: Is. Thank you. Councilwoman is the applicant here today.
Speaker 0: We do, I believe, have the applicant in the attendees and we can go ahead and promote them. But I want to make sure, Nate, that you're advising us correctly, since this is quasi judicial and that we might be hearing from the applicant outside of of the the hearing.
Speaker 3: Yes. And council president. I'm not weighing in on the merits of the case. I just wanted this because I believe a property owner has a right to be heard before the full council. And so I was just going to ask the applicant if they're wanted to request a delay. That was my only that was my only question, Madam President.
Speaker 2: Perfect.
Speaker 0: That that sounds good. I just wanted to put that out there in case Nate had any issues with it. And so I'm fine promoting the property owner in to answer that question. Councilman.
Speaker 1: Do you.
Speaker 3: I think that was Chase or Alfonzo.
Speaker 0: Mm hmm. I think we've got him in.
Speaker 1: Okay. Yes. Thank you. Council President Gilmore, Councilman Herndon. I'm Jamesville with Cyprus, the developer of the.
Speaker 5: Proposed.
Speaker 1: Rezoning. We do not we are not requesting an extension. Okay. If I can speak to the carry out, which I'm happy to, but I.
Speaker 3: Just I would respectfully I would ask that we just wait until the community to the public hearing as that's when counsel should hear all of the all of that. So I appreciate. I have a question. So, colleagues, I would I would vote no. I believe a property owner has or an applicant has a right to have their case heard before the full council. If if we feel and the public hearing a month from now that there wasn't effective community outreach, we should vote it down. No, but to delay, I think, would be inappropriate. So I'll be voting no. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Herndon. Councilman Black.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. My questions were answered. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right, Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. I just wanted to ask Councilwoman CdeBaca if you had facilitated a meeting between the developer and the community. In your role as the councilperson, you can bring both sides together, you know, before the application gets filed to try to, you know, work some of those issues out. And is there a reason why it wasn't some of these things weren't brought up at the time that it came to committee?
Speaker 4: We were actually our office was under the impression that they had worked it all out. And then we got notification today from the community that they were requesting an extension because there was not resolution. We did not facilitate that meeting. We are happy to try and facilitate if we were able to get an extension, but we did not facilitate the the previous meeting.
Speaker 2: And normally, once it's filed, it's not appropriate to do that. It's before the filing that it's very appropriate to do that. So that's what I was trying to clarify.
Speaker 4: Right. And this is round two for them. So this is a persistent issue with their developments. We were not involved before the filing or after the filing in convening a meeting.
Speaker 2: But if we get an extension, we will absolutely.
Speaker 4: Try to make sure that we help convene.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. I want to follow up on what May Lucero was talking about in response to Councilman Herndon and suggests that this hearing is still a month away, four weeks away, even though Thanksgiving Day is next week. There's still a month's time for the community and the owner applicant to talk. And if I would suggest that delaying this for three months might have the effect of taking pressure off as opposed to having a hearing a month from now, keeping pressure on on when this hearing comes up in December, we always have the option of extending it at that point. So I will I will vote no on the postponement at this time, but be open to it later. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Madam Secretary, roll call on the postponement.
Speaker 2: See the vodka? Yes.
Speaker 1: Clark. No.
Speaker 4: When?
Speaker 1: No.
Speaker 2: Herndon. Now find.
Speaker 1: No. Cashman No.
Speaker 2: Kimmich? No. Ortega of. Sandoval. No.
Speaker 4: Sawyer now.
Speaker 2: Torres. No. Black. Now. Madam President?
Speaker 0: No, Madam Secretary. Close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 2: One I 12 nays.
Speaker 0: One I 12 nays. The postponement has failed. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 20 dash 1159 to be ordered published.
Speaker 2: Black. I. See the. I. Clark.
Speaker 1: All right. When I.
Speaker 4: Herndon.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 4: Hi.
Speaker 1: Hi.
Speaker 2: Cashman.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Can I? Ortega, I. Sandoval. I. Sawyer. I. For us. I. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 2: 39.
Speaker 0: 13 ays Council Bill 20 dash 1159 has been ordered published. That concludes our 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. Council Member Cashman. Will you please put the resolutions for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor?
Speaker 1: 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. All series of 2020 1172 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 1212 1213 1214 1199 1245 1191 1238 1358 1362, 1181, 1150 1141, 1178 and 11 7914.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved. And second, Ted. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 1: Black.
Speaker 2: I see the vodka. I'm Clark.
Speaker 1: I. When I.
Speaker 2: Brendan, I. Hi.
Speaker 1: Hi.
Speaker 2: Cashman.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Can I? Ortega. If I. Sandoval. I swear. I. Torres. I. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced the results. 3913 ays the resolutions have been adopted and the bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass tonight. There will be a one hour courtesy public hearing on Council Bill 113 to approving and accepting the East Area Plan. Which plan shall become part of the Comprehensive Plan 2040 for the city and county of Denver pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 Dash 61 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code. Anyone wishing to speak on this matter must go online to sign up during the recess of council. If there are no objections from members of council, we're going to take a 15 minute recess. Council members, please remember to turn off your cameras and mute your microphones and we will return at 7:05 p.m..
Speaker 1: Girl then.
Speaker 4: As part of.
Speaker 2: Denver's recovery effort, the city and county is.
Speaker 4: Providing free COVID 19 drive up testing. Testing for COVID 19.
Speaker 2: Is a very important part of keeping our city and county safe.
Speaker 4: Specimen collection for testing has improved since the pandemic began. Unlike previous COVID tests, the collection of this nasal swab can be.
Speaker 2: Performed by a.
Speaker 4: Patient in the presence.
Speaker 2: Of a health care worker. Each individual will be responsible for administering the nasal swab themselves to expedite the.
Speaker 4: Process and increase safety. If someone is unable to administer the swab themselves due to a disability.
Speaker 2: Staff will assist to receive a test. Residents should register before.
Speaker 4: Coming to a testing.
Speaker 2: Site. Just go to Denver, gov dawg. Miners may be registered.
Speaker 4: By their.
Speaker 2: Parents when visiting a testing.
Speaker 4: Site. You'll need to bring a document that verifies your name, such as a photo ID, RTT, pass card, school ID.
Speaker 2: Phone or utility bill or library card.
Speaker 4: While on site. Please keep all vehicle windows up.
Speaker 2: Observe all signs.
Speaker 4: And follow the directions of the.
Speaker 2: Staff. Patients will be asked to hold up ID to their vehicle window.
Speaker 4: So that our testing staff can collect your information and ensure your test.
Speaker 2: Receives proper identification when instructed to do so. Please roll down your window. You'll be handed a cotton swab.
Speaker 4: To avoid contaminating.
Speaker 2: The test. Hold the swab applicator.
Speaker 4: And do not touch the cotton end of the swab. Carefully insert the cotton.
Speaker 2: End of the swab into one nostril just until the cotton tip of the swab is no longer visible.
Speaker 4: Rotate the swab in a circle around the entire edge of the nostril, at least three times, using the same end.
Speaker 2: Of the swab. Collect a sample from the opposite nostril and place it in the collection tube so that the sample end sits down in the collection tube fluid. You'll be given a.
Speaker 4: Post-Test handout with instructions on what to do next. Results will.
Speaker 2: Be provided online.
Speaker 4: And those who test.
Speaker 2: Positive will receive a follow up. Your test results will be emailed to you by Atco Labs at the email address you provided during registration. If after five business days you haven't received your results, please email our city at Denver gov dawg. To learn more, go to Denver gov dot org.
Speaker 6: In case you haven't heard, Denver 311 is the central place to go for all of Denver city services. Their call center is open 7 to 7 Monday through Friday, but now you can reach them on pocket gov dot com.
Speaker 1: 24 seven 2000 6311 has been helping residents and visitors with city service complaints and inquiries. Now we work with 33 different departments to help you find what you're looking for. For your convenience, we offer pocket goods where you can find DMV wait times, pay city related.
Speaker 2: Bills.
Speaker 1: Sign up for street sweeping reminders and more.
Speaker 6: So whether you have questions about trash services, code violations or parking enforcement. Denver 311 and Pocket Gov are helping you navigate Denver City Services.
Speaker 1: If you have trash service with the city and county of Denver. Denver Solid Waste Management collects extra trash bags and large items every eight weeks from your neighborhood. Place your items out by 7 a.m.. On your normal trash day, you may set out up to ten extra bags of trash and five large items per collection cycle. Now is the time to prepare for next week's extra trash pickup. For more information, go to Denver gov dawgs trash and recycle.
Speaker 6: This is Paul. Paul is a driver for Denver Public Works. This is what he drives. It sweeps up dirt, leaves and debris, reducing air and water pollution to do his job right. Cars must be off the street, according to the red and white signs posted in most neighborhoods. Don't let this be you. Help out Paul and his coworkers. Show your pride. And move your ride. And avoid a ticket.
Speaker 1: Or a tow. Go to pocket gov. Com to sign up for free reminders. We thank you.
Speaker 3: The sooner we can detect the virus, the sooner that we can isolate, use and or we can get you to treatment and sooner we can slow the spread of the virus. This is the goal all along was to be closer to the community, closer to the people that needed it most. So we put a testing site at Paco Sanchez Park. We had another one at Montebello Recreation Center. We moved it over to Green Valley Ranch Pool. And then we just opened this past Tuesday, Denver Human Services East Building. So on 3815 School Street, you know, we've already seen about a 40% increase in those that identify as Latin coming to the sites and being tested three times increase in those that identify as African-American or black that are coming to those community sites compared to the Pepsi Center. You can preregister. That's the preference on Denver gov. But if you don't have Internet access and you can walk up to the site as well. We've taken some serious steps moving forward to provide this access for those that are underinsured or have no insurance, have no access to a health care provider, then, you know, yeah, come to our sites and we'll be happy to get you a COVID test.
Speaker 1: Living in Denver just got a whole lot easier with pocket gov. Your direct connection to city services. See a problem with pocket gov. You can quickly report the location and even add a photo with just the touch of a button with many useful and informative links. Pocket gov offers a wide variety of.
Speaker 6: Tools and information directly from your PC.
Speaker 1: Or mobile device to make your life and living in Denver easier.
Speaker 2: Denver's hop crosswalk signals are helping us cross streets more safely. Just press the button to activate the flashing yellow warning lights so drivers are alerted to slow down and stop giving pedestrians a safe way to cross. Visit Denver gov dawgs vision zero.
Speaker 6: Clearing your yard of fallen leaves is easy with Denver leaf drop a leaf collection and composting program of Denver recycles. Denver residents can drop off their leaves on these days at several convenient locations during the week. Leaves can be dropped off during business hours at the Denver Solid Waste Transfer Station or the Havana Nursery through these dates . Call 311.
Speaker 1: Or log on to the.
Speaker 6: Website for details about this and other residential public works programs. When residents are out enjoying a Denver park and see a maintenance issue of any kind, they can call 311 to report it. Or if they use Pocket Guv, they can even attach a helpful photo when submitting their case. Issues can be anything from graffiti to bathroom maintenance, trash and debris to overgrown or dead grass, even broken lights or sprinklers. From this submission 311 will create a work order that Parks and Recreation will then respond to. If you are reporting a maintenance issue in a Denver mountain park, 311 can also put you in touch with the correct agency to handle that using 311 and Puckett go residents can help the city to help everyone have an enjoyable experience in our Denver Open spaces. The Denver Museum of Nature and Science's Space Odyssey exhibit has launched with an all new experience. Future astronauts and inquisitive humans now have a place to discover answers to out-of-this-world questions. The Ferguson unrest shook the nation to its core and put a spotlight on the police brutality and discrimination that plague our institutions. Dale or Smith created eight fictional characters to represent the broad spectrum of perspectives that continue to define and divide our country at large. You can now watch the full production for free and on demand at Denver Center Talk Celebrate this season safely and with your family at the 30th annual Denver Zoo Lights. Tickets are now available online with only a five ticket limit. Zoo light sells out every year, so secure your spot a.s.a.p at Denver Zoo dawg. Tickets are also already on sale for the Denver Botanic Gardens, Blossoms of Light and Chatfield Farms. Trail of Lights this year with limited capacity and timed tickets. So get yours early at Botanic Gardens North. Did you know you can pick up free healthy snacks for all the youth and your family at the central branch of the Denver Public Library every Monday through Thursday from 10 to 4, and the youth do not have to be present. Free children's and teen books, kids crafts, supplies and baby diapers are also available. Explore historical places, events and people through lectures, guided tours and online or in-person classes with history. Colorado this month features events about indigenous arts, justice and democracy, students taking action and making progress. And Colfax Confessionals. The Kirkland Museum is extending the celebration of printmaking to the end of the year, highlighting and explaining some of the processes and techniques used to create fine art prints. And that's a quick look at what's happening in Denver this week.
Speaker 0: One public hearing tonight. Speakers should begin their remarks by telling council their names and cities of residents. And if they feel comfortable doing some so their home addresses when called upon. Please wait until our meeting hosts promote you to speaker. When you're 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 signed up to answer questions only, please state your name and note that you're available for questions. Speakers will have 3 minutes. There is no yield in time if translation is needed. You'll 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 to stay on the topic of the hearing and must direct your 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. And we have our public hearing guidelines up on the screen. And I do need to make an announcement. We right now have Spanish and Karen translation services. But unfortunately, Arabic and Burmese are not working right at this point. We're having issues with Zoom on the Aramaic and Burmese, but we do have Spanish and Karen and we're continuing to try to address that. And so we appreciate folks patience. Councilmember Cashman, will you please put council Bill one one, three, two on the floor for passage, please?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 3225 Denargo Street in Five Points.
Approves a map amendment to rezone property from I-B, UO-2 to C-MX-16, DO-7 (industrial to mixed-use), located at 3225 Denargo Street in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 10-27-20.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11162020_20-1132
|
Speaker 0: We're having issues with Zoom on the Aramaic and Burmese, but we do have Spanish and Karen and we're continuing to try to address that. And so we appreciate folks patience. Councilmember Cashman, will you please put council Bill one one, three, two on the floor for passage, please?
Speaker 1: Yes, Madam President, I move the council bill 20 dash 1130 to be placed upon final consideration and do pass. Now again.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Councilmember Sawyer. Your motion to amend.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. The purpose of this amendment is to amend the East Area Plan. The amended Clark file number in the bill refers to an amended East Area plan. This amended plan adds a sentence to Policy L six on page 39. Oops. Sorry. Hold on. I messed up. I got to read the actual part first. I move that council bill 20 dash 113 to be amended in the following particulars that on page one, line 32 strike. Quote 20200094, end quote. And replace with quotes. 20200094a. End quote.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Go ahead. Sorry.
Speaker 0: No, go ahead. Council woman.
Speaker 4: Thinks so. Thank you. Council President. The purpose of this amendment is to amend the East Area Plan. The amended Clark file number in the bill refers to an amended East Area plan. So that's the way the amended plan adds a sentence to policy l six on page 39 regarding zoning and regulation recommendations to ensure the plan area neighborhoods are inclusive places by integrating missing middle housing and appropriate locations. The added sentence states, quote, Single unit areas should remain primarily single unit. End quote. Madam President, do you want to do questions and comments? How would how would you like to do the next part of this?
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Sawyer. And we're going to go ahead and we'll have the staff report and we'll open up the hearing, and then we'll go ahead and have questions and comments after we get the presentation.
Speaker 4: Perfect. Thanks so much.
Speaker 0: All right. Wonderful. I am getting back to my place, my system refreshed here, and so just need to get back to where we're at. All right. So no other questions or comments, but one hour courtesy public hearing for council bill 20 Dash 1132 is open. Speakers may address the bill as well as the amendment. After the public hearing, council will vote on the amendment and then on the bill separately. May we go ahead and have a staff report? And I see you're already in and ready to go live. Go ahead, please.
Speaker 4: And evening I'm with where I go with community development. I'm going to give the staff presentation. But I think our executive director, Laura Eldredge, wanted to give us some opening remarks first.
Speaker 2: Turn it over to her. Excellence. I am not sure. Can people see me? Mm hmm. Go ahead. Okay. I didn't know if I was promoted yet. Thank you. Well, good evening. And thank you, Madam President. Thank you. Council members. I'm proud to introduce the East Area Plan to council this evening for consideration. I also want to thank all the residents and businesses of Denver, of particularly the East Area Colfax, that participated in this project, in this process. Engagement is one of our communities in our communities is incredibly important to realize in the future vision of our neighborhoods and the great city that we live in. I also want to introduce our great CPD staff ahead of their presentation, which I will get through here in a few minutes. I just want to take a minute to preview what you're going to hear this evening, both from staff and from the community. First, you're going to hear about the dire need for affordable housing and about concerns about displacement, both for families and for local business. We agree with the community that the need is urgent, especially in the wake of this pandemic. And this plan really tackles displacement head on. You will hear in detail from our staff about dozens of strategies that came from the community itself to address housing and to support local businesses and about the partnerships that we have built to implement these strategies. You may hear that the east area plan doesn't go far enough, but this plan goes as far as a plan can go. And it goes further than any neighborhood plan we have brought to council before. The plan also addresses the issue, these issues in ways the current plans in this area do not. Those plans where they do exist date back almost 20 years and don't mention displacement or equity at all. When we have these conversations, we often focus on the consequences of doing something. But it's just as important to talk about the consequences of not doing something. The negative impacts are already underway in these neighborhoods in terms of housing costs, rising rents and businesses that are having a hard time surviving. We hear that and we understand that adapt adopting this plan will put us in a better position to do what the community is asking and ensure that they can stay in their neighborhood and that their businesses can thrive. You may hear tonight that with this urgency comes a need for things that the plans themselves cannot do. But through the partnerships that we built with Host and Nest and neighborhood advocacy groups, we're connecting residents with resources and programs that can help them now. Our job as a city doesn't end with a plan. This is where it starts. We will continue working with these neighborhoods to implement the recommendations of this plan in a way that works for the community. With that, I would just say thank you again to counsel for your time, and I will turn it over to Liz and Kurt for the presentation. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Laura. So I'm going to share my screen and I'll give you the presentation. I'm joined tonight by Curt Upton and many of our other team members who can help to answer questions when we get to that part of the evening. So tonight's presentation, I'll go over the plan structure and also give you some background, and then I'll review the three criteria that City Council is charged with reviewing and adopting the East Area plan as a supplement to the comprehensive plan. And this includes the public process plan, consistency and the long term view. To the East Area plan is a long term planning document. It sets out a community supportive vision for the area and includes recommended strategies to help us achieve that vision. As a policy document, it will help inform city decision making over the next 20 years. It is not a regulatory document or a budget document that you stereo plan covers for statistical neighborhoods between Colorado and Yosemite along Colfax Avenue. This includes South Park Hills, Hale, Montclair and East Colfax. Areas north of Colfax are in District eight state, and those to the south are in District five. For context, I wanted to highlight that there are demographic differences between these neighborhoods, which has been reflected in the community input that we've heard throughout this process. The neighborhoods of South Parco, Montclair and some portions of Hale have higher household incomes and higher homeownership rates. Many residents in these areas are concerned about neighborhood change that may impact single unit character, such as traffic or changes to the vote form. East Colfax ranks the lowest in our citywide equity index. It's considered vulnerable to displacement in all three categories in our in our blueprint and host displacement index. The neighborhood has a significant population of immigrants and refugees, a large percentage of renters, and has seen its moderate housing prices rise quickly over the last several years. Displacement has been the primary concern that we've heard in this neighborhoods. As more mentioned, a major theme of the neighborhood plan and community engagement has been around displacement and equity, and the plan's top priority is stabilizing existing residents and businesses. As we all know, these are issues we are grappling with city wide and equity is a.
Speaker 1: Central.
Speaker 4: Goal of our city wide plans. Displacement is happening throughout the city and places where development is happening in places where it isn't with a neighborhood plan. We have a chance to help guide that change and integrate and to put anti displacement strategies. This focus has taken to roles in the East Area plan. One is to integrate into displacement and equity through all parts of the plan as opposed to our existing adaptive plans in these areas that don't speak to displacement, the east area plan makes anti displacement a top priority and includes over 27 policies that directly address displacement. This has gone further than we have before in any neighborhood plan and includes a number of strategies grouped under Polish policies such as stabilizing residents, creating new affordable housing, protecting small businesses, and reducing barriers to jobs and new business opportunities. Ensuring that the community benefits from change and new development in the coming years and supporting community organizing and leadership to ensure equitable engagement doesn't end with the neighborhood plan but continues through implementation. On top of that plan, focus, we recognize, particularly with the added stresses of the pandemic, that the need for immediate action is critical. As part of this process, we put together an inter-departmental team to work with the community, particularly the Equifax neighborhood, to address those issues now. These include things like connecting residents and businesses with legal and housing assistance and connecting them to code resources. The partnerships with other departments such as Nest, Ditto and Host are things we didn't have in the past with neighborhood science. I think we all know that change is happening and will continue to happen. Plans give us that opportunity to work with residents, local businesses, nonprofits and service providers to set goals for our future and make sure that development works in a way that works better for our neighborhoods.
Speaker 2: And.
Speaker 4: So I'll go over the the plan structure and content. Overall, we have an introduction and then we have area wide recommendations which really apply throughout the East area. And then we also have neighborhood specific recommendations. In addition, we have recommendations for the Colfax quarter itself and an implementation section to go with the plan. The plan is organized and one of our first steps in the planning process around six vision elements. And we started with the vision elements that you find in the comprehensive plan, and we added more detail and specificity for the east area. The plan also speaks to the equity concepts that you find a blueprint over, including access to opportunity, vulnerability, displacement and jobs and housing diversity. And these are implemented throughout the plan and our recommendations, and we also summarized them in the beginning of the plan. So I will highlight some of the priority recommendations in the plan. The first, as I've already mentioned, is helping residents and businesses stay in the community long term. And this means that we have a focus on AUNTJESS placement, which means some of those recommendations include creating a youth services hub that provides local access to anti displacement services , prioritizing current residents for new affordable housing, connecting small business owners with financial and technical assistance, both to that because of the anticipated best rapid transit construction and also rising costs in general. The image on the slide shows a renovated building along East Colfax, with small businesses staying in place and continuing to serve the community. Our second priority is ensuring that the East Area remains an inclusive place in the future by increasing affordable housing options using all available net methods. Today, one third of East Area residents are a cost burden, which means they're spending more than 30% of their income on housing. And we calculated that we're short at least 1400 units of affordable housing. The plan recommends building more housing near bus rapid transit stops along Colfax, using zoning tax credits, partnerships and direct investments. The plan strategically recommends putting that new housing near transit, where residents can take advantage of great access along Colfax, which connects them to jobs and amenities from downtown to Anschutz. The 15 and 15 hours are already among the highest ridership lines in our system, and they will only be improved with the planned Bus Rapid Transit Project. In addition, we want to make sure that new development and change that is expected helps achieve community priorities. Therefore, the plan recommends only allowing increased title on COVAX with the provision of community benefits with affordable housing being that primary benefit. The plan also recommends adding more diverse housing options in residential neighborhoods so that so that there's room for all types of households to live in these great east area neighborhoods. This rendering shows a new building along Colfax that achieves five stories and heights by providing affordable housing. Our next priority recommendation is making Colfax Avenue a street that brings the East Area's diverse community together. This includes making it easier to reuse existing buildings and build small scale development. Creating new roles for high quality design and ensuring that buildings transition appropriately to adjacent homes. Improving the streetscape to be more comfortable and safe and growing the quarter's independent and diverse cultural identity by establishing an international cultural district. Next, the plan prioritizes celebrating the architecture architectural history of Eastern neighborhoods by encouraging the preservation of existing homes and requiring complementary design of new housing. This includes updating our standards to ensure new housing fits in better. And creating requirements for their older homes when new housing options are added. Plan also recommends preserving trees and landscaped areas, creating new parks and gathering spaces, and using green approaches to stormwater management. This can help make the east area safe from flooding healthier and more climate resilient. Plans supports increasing tree canopy, particularly in commercial areas where it's lacking today. It recommends increased permeability and stormwater management and ensuring we have park access within a ten minute walk for residents. This rendering shows a potential new park in the Mayfair Town Center area. This is one area where there's potential to add a community park that can help address the walkable access, particularly in South Park Hill and Montclair. It is also an area with significant flooding and new stormwater management can help address this issue. The rendering also shows the preservation of existing businesses, including grocery stores, new housing options and shared parking. This is an illustration of one concept. The plan recommends additional community engagement around a specific plan. Should a property owner in the area be interested in redeveloping at some point? Our last priority recommendation is to save life and reduce pollution by making streets safer and more convenient for walking, bicycling and using transit. Some of these recommendations include making some of our east west major arterials safer to cross in travel and slowing vehicle speeds with traffic coming near schools, parks and other community gathering areas. This rendering shows one of the one way arterials and east being slowed down with intersection improvements. The Planning Board approved the plan by a vote of 6 to 3 on October seven, 20, 2021, to conditions one that the document be edited for clarity and correctness. And the second was to delete a recommendation in L six, a one which read that single unit areas should remain primarily single units. They said it has been made to the plan and is included in the draft before council tonight. There were 37 speakers at the hearing with 15 in favor and 22 against. Primary issues raised include displacement and the addition of housing options to neighborhoods. I will now review the City Council criteria for review. So our Comprehensive Plan 2040 calls out that when evaluating plans to be adopted as supplements. Both Planning Board and City Council should consider the following criteria that an inclusive community process was used to develop the plan. That the plan is consistent with the vision, goals and strategies of comprehensive plan 2040, and that the plan demonstrates a long term view. Well, first covered the inclusive community process criteria. Planning. Christmas began in July 2017 and has been in progress for over three years. Engagement has included more than 100 meetings in over 8500 comments received. The vast majority of this engagement occurred prior to the pandemic. But we did have to address this past spring and summer to provide opportunities to review and discuss the draft plans. The engagement has included traditional community workshops, including a 500 person meeting at Johnson and Wales in November of 2019. The successful meeting allowed for constructive dialog on draft recommendations that were then updated and shared with the draft plan. We have also home health, virtual open houses, focus group meetings with community members and technical experts. Online service. Community group meetings and events and office hours. We've also worked to build awareness of this project throughout the process. It's included a mailer to all 15,000 households email updates, fliers and local news stories. In addition, through this process, we have had two new neighborhood groups formed, both of which we spent considerable time engaging with. We recognize that there are barriers to engagement faced by many community members. We made efforts throughout the process to reduce those barriers by providing interpretation and up to five languages at our workshops offering food, childcare and free shuttles. All of our online content was compatible with smartphones, ADA accessible and available for auto translation. We also provided videos of our May Virtual Open House in four languages. We kept track of our demographics throughout the process and saw that many of our traditional workshops and online engagement opportunities were mainly seeing participation from white and higher income households. Therefore, from early on, we dedicated more resources to targeted engagement to reach those nonwhite lower income households and immigrants and refugees in East Colfax. We did much of that through partnerships with organizations and also what we call pop up events where we meet people where they are. This included events at affordable housing properties, small businesses and motels and meetings with service providers and business owners. Also an East Coast community collective formed involved last year. We met with them multiple times to take a critical look at and strengthen the plans, antigens, placement recommendations. Specifically in the East Colfax neighborhood, we've had over 20 focused meetings, six of those meetings, being with the East Cortex Community Collective and included a detailed discussion of recommendations that led to over 65 updates in the plan. These meetings also included interpretation, food, childcare, and we included staff from CPD host Nest. The Office of Financial Empowerment and Detox so that we had everyone in a room together to tackle the long term recommendations and also connect residents and businesses with resources to help them today. We use this engagement to elevate the voices of our representatives. And this has resulted in a neighborhood plan that goes further than any before in terms of displacement. The vast majority of X three point youth CapEx committee collective's recommendations were directly incorporated into the plan. Examples of those anti displacement strategies that we updated based on community feedback include recommendations for local access to job training, financial empowerment and housing assistance. Making affordable housing the top priority for increases in height and reducing barriers to homeownership and piloting new affordability programs. Also include protecting core facts, independent and diverse cultural identity by establishing the international or cultural district and by supporting more community ownership. We're recommending inclusive engagement implementation, including any TIFF projects that come forward. And lastly, recommending an ecovacs community center with recreational opportunities, gathering space and local services. Now go to crunch criteria. Number two, consistency with comprehensive plan 2040 and also cover consistency with blueprint difference. The plan is consistent with the goals and strategies and comprehensive plan 2014, as are outlined in the staff report and listed on this page to include all those in our various vision elements. The plan is also consistent with policies and strategies and blueprint. Denver, as outlined in the staff report, including those relating Usain Bolt form mobility and quality of life. The plan updates, maps and blueprint Denver for contexts, places and street types. It also addresses blueprint drivers equity concepts, as I mentioned previously. The last criteria is that the plan should provide a long term view. The austerity plan is a long term plan. And as I mentioned, it has a 20 year planning horizon. It establishes a vision for supporting local businesses and diverse housing options, preserving the diversity of Colfax Avenue, as well as neighborhood architecture, providing trees and open space and making it easier and safer to get around round it direct. It directs the majority of growth to centers and corridors in areas that are served by transit. And the vision will take many years to achieve. With that. We do find that based on finding the review criteria have been met. Staff recommends that City Council adopt the East Area Plan. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Liz, for the staff report. And we have 58 speakers signed up to speak and we have a one hour courtesy public hearing to accomplish that. And so we'll go ahead and get started with our speakers. And we do right now have one speaker that requires interpretation. And so we'll go ahead and let the appropriate interpreter know when that time arrives. And so our first speaker is Merritt Pullum. And as we get Merritt moved into the panelists here we are alternating speakers for and against. And so just want to also remind speakers to please share with us your name and your city of residence if you feel comfortable doing that. And so we'll go ahead and start with you, Merritt. Go ahead, please.
Speaker 1: Hello. Good evening. Thank you. My name is Merritt Pullen and I live near 10th and Line Street in the Mayfair neighborhood. I've called Colorado home for more than 39 years. My civic experience includes former president of Mayfair Neighbors Inc. Denver Wright Denver Moves Transit Task Force, the Upper Montclair Stormwater Basin Study and the BRT Task Force. Former Councilwoman Sussman appointed me to the East Area Plan Steering Committee and her and Councilman Herndon nominated me to chair the committee. Developing recommendations for this plan was not a simple task with neighbors and businesses that depend on a solid vision for the future. My goal was to help deliver the best plan possible so that our kids neighbors have the best opportunity to thrive. I wish to say thank you to my fellow steering committee members, current and former City Council members, community planning and development staff. The consultants hired help and give input. Denver East Neighborhoods First Unite and the East Colfax Community Collective and all the RINO's in our neighborhoods and to our neighbors and business owners who live, work or rent in our area. The time you spent attending meetings, sending emails or inputting comments on various drafts was valuable and appreciated. Our goal is to create the most equitable neighborhood plan. The steering committee dug deep and shared experiences that benefited the vision. I learned so much more about myself, my neighbors and the city than I ever expected. We identified early on that the steering committee was not the most diverse group and that we were not reaching everyone in our community. I am proud of the work CPD, the Consultants, City Council and the Steering Committee did to expand our reach and spark conversations with those who felt like they were not being heard. Direct mailers, focus groups, community forums and most importantly, time was added to the plan. It was important to do better, and I believe we did. The steering committee started with 14 and ended with nine voting members. We voted 8 to 1 to advance our recommendations to the Denver Planning Board. I believe this is a strong indication of consensus. Not everyone was able to get everything they wanted in the plan with a compromise and realize that maybe what one or many of us thought was a good idea was not actually something that fit our community. Throughout the past three years, various neighbors and organizations were able to challenge our thoughts and ideas, which in turn allowed us to rethink our ideas and make a recommendation stronger and relatable to our community. We all want safety, security, great parks, reliable transit options, and access to entertainment. What we need more of is better food access for everyone. Affordable housing and job security. And better education for all.
Speaker 2: Can you hear me?
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Oh, sorry. Go ahead, Merritt. That was one of our translators. Go ahead.
Speaker 1: My apologies. I constantly thought about how my children will see the plans impacts 20 years from now. What will be their Denver? Do we capture what our neighbors and small businesses need to thrive? I am proud of this plan and the volunteer steering committee members I had the pleasure to work with. I asked that City Council approve the East Area plan. I also challenge City Council as well as CPD to not only approve this plan.
Speaker 0: That's the time we have. Thank you.
Speaker 1: No worries.
Speaker 0: All right. Our next speaker is Brendan Green. Brendan, we've got you up as a panelist here, so you might just have to unmute.
Speaker 1: Hi, my name is Brendan Green. I'm with the East Corpus Community Collective. In my comments tonight I want to address the amendment and the claim that the addition of the lime single unit area should remain primarily single unit was the result of an inclusive process. This land was not in the initial draft recommendations and was only added since February 2020 and the first two years of the IAP. The input around the plan came largely from the more affluent neighborhoods of Montclair and Park Hill organization. Bringing the diverse voices of East Colfax was formed in October when we held our first press conference, calling out the inequities in the planning process on November 21st, 2019. On November 23rd, CPD, based upon the feedback they had received from more privileged communities who were organizing against missing middle housing, released an online survey to workshop how to integrate and scale back missing metal housing in the plan. They also conducted a workshop at Johnson and Wells University with 500 people in attendance on the same topic. Our perspective of wanting to incorporate more missing middle housing throughout the area and throughout East Colfax was not even included as an option, so the process was already skewed. After three months of the survey, the CPD reported their findings at the Community Steering Committee meeting on January 30th, 2020, where I happened to attend. CPD shared the feedback on the survey with 85% white, 46% Park Hill 19% East Colfax Feedback from the workshop at Johnson and Wells was 63% Park Hill and only 11% East Colfax. Based upon this completely inequitable three month engagement process, CPD announced the addition of the line single unit areas to remain primarily single unit and received universal feedback from all but one steering committee member that this worked against anti displacement goals in the plan. We want to be clear this is not initially in the plan recommendations. It was added after CPD received feedback from a very specific community, released a skewed survey that did not have all perspectives included, received very skewed feedback that was not racially representative or reflective of all of our neighborhoods, and then made a fundamental shift to the plan that significantly altered its direction. The Planning Board was right in removing the sentence and acknowledging how it works against citywide goals. We ask that you oppose this amendment for this reason and the fact that it was added after a process that was not inclusive. Additionally, the East Kotex Community Collective stands in opposition to the plan as a whole because we do not feel the full plan reflects our voice and input. Since we began to engage in January, after more than three months of analyzing the plan, we have acted in good faith and achieved 65 additions to this plan. But imagine what the plan would have looked like if we had this level of engagement from the beginning. If the diverse communities of Colfax would have been engaged in a meaningful way and been a part of this process from its launch, this would not be the plan that we would have written for ourselves. If we truly want to create plans that fight displacement, we should empower neighborhoods at risk of displacement to do this independently without being forced to negotiate, forcing our neighborhood that is dead last on the equity scale, 78 out of 78 in Denver. To negotiate, our future is setting us up for failure. We ask you to vote against the plan in a very and at the very least on this amendment. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. That's the time we have for you. Next step, we have Mary Coddington.
Speaker 2: Hi.
Speaker 4: My name is Mary Coddington. I'm a Denver resident, and I'm here today on behalf of the Neighborhood Development Collaborative or in DC. And DC is a group of 17 affordable housing providers and service providers.
Speaker 2: Who have come together to.
Speaker 4: Promote housing, security and community well-being for.
Speaker 2: Everyone.
Speaker 4: In pursuit of that goal, the organization strongly supports the East Area Plan and encourages its adoption by City Council. We support this plan for the following reasons. First, it's important to mention the way the plan was created. The three plus year plan process use demographic based outreach, which sets a standard for plan making and highlights the goal of CPD to create a plan that reflects the vision of the whole community. As the work of IN is primarily focused on low and moderate income residents, the additional effort to gain the perspectives of the immigrant and refugee communities is especially appreciated. The plan highlights the sentiment of residents that the east area should remain a place where a diverse range of families can live and work. To meet this goal, the EAP recommends using all possible methods to increase affordable housing, including to use duplexes and higher density near transit. These strategies and their implementation and appropriate areas will allow for complete and vibrant neighborhoods that are accessible to people from across the workforce. Not only will this continue to improve upon the already lovely neighborhoods of East, but will also interrupt the concentration of poverty that occurs when you have a city full of people with the mantra Yes , but not here. Members of NDC focus on different levels of housing affordability and different strategies to achieve it. But all of the members recognize the importance of a diversity of options to meet the wide range of needs and indeed is very pleased to see this point acknowledged in the EFP as well. The Neighborhood Development Collaborative does not support the proposed amendment to add the language to the plan. Single unit areas should remain primarily single unit. The plan uses the word compatible or compatibility 36 times, and it's repeatedly recommending the inclusion of housing types that are responsive to the existing.
Speaker 2: Contexts.
Speaker 4: By trying to block missing middle housing from single unit areas. Economic segregation is perpetuated, and the need for affordable and diverse housing options has just shifted into other parts of the city. The state demographer Dr. Coggin KPD, have all reached the conclusion that Denver and the East area will continue to grow and cities themselves are always in a state of change. This plan is a response to that change, and it's an attempt to direct it based on the different needs and priorities of the neighborhoods within the plan area, as.
Speaker 2: Well as the city as a whole.
Speaker 4: And planning is never a perfect process, but the EAP is grounded in comprehensive plan 2040 Blueprint, Denver and the voices of the community, including those that often go unheard because of the thorough planning process and the focus on equity. The Neighborhood Development Collaborative strongly recommends this plan. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Ron LaFollette.
Speaker 1: Hello.
Speaker 0: Hi. Go ahead, Ron.
Speaker 1: You just have to sign my notes again. First, I want to give thanks to all the city staff, the city council members and their staff and all the neighbors in the east area that they put in a lot of hard work for. The development of this plan. The goals of inclusivity, the affordability and prevention of gentrification, I think represent community values that our residents can be proud of. Unfortunately, there are components of the plan regarding adding density to single family neighborhoods that are inconsistent with these goals and do not achieve these goals. In today's paper, the principal city planner, Curt Upton, says that opening the pathway to more units to 80 youths and missing middle housing should provide more affordable homes for people there. In the same article, Councilwoman Sawyer says gentrification is already happening, and by placing affordable housing in that priority, we will hopefully slow the process of gentrification. Words like should and hopefully will not achieve the goals of this plan. Supporters of the plan agree there is no way to enforce affordability. Without enforceable affordability. There's no inclusivity, there's no prevention of gentrification and obviously no affordability. Passage of a state law is a prerequisite to approval of this plan. However, previous efforts to pass this kind of law have been fought in defeated by developers. I can tell you what the plan will do regarding 80 youths and missing middle housing. It will increase density and it will do so at the expense of neighborhood character preservation, of which is one of the goals of the plan. It will increase congestions on our streets and make them unsafe. Also in conflict.
Speaker 2: With one of the.
Speaker 1: Goals of the plan to increase walkability and safety. It will not create affordable housing. It will most certainly benefit the developers who love density without affordability requirements. If you care about inclusivity, the prevention of gentrification and affordability, as I do, I ask you to vote against the plan. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Monica martinez.
Speaker 4: Hi. Can you see me?
Speaker 2: Mm hmm.
Speaker 4: Go ahead. Hi. My name's Monica martinez. I live at 35. Eudora. I'm the executive director of the Facts Partnership. The Facts is a 16 year old nonprofit that's been dedicated to strengthening, is supporting the businesses and residents along the East Colfax Quarter. I was also a member of the East Area Plan Steering Committee with Merritt, who served admirably as our chair. Thank you for all the time you put into the project over the past three and a half years. I attended 26 meetings. Some of those were the steering committee meetings themselves, but a lot of them were community community meetings. I believe that the plan is a balanced plan that provides policy guidance for keeping East Colfax corridor diverse and affordable over the next 20 years. The plan also was a very inclusive process, and it was it's consistent with the plan 2040, as well as Blueprint Denver. And it provides a long term vision for this corridor. I won't go into the data that you already know. You guys know that Denver has an acute need for affordable housing, and now with COVID, a desperate need to support our small business owners, especially those business owners of color, and the immigrant and immigrant communities such as those that own businesses on East Colfax. Instead, I'll tell you about Dante. Dante was a young African-American man that I met at Hermann's Barbershop, a barbershop on East Colfax. Herman talked about how he grew up in the East Colfax neighborhood, but he no longer lives there because he can't afford it. But he still comes back because he feels that it's his community and he comes for his haircuts and his shopping. And so I would want you to encourage you to think about this plan in the eyes of Dante. If we do nothing and we do not adopt this plan, there will be no coordinated policy to address the needs of someone like Dante. 80 use likely will not be built at scale as we need them to, and new affordable housing will not be built on the metro areas. Largest transit line. The 65 anti displacement strategies for businesses and residents that were added in the final draft of the plan will not be implemented either. So once again, I would say that this is a balanced approach. And yes, I'm one of those people that wishes that it could go farther. But I also recognize that public policy is an art of compromise. In the 263 pages, there are multiple strategies to address the needs of someone like Dante to add housing that he wants to live in, as well as strategies to support the businesses that are that he'd like to frequent. So therefore, City Council, I would encourage you to accept this plan as it comes to you from planning board and with your added amendment. And please support the plan to add more anti displacement strategies. And let's bring Dante home. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, we have Tim Sweeney.
Speaker 1: Good evening, council members. Can you hear me?
Speaker 0: Mm hmm. Go ahead.
Speaker 1: I live at 12th and Ivanhoe in the Mayfair neighborhood covered by the East Area Plan. And my economists today are in favor of the amendment, restoring the remain primarily single unit sentence and about not setting a bad precedent. When City Council's Luti committee held its October 20th hearing on the East Area plan, a few council members asked why they needed to have any particular concern about setting any precedent. When they approved the plan and here's the concern. As Liz Weigel just explained, the planning department engaged in an incredibly inclusive community process and arrived at the draft that came to the planning board with the sentence remain primarily single unit. And this. Weigel will also confirm that neighbors defending single unit neighborhoods and others opposing single unit neighborhoods all participated with equal vigor throughout the process. I'm sure all will agree it was a deeply difficult, deeply emotional, but deeply democratic process, resulting in many compromises that included the remain primarily single unit sentence. Or so we thought. Fast forward to Planning Board on October 7th when an elected planning board members accountable to nobody, none of whom participated in it in any of the three years of community meetings, voted to remove the Remain primarily single unit sentence, substituting their wisdom and point of view for the compromises hammered out in our community during the three previous years. It appeared that the rationale is we have master's degrees in planning and public administration. The rest of you don't. So the compromise reached by your community doesn't matter. This, I suggest, is the unacceptable precedent. But City Council should take care to avoid when future neighborhood planning initiatives come to your district. And they will soon. And community compromises are forged. Please make sure our elected planning board members are not invited or permitted to short circuit the painstaking process of building consensus. Please vote for tonight's amendment. Reinserting the remain primarily single unit sentence that our community wrote. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Sweeney. I want to just let folks know and let our interpreters know that we have coming up after the next speaker, we have one more speaker, but we are going to need to turn the translation off for Karen and allow time for the translators to say that. So we're going to go ahead and just wanted to give you that head's up because our next speaker is Barbara McFarlane. But then after that we have Sarah who needs translation services. And so Barbara, please go ahead.
Speaker 2: Here I am. Hi, I'm Barbara McFarlane, my husband Pete Marzouk and I Marzouk Fine Foods at Colfax and Fairfax and we also live in the east area and my whole neighborhood. I'm also on the board of the Colfax Mayfair Business Improvement District. Along with other business owners. We have participated in the East Area planning process for the last three years. Thank you, everyone who has put so much thought to building a great city and Colfax is going to be part of our great city. The East Area Plan will support the thousands of service workers along the Colfax corridor. This is important to me because we have so many employees that work at Mars and I would love to see them living there. Most of the employees can't afford to live in the area as it stands, and the same applies to workers at our other favorite restaurants, bars and shops. The plan has strategies to create more opportunities for local workers to live near where they work in a wide variety of home types that are more affordable than single family homes in this area. I want us to think three years forward and let's imagine that we're free. We get to walk anywhere we want, we get to hug anyone we want, we get to go into bars and restaurants and we are unfettered by the problems we're in right now. I think there is room along Colfax for higher density. I would love to see more people on the street. I would love to walk on Colfax and look up and see pipes hanging off of balconies and lights on and some people having dinner on their balconies. We need more restaurants, we need more services and we need more housing. Colfax can be a better main street that works for everybody. Please approve the plan tonight. You still have a lot of work to do. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And we're going to go ahead and move our translation to the Korean language. And we have Sara. Sara.
Speaker 2: Up next Mayor Oromia in start I it that occurred what she said. I'm with.
Speaker 1: You.
Speaker 2: Okay. Hello, Sara. Good evening. My name is Sarah. Yeah. Who they'll tell. They're ready to care. I just know that were ten or. I. When he learned that, Keith, I'm going to sing for me. I came from Thailand refugee camp in 2007. They need a new kitchen. The order is called the whole day. I live in is Colfax neighborhood and in there there is an idea that is called the ruin. Is the black hat yellow. Whether you pull it back or pull up at the end of this evening, I don't like the.
Speaker 1: Photo book we are.
Speaker 2: Doing there, but I work well. Brandon and everybody do well. If I'm like, okay, look, a little more than 10 minutes around basketball minute, I do that. You do it. The first time I am part of the East Colfax Council is when I went to a meeting in my household and I met with the part of the Affordable Housing Committee and she asked me if I would like to join and I started being involve at. Okay. Miller Capito, look away. I didn't a bill to get over here we'll do it local but if we do local, new and local then there's some of that. If that group of premium that do well go back to the community level. Learn among us as a refugee who came here and we don't have a lot of money and support if. There are organizations or a group like a plan that will support us. It will be a great idea. I didn't end up or then it was either. You opened with a pendant Mockingjay and it was any second. And I knew though if they knew where he was calling myself, I would deliver that if called given that nuggets. I know I've been there for you. You know, the Aurora, the mine is a completely different resource. And I still live in the apartment on Grace apartment. And then many of my friends could not afford living in Denver. So a lot of them have to move to another state, as well as some of them move back to Aurora to find a different place. I knew the grenade, though. Yeah, it is. Of course it is. The same area with your computer, you know, somewhere within the universe. But for the latest, by keeping a resolve within the already difficult on my balance due to both I feel a lot. And for me I really love East Colfax neighborhood and I have been living here since I arrived in United State and I would love to be able to buy a home one day. That is when it's become affordable for me and my family. Since then, they're the only thing I'm with our analysis because I knew I was being a model of a role model and these have been no end up ancestry positive tests for my runaway here less than human available here aroma and I would like to ask our center console to look out for us and to listen to the plans that arrive from the community and to make the housing affordable of the delay. And then it is closer than ever. And within a month I would never be able to pull my or that I'm mother more than likely where the local market this happened in November. And I will love you to know that the organization that is focused on meditation helped us in so many way. I did though within myself with as a 20 neither as a mother how Yahoo Jupiter made us the new pasta. Our kitchen is the most elegant is temple we lower than either my neck is difficult their problem they get to other with many. I would be much better privileged to have that kind of healing without any damage. If I do that, you will always be with other people. And I would like to think that you've Colfax organization that helped me. When I lost my job from working at the hotel, they were able to help me to get the assistance and now I'm very grateful for them and that those are without intimidating like well, I never used to do that was they don't want to look out the if to pretend why don't we build on my life? But I look at them, they were like a bunch of people that you don't know. And I just want to say thank you so much to the organization that help many people who are in need. Okay. I got Lola. Okay. Okay. Okay. But doesn't matter. But I know. I mean, I think if there was a guy, he was, you know, he was available for that. Okay. What would you. A general idea. Yes, that would be. And I just want to ask you guys to think about it for more affordable housing for the family who are in the East Coast experience. Yeah, that's.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you very much, Sara. We appreciate it. And our next speaker is Philip Beck. All right, Phillip, we've got you unmuted. Go ahead.
Speaker 2: Please.
Speaker 1: Thank you. My name is back, and I live not.
Speaker 2: Quite in.
Speaker 1: The east area plant itself, but nearby in the Capitol Hill neighborhood on 12th and humble. I would like to comment tonight in support of the unamended east area plan. I'm in favor of increasing density in the city if we can do so responsibly with an emphasis on affordability, preservation of neighborhood character parks and open space, pedestrian and bike safety, mass transit and so on. The city needs amenities like these to be livable. I attended several of the public meetings and I believe the plan strongly emphasizes livability. I believe the East Area plan will make Denver more sustainable. It makes sense to provide more housing in the city center, where jobs are also concentrated. By putting more housing in the city center, you take advantage of existing infrastructure. Our roads, utility lines, mass transit, the services there are already in place. It's much better than sprawling out around the edges of the city where new development needs expensive new infrastructure and services, and also pushes out into natural habitats. When people live close to work, they can walk or bike or ride transit to work instead of driving.
Speaker 2: The East Area plan.
Speaker 1: Also supports a a more affordable city because it would add more housing stock where people want to live without providing more housing. City neighborhoods become unaffordable in a long time. Residents are driven out and neighborhood character is lost.
Speaker 2: In in regards.
Speaker 1: To the proposed amendment, Denver's like many American cities where most residential land is zoned single unit. As a result, over the decades, not enough housing has been added to accommodate growth resulting.
Speaker 2: In an acute.
Speaker 1: Housing shortage and affordability crisis.
Speaker 2: You can absolutely.
Speaker 1: Add density in single family zones while also respecting neighborhood character and scale by adding things like accessory dwelling units and duplex and other housing types that are that are consistent with the existing scale. So I would urge the Council to to pass the.
Speaker 2: East Area plan.
Speaker 1: But not the amendment. Thanks.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Philip. Next up, we have Nina Goldstein.
Speaker 4: Hi. I'm unmuted. Can everybody hear me?
Speaker 0: Mm hmm. Go ahead.
Speaker 4: Okay. My name is Mina Ishida Goldstein and I'm a member of the ERP Steering Committee. I live right off Colfax in the plan area. I'm raising my children here and my parents also live a few doors down.
Speaker 2: A multiracial.
Speaker 4: Multicultural family with both immigrants and U.S. born parents and family members. I own and live in a historic single unit bungalow and love my diverse block, which has apartments.
Speaker 2: Duplexes.
Speaker 4: Shops and single unit homes of different sizes and styles with a beautiful array of neighbors. I love my neighborhood, and one of the reasons is that I experience a lot of joy living here. For me, it's the cheerful sounds of children playing outside, neighbors laughs and music. Ethiopian feasts at the local place, trading homemade spring rolls, chili paste and barbecue at our front doors. Bingo in the front yard with my 97 year old neighbor volunteering at schools. I support the East Area plan and I'm excited about the emphasis on missing middle housing and smaller units like Granny Flats, which already exist quite a bit in the area but somehow became disallowed. More varieties of home types, sizes and prices are needed and wanted by past, current and future neighbors. I have spoken with hundreds of neighbors and friends in the area and having flexible and affordable housing.
Speaker 2: Varieties is the top.
Speaker 4: Concern. Unfortunately, many of my neighbors have already moved, had to move to cheaper places in the suburbs, which has weakened our community and forced them into long commutes. Other parts of the plan important to me are the ideas for better mobility and communities serving businesses. A few years ago, when I was badly injured in a car crash.
Speaker 2: I was lucky to have walkable.
Speaker 4: Businesses nearby, so I didn't have to become dependent on others or isolated. And I'm excited for more locally owned businesses and improvements in transportation, streets, bike lanes, sidewalks and crossings. I'm very concerned about income inequality and segregation, and I feel that all of us residents of city government need to work together on solutions. The language about keeping the area primarily single unit should not be added back. It inaccurately describes the east area and could hinder housing.
Speaker 2: Variety that will benefit more people. Throughout this long.
Speaker 4: Three year planning process. CBD met with many different neighbors and groups and significant accommodations were made to try and balance various needs, always with a sincere aim of listening and helping people who are vulnerable or who could become vulnerable to displacement. I look forward to City Council and neighbors working together on implementing this plan. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Adele Fisher.
Speaker 2: And. All right, sorry about that. Hi. My name is Vidal, and we live near Niagara.
Speaker 4: And Colfax in the East Colfax neighborhood. As a homeowner and resident of South Park Hill, I wanted to voice my opposition to the East Area plan in its current form. I am asking the City Council vote no on the East Area plan. The existing 3 to 5.
Speaker 2: Area.
Speaker 4: Stories of zoning heights along East Colfax are more than sufficient for growth, including low income housing. Even the city has acknowledged that no zoning changes are needed in order to accommodate this growth.
Speaker 2: The people have already spoken on this on numerous occasions. I was with over.
Speaker 4: 500 neighbors at the public.
Speaker 2: Meeting last year where nearly everyone I spoke to.
Speaker 4: And heard speak were against the unnecessary height increases and the removal of single unit zoning. It has been well-established that.
Speaker 2: We do not want or need height increases or the removal of single unit zoning.
Speaker 4: To accommodate growth. Why has this new plan not reflected all of this input from the residents who live here? With all of our recent stresses and struggles of COVID, unemployment, home schooling, etc., many of us have not had the time or energy.
Speaker 2: To fully review the new revised plan, and many are not even aware that it was getting pushed through. Many neighbors, especially elderly and those who cannot.
Speaker 4: Afford home computers or high speed Internet or smartphones, have not been able to view the new large slow loading plan. Online and in-person meetings were not.
Speaker 2: Oh, I'm sorry. What is the rush when.
Speaker 4: There is plenty of room for growth, for affordable housing and the current zoning without any changes needed? The huge development at ninth and Colorado is not for Johnson and Wales is now up for sale. The VA is another potential development site with these as well as all the other building.
Speaker 1: Currently.
Speaker 2: Underway everywhere.
Speaker 4: Around us. Our area will already accommodate a massive amount of growth without any height increases to our existing zoning. All of this build existing buildings should be required to include a significant amount of low income housing. As a resident and property owner in the South Fork Hill, I am telling my city council to vote no on the East Area plan. This plan needs to go back to the drawing board and continue to get resident feedback.
Speaker 2: It should be up to the residents who.
Speaker 4: Live and own property here. If the zoning is to be changed.
Speaker 2: Right now.
Speaker 4: The plan does not reflect the hundreds of residents input and the new petition asking the city council to vote no on the plan. Gathered over 600 residents just in the past few days. City Council members listened to your residents and vote no on this east area plan. There is no rush and this plan needs to be continue to be fully updated to reflect our input and suggestions so that the plan works best for everyone in our community.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Kinsey Hastert.
Speaker 2: Hi there. Good evening. My name is Kinsey Hastert and I am a Denver resident. But I'm here this evening representing enterprise community partners.
Speaker 0: And I'm here.
Speaker 2: Tonight to express Enterprise's overall support for the East Area plan, as well as our opposition to the amendment proposed this evening. Excuse me. Enterprise works nationally and here in Denver to make home and community places of pride, power and belonging for all. We do so through capital investments, policy and programmatic engagement and advocacy, and we strive to do all of this through a lens of racial equity. First, we'd like to truly commend the EIB Steering Committee's residents, who participated in many numerous public hearings and the CPD staff on the incredible work that has been done to date. We also thank the City for its commitment to high quality planning that is intentional, equitable and measurable, as evidenced in the Neighborhood Planning Initiative. However, we do oppose the amendment proposed this evening as acknowledged in the EIB and Blueprint. Denver intentionally increasing residential density and allowing for diverse housing types can contribute to more affordable housing conditions. We agree with Denver's strategy of increasing housing diversity, especially in neighborhoods that currently have little of it. One benefit of extending housing, of expanding housing diversity is helping to increase homeownership opportunities for communities of color. Although certainly not the only contributing factor. Areas that are primarily single family tend to have low homeownership rates for people of color, including in neighborhoods. For instance, according to data compiled by Shift Research Lab, 88% of the residential units in South Park Hill are single family. While the overall homeownership rate is high at 81%, that rate for Latino households is only about 2% and only 3% for black households. In contrast, in the East Colfax neighborhood, where a smaller proportion of homes are single family at 68%, over a third of owner occupied homes are owned by Latinos and 7% by black owners. Another benefit is enabling more people greater access to opportunity. According to Enterprises Opportunity 362, which scores census tracts based on housing stability, educational opportunity, access to quality jobs and transportation. EOP neighborhoods that are primarily single family have high access to opportunity in all of these categories. Increasing housing diversity in these areas would diversify who has meaningful access to such opportunity in the future. For these reasons and in support of our partners who have so thoughtfully elevated the voices of residents that too often go unheard. We do not believe that the EPA should state that single unit areas should remain primarily single unit. Without the proposed amendment, Enterprise supports the East Area Plan specifically for its vision for increasing housing affordability and preventing involuntary displacement. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Dirk McDermott.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity to present my views on the East Area plan. My name is Dirk McDermott. I was born in Denver and I've lived with my family in Park Hill for 30 years. I'm a resident of the area and like many.
Speaker 5: Of the speakers that were.
Speaker 1: Ahead of me, I'm not in favor of the plan that is before you today. I have a number of reasons why I'm not in favor of this plan. In the Denver East, Neighborhoods First has done a good job of presenting the challenges to this plan, and I refer you to their literature. But here are my top reasons. Number one, first and foremost, the planning commission, an appointed, not an elected body, approves the plan but is chose to remove protections for single family homes in the East Area plan that community engagement. I'm not in favor of removing protections for single family homes. We have a strong, healthy, family oriented neighborhood that has been built on the foundations of the zoning. And we do not want this to change. I would like to acknowledge and support Councilwoman Sires Amendment. The key EOP decision process has been conducted during the pandemic and has not included the person to person neighborhood interactions that we should expect of citizens. I believe that the community would shape a much better result by.
Speaker 5: Spending more time.
Speaker 1: Post-Pandemic on this important effort that will impact our neighborhoods over the next two decades. They're key items the public has asked for that are not included in the plan. Just an example, the elimination of a large Safeway and King Soopers supermarkets and replacement with one very small market. And then finally, the BRT proposal, the centerpoint of the transportation infrastructure in this plan has several deficiencies that should be resolved before approving a plan with this as a centerpiece. Specifically, it's not a fully funded project, and with RTT and Price, it's not at all clear how this project will be built and managed. It also appears the impact of traffic diversion onto adjacent streets has not been adequately addressed. Thank you for the opportunity to address the Council.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Thomas Robbins.
Speaker 1: Hello? Can you hear me? Mm hmm.
Speaker 0: Go ahead.
Speaker 1: Hi. My name is Tom Robbins, and I live at the corner of 12th and Crime Area. My wife and I are both teachers in Denver, and we support the East Area plan. Several years ago, we sought to live near our schools and given the price of homes in these neighborhoods, we were extremely lucky to find a multi-family unit dating from the 1940s in the Mayfair neighborhood. The East Area plan would increase housing density in the area, which undoubtedly would increase its affordability towards neighbors such as ourselves. Furthermore, a powerful tool we have to combat climate.
Speaker 3: Change is through increasing density in urban.
Speaker 1: Areas. The benefits to this are manifold. Namely, increased public transit use. Bicycling and.
Speaker 3: Walking. And a lesser dependance on the automobile as the primary mode of conveyance through a dense area. As an avid bike commuter, I know that.
Speaker 1: It is possible and preferable to commute through Denver in any season on two wheels. Although I wish street plowing were a higher priority. This single action, increasing density and mixed use. Zoning has far reaching effects and addresses numerous challenges to a growing city. I focused on its direct impact on climate change. Its positive impact on affordability towards a diverse population does not go unnoticed. More people should have the opportunity to live in these neighborhoods. For these reasons, the East Area Plan has my family's full support, and I encourage you to approve it. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Eric Stark.
Speaker 1: I. Can you hear me?
Speaker 0: Mm hmm. Go ahead.
Speaker 2: Hi.
Speaker 1: Thanks for having me. I'm Eric Stark. I'm a Denver resident, 20/23 and Birch. I wanted to talk about just my experience with the ERP. I'm speaking not in favor of the ERP. I attended the Zoom meeting by the CPD on October 7th, and what I found most striking was that most of the people who were for it were either parts of business entities, coalitions, organizations, or they were part of the steering committee. The vast majority were not homeowners, renters or small business owners. In fact, most of them were on the con side, including myself. I think that's important for city council to recognize that if this plan is passed, you really start to ask the question Who does it benefit the most? I also want to talk about I get a sense when you're talking about planning in Denver, the whole process is flawed because you can't provide guarantees or protections in the plans. Every time we asked about guarantees or mandates, we were told It's a plan. You can't do that. That's City Council's responsibility. Meanwhile, they pass this plan to City Council for consideration, and city council can then pass a plan that still has no teeth or guaranteed protections or or guarantees of much of anything. This is something exploitable by developers, and I honestly feel like if we're going to have a rock solid East Area plan, you have to have mandates. When we asked about mandates for affordability, we're always told state law, state law, Telluride resolution, we can't provide that. It's against state law, but you can certainly recommend them in the plan and say we need to consider whether affordability mandates are of are appropriate, especially for the East Colfax neighborhood. Instead, the city council gets a plan that doesn't even talk about mandates, so why even consider them? This is just a flaw in the plan itself. It's kind of the tail chasing the tail. It doesn't seem like anyone's in charge or there's any real leadership or accountability. The final thing I want to talk about is there's a lot of propaganda about affordability, including from addus and up zoning to increase density. We have seen in Denver for the last 20 plus years how this doesn't work. And 80, for instance, are being used largely for short term rentals, R&B and B type things without a mandate, saying that those must be used for long term rentals to get you approval. You will not get affordability from any use. Same thing with up zoning. We have seen whole areas of northwest Denver up, zoned into boxes on top of boxes, next to boxes in the 4 to $700000 range. Still no affordability. So until there are affordability mandates, the East Area plan is flawed. And I ask that our council vote no. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is John Desmond.
Speaker 1: Madam Chair, members of Council, thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is John Desmond. I live in the South Park Hill neighborhood about a block off of Colfax. I'm speaking in favor of the plan tonight, but in opposition to the proposed amendment. I first want to commend city staff and the consultant team for the tremendous dedication they have shown, along with the incredible amount of outreach they have done to the neighborhood. And I believe that the plan is, as is currently drafted, strikes a great balance between preservation and growth and between limiting displacement and welcoming diversity. I'm going to take a personal approach about this tonight. I. I have been involved in civic activities in Denver for 40 years, and I've lived in this neighborhood in Park Hill for 17 years in a single family house, and I would like to live out the rest of my life here. But I may not be able to always be able to take care of my current house. I may not need all of the current space I have. And so I would love for there to be a variety of diverse housing options for me and people like me. I also may not be able to or may not want to drive my car as much in the future. And so I'd like there to be viable transit options and more services and stores that I can walk to. And I would love for my adult daughter and people of her generation to be able to move back to Denver and live close to me. All of these wishes require density and diversity and affordable housing options to be created, options not really available in the current neighborhood. The plan is very forward thinking on preserving these options. But my fear is that the amendment, as written in its very vague and subjective form, will be used by some people to obstruct, change the change in diversity necessary and required for this neighborhood to be accessible in the future. To me, people like me and young people like my daughter, and to other people who want more than a traditional, expensive, single unit dwelling. In particular, I'm concerned with what does primarily mean and the primarily single family amendment. Does that mean 51%? Does that mean 99%? How are we going to resolve that if that stays in? I don't think you can resolve it. And I think the best way to deal with it is to remove that language. So in the name of diversity and affordability, I urge you to approve the plan and oppose the amendment. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Amy Wright.
Speaker 2: Hi, I'm Amy Wright, and I've been a Denver resident for 42 years and a resident of South Park Hill for 38 years. I live at 19th and Glencoe Street. While the goal of the UAP is noble, it does nothing to guarantee affordable housing. Single family zoning should remain single. Family Zoning. My neighborhood, South Park.
Speaker 4: Hill was designed incredibly.
Speaker 2: Well 100 years ago and is already a very diverse neighborhood. Within four blocks of my home are duplexes, four plexus apartments, a retirement home, schools, places of worship, daycare centers, bus lines, businesses and single family homes of many sizes. I see similar diversity.
Speaker 4: In most of the other.
Speaker 2: Neighborhoods in this plan. Adopting this plan.
Speaker 4: Will only increase housing.
Speaker 2: Density, decrease greenspace, and deteriorate the neighborhood character without guaranteeing more affordable housing. I suggest that you work with the state legislatures to pass legislation that requires developers to put in a certain percent of affordable housing units in each development. Before you move forward with proposals like the East Area Plan, other moving parts that could significantly impact our neighborhood are the group Living Amendment and the addition of Addus. Furthermore, growth can be accommodated through the current zoning areas include Johnson and Wells. Campus fell out of the East Ninth Colorado Boulevard area and now the VA hospital that the city has already said could accommodate the growth. I ask that you limit changes and development to Colfax Avenue and restrict heights to five stories. Keep the single family zoning in place to preserve the character of the neighborhood that so many of us long term residents love. I ask that you vote no on the Denver East Area plan. If you do.
Speaker 4: Vote for the plan.
Speaker 2: Please include the proposed amendment that Sawyer proposed. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Hillary Patel.
Speaker 4: My own.
Speaker 0: Uh huh. Go ahead, Hilary.
Speaker 4: Okay. Thank you. My name's Hilary, and I'm the executive director of the Colfax MI Fair.
Speaker 2: This trip.
Speaker 4: Which includes about 200 small businesses and property owners along East Colfax Avenue.
Speaker 2: And within the Mayfair Town Center area.
Speaker 4: My board and many business owners have participated in this process for the last three years.
Speaker 2: Doing fieldwork.
Speaker 4: Focus groups, surveys and community.
Speaker 2: Meetings.
Speaker 4: What we've learned is that the status quo on Colfax today is not sustainable economically, socially or environmentally. The Syria plan addresses many very alarming trends in our area, including extreme economic disparity, lack of affordable housing, local businesses and low wage workers at the breaking point, and older buildings giving way to national.
Speaker 2: Chain stores and drive thrus. Many of these existing.
Speaker 4: Conditions are being accelerated by COVID 19. We desperately need to create more opportunity and more affordability for everyone. We need smaller homes and smaller storefronts. We need more jobs, homes and services.
Speaker 2: Near public transit. This will reduce traffic, improve air quality, support local business and provide homes for our.
Speaker 4: Workers and our neighbors.
Speaker 2: We need to change the rules. Have a main street that works better for everyone.
Speaker 4: The East Syria.
Speaker 2: Plan is just the first step. We need to.
Speaker 4: Invest now in long.
Speaker 2: Overdue public improvements, incentives, zoning, adaptive reuse reforms and inclusive housing policies. We asked you to approve.
Speaker 4: The plan tonight so we can get back to work.
Speaker 1: It's.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Todd Fisher.
Speaker 1: Andrea. Hello. My name is Todd, and I've lived in history for over 25 years. And when City Council vote no on the estate plan in its current form. Our elected members of City Council who represent these districts should listen to the will of their constituents and vote the plan down. The non transparency of covert electronic meetings has changed the conversation to individuals who have more to gain monetarily, such as developers and stakeholders putting their $0.02 in through technology. This is a dirty tactic by the city to push through legislation during the worst pandemic. In our times when most folks are distracted by unemployment, home schooling, mental health issues to name a few. As witnessed before the shutdown, hundreds would come out in person to voice their dissatisfaction with this proposed destruction of our neighborhood. There's no reason the East Area Plan needs this up. Zoning. The current zoning has not yet been fulfilled. And there are other areas such as ninth in Colorado, South Colorado and I-25 elegies and new developments in Aurora that have not yet been finalized. I would like to put the planners to the test to show us some hard numbers in regard to how many new units are going up in Denver and surrounding areas. Since we are told there is a housing shortage with the resources the city has. This could help put things in perspective. I bought my property with the current zoning and find it unfair to change it from single unit zoning. As it stands now, AIDS are able to be built with a city permit if you can afford hundreds of thousands of dollars to do it. If young people want to share a house, as I did for ten years with five roommates in my twenties, there is no task force that's going to come knocking on their door to evict them. The argument for so-called low income housing is only a hot button issue used to fool people into believing that somehow this will benefit the homeless. But the reality is what is being proposed should really be labeled moderate income housing at best. We are already an inclusive neighborhood with relatively affordable housing. Many of us are working class and safe to get into a home we thought we could grow old in. The proposed building alone will take years and cause many more issues. More density means more pollution. Noise, pollution, trash, dog, excrement and air pollution. Denver is already one of the worst in the country for air quality, congested parking, more accidents, more crime, more mental health issues. The list goes on. We love our homes and neighborhood the way it is. That's why we chose to live here. Others are welcome and can purchase a home, as we all did. I implore city council to side with the residents of the area. Know Jesus.
Speaker 2: If you start from.
Speaker 1: On this. We have not changed our tune in the last year since most of us found out what was happening beneath our noses. We continue to stand against the current AP over and over again. It's sad to think that the people who make up this community have less rights than the corporate identities who ultimately were the ones who created this plan for their own profit. Please vote no on EPA. We cannot allow developers to have a free for all on building.
Speaker 0: Thank you. We next up have Maggie Lee.
Speaker 2: I. Very, very.
Speaker 0: Good. And Maggie, you might have to unmute yourself. Maggie.
Speaker 2: That was great. That was great. You hear me and see me? Mm hmm.
Speaker 0: Go ahead, Maggie.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Good evening. I'm Maggie Lee and I live and work in the city and county of Denver. I am here today in my capacity as director of programs with Mile High connects. We are a broad partnership of organizations from the private, public and nonprofit sectors driven by our vision of a racially equitable, resilient Denver region, where community driven solutions are at the center of transformative change. Mile High Connects acknowledges the immense amount of work that has gone into gathering and balancing the diverse stakeholder input to inform the East Area plan. This effort to broaden community perspectives is in line with Blueprint Denver and the 2040 Comprehensive Plan calls for advancing equity. Additionally, as an entity rooted in affordable housing and transit oriented development, Mile High Connects was pleased to see the inclusion of transit oriented development in a diverse corridor with rich cultural history. However, if we are serious about equity and mitigating displacement pressures in communities of color's color excuse me, we recommend that single family units remain primarily SFR to be struck from the plan prior to the official adoption. The single family unit policy that has been reintroduced to the plan is in conflict with existing citywide plans and hamstrings the East Area's neighborhoods ability to effectively address a historically exclusionary and environmentally unsustainable form of housing by limiting properties to single family units. Neighborhoods may be limited in their anti displacement efforts, such as creating affordable family units, affordable multifamily opportunities like townhomes or accessory dwelling units. We have the opportunity now to protect our most vulnerable neighborhoods and recommend the adoption of an East Area plan that provides structure for economic recovery among residents, businesses and property owners to make our communities truly equitable and resilient. Essentially for the East Area plan to survive. We need transit oriented development. We need density. And we need to be guided by community. More specifically, we need language in the EOP that does not limit a neighborhood's ability to create affordable multifamily housing opportunities to meet the needs of our future. Thank you for your time today.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Maggie. Next up, we have John Sawyer.
Speaker 1: Hello. Good evening. I'm John Sawyer. I'm a citizen of South Park Hill. I'm no relation to Councilwoman Sawyer, and I'm not a member of any cause related, organized group or committee. Well, there's a lot to like about the East Area plan, and I respect the work that's gone into it. Three issues compel me to ask council members to vote no tonight. First timing. We're in the midst of a global pandemic. Cities and states are shutting down again. So why would the city make this matter a priority when we as citizens are preoccupied with survival? I find it unconscionable this vote is even happening. Second Economics. While Denver's economy may appear strong right now. Colorado has always been boom bust. By all indications, we are in a downturn already. Downtown. Residential vacancies are rising, rent prices are falling for the first time in over a decade. Citizens are moving rural because technology enables them to work from anywhere. RTD is in crisis. Businesses are closing or barely holding on. So why would council push forward a 20 year plan amidst such economic uncertainty? This, too, I find unconscionable. Last, the whole single family zoning thing, East Area Plan is one of four calculated attacks to undo single family zoning in Denver. There are neighborhood plans like this one, the residential infill project group living and allowing to use everywhere. Clearly, this administration is hellbent on killing single family zoning. And for what? No city has proven that eliminating single family zoning results in anything better, more right or more fair. What is proven is that single family zoning has created stability in Denver for over 100 years. Any notion of undoing what's working, such as omitting the language Councilwoman Sawyers amendment proposes be replaced, strikes me as a covetous, covetous attack by the city on citizens life, liberty and property. Encouraging density where it is not warranted is just a text wolf in sheep's clothing, and that too is unconscionable given market forces and won't deliver the affordable housing outcomes that wishful thinkers would like to believe. So what's a better way? Leave single families only alone. You can only destroy a great city once. So don't. As the language proposed in the amendment back in and focus on one thing making Colfax a commercial residential corridor that is the envy of the world. Because we can. We can. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our last speaker this evening is Jessica Vargas.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Good evening. My name is Joseph Vargas, and I'm here today representing the Denver Streets Partnership. We're a coalition of community organizations advocating for people friendly streets in Denver because we each have a vested invested stake in ensuring our city is healthy, safe and accessible to everyone, regardless of how they get around. As with past area plans, the Demonstrates Partnership endorses the mobility and transportation recommendations in the EOP that support the creation of more people friendly streets. We're excited to see that the plan contains measurable goals for increasing walking, biking and transit usage. The plan outlines a bold vision for repurposing public street space and making infrastructure improvements that would make walking, biking, rolling and riding the bus safe, convenient and accessible transportation options for everyone.
Speaker 2: Excuse me.
Speaker 4: People friendly streets do not only result from rethinking street design, but also from supportive land use, development patterns and public transit service. A healthy mix of densities and land use types allows people to live closer to their daily destinations by making these options, these transportation options, more realistic for getting from place to place, rather than forcing people to live so far away that driving becomes the only practical option for getting where they need to go. Integrating more housing transport, more housing options near public transit further ensures people who need it the most have access.
Speaker 2: To it, which can.
Speaker 4: Significantly reduce transportation costs for CoSport and households that make up one third.
Speaker 2: Of households in the east area, as well as most of the thousands of service.
Speaker 4: Workers along the Colfax corridor. We're disappointed that the plan highlights places in the east area that are a five minute walking distance from high frequency trains. But then does little to recommend that higher densities be prioritized even within those relatively small sections of the area's neighborhoods.
Speaker 2: Therefore, we.
Speaker 4: Oppose the amendment to the plan that will limit existing single unit areas to remaining primarily single unit in the future. Limiting densities near transit, employment opportunities and neighborhoods serving businesses.
Speaker 2: Now means limiting.
Speaker 4: The number of people who can access and use these services and amenities on a regular basis in the future. At a time when expanding affordable housing and easy access to public transit are critical to addressing historic social and racial inequities within these neighborhoods, restricting land use to a single unit could result in.
Speaker 2: Smaller, more affordable homes being replaced with larger, more expensive homes.
Speaker 4: Driving up housing costs even further, imposing more restrictive measures with work against the vision of the East Area as a welcoming, walkable, historic and dynamic place where a diversity of people live and work. We appreciate the extensive amount of community engagement, data analysis and thoughtful discussion that informed the development of this plan. The DSP urges City Council to adopt the plan without the proposed amendment. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Questions from members of Council on the Amendment and or bill. We first up have Councilman Herndon.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. Hey, Liz. Great job with a presentation. I'll let you pause for a second. I'll put Kurt to work, and I'll ask her a couple of questions. So, Kurt, I challenge the notion that the East Colfax community was not engaged until the collective was founded. So can you please just talk a little bit about East Colfax engagement from the very beginning, please?
Speaker 5: Sure. Absolutely. Thank you for that question. Councilman Herndon, Curt Upton to be playing in the moment. So I think as Liz summarized in her opening presentation, we had over 20 meetings in the East Colfax neighborhood going back as far as 2017 when we when we started the process. So we've been engaging residents in the East Colfax neighborhood for three years and as a result of some of that engagement, there were organized groups formed. And so some of the formal organized groups we engaged later in the process. But the actual residents in East Colfax, we've actually done more outreach to that neighborhood than the rest of the neighborhoods.
Speaker 3: Great. Thank you. I appreciate that. And we've heard a couple of things about zoning. Does the East Area plan change any zoning throughout the east area in its current form?
Speaker 1: No.
Speaker 5: I mean plans themselves again, as as Liz mentioned in her opening presentation are not regulatory. So the plan itself does not change any zoning. It makes a number of recommendations on how to use zoning in the future to achieve many benefits that we've heard through the process with the time being using zoning to achieve our affordable housing goals.
Speaker 3: Thank you. I appreciate that. Can you talk a little bit as well about the Bus Rapid Transit? It wasn't mentioned a lot in these comments, but I'm sure my colleagues have gotten a lot of emails that mention the BRT. So I wanted to afford you the opportunity to talk a little about that, please.
Speaker 1: Sure.
Speaker 5: And we do have staff, I think, on the call. I think Brian from Dottie can answer any more detailed questions. But the BRT is moving forward to the next phase of the development process. So it does have funding from the general obligation bond to go into the environmental clearances and do the detailed design work that's required to get federal funding and to construct the project.
Speaker 3: Thank you. What was it prior to the East Area plan? And I'm being a little silly with this, but what plan did the city council just pass? I think it was last month.
Speaker 5: The essential plan.
Speaker 3: Right now during pandemic. Correct. Thank you. And I have one more for my president. And I'd like to ask Irene Aguilar if she could just speak briefly as well. So if if this sentence about single use was a page of a 200 plus page, it'd be less than 1% of it because it's a sentence, it's an even smaller percent. And I actually think that's how much time we should dedicate to this. But since it has gotten a lot more strength and I actually think that it deserves I want to ask you this question. The sentence that was deleted there is amendment to put forward is that the only place in the plan where we are mentioning single family units.
Speaker 5: No. There's actually, you know, several places. I think the most prominent place that single unit is represented is in the places, maps and the plan, which is essentially the land use plan, which maps out, you know, the different categories of land use intensities and including the single unit land use category or place as what we call that . And in that description of the single unit areas as part of that Places map, it indicates that the single unit areas remain predominantly single unit. So it's the sentence under discussion is a clarification and just further reinforcement of recommendations elsewhere in the plan.
Speaker 3: Okay. So it clarifies what is stated in other places in the plan, the ones that. Correct. And by saying it's primarily a single unit, does that prevent anyone from using, utilizing to use?
Speaker 5: No. We stated very clearly that every homeowner should be given the opportunity to build an ADU, and we consider that the zoning code considers a single unit property with an attitude to to still be a single unit.
Speaker 3: Great. Thank you for that. I appreciate it. Hey, Irene, good to see you. I just wanted to give you the opportunity just to talk about with your work that you do in your partnership along with the East Area Plan. Not particularly a question, but I just wanted to give you a little opportunity to speak as well.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Herndon. We actually have had a wonderful time working with CPD in East Area. Liz Talley That for me we had at least six different dates of meetings with probably at least 16 hours of conversation. And it was wonderful to hear.
Speaker 1: On the ground.
Speaker 2: From the community what their needs were. And it actually led to a number of changes in our planning for this year, including putting navigators.
Speaker 1: Out there in community.
Speaker 2: And working with business services to try and help find business displacement in that community specifically. And what has the most excited is that this community really brought forth a lot.
Speaker 1: Of great anti.
Speaker 2: Displacement ideas.
Speaker 1: And and I've.
Speaker 2: Offered to sit down and work with.
Speaker 1: Them and prioritize them and figure out how we.
Speaker 2: Get them through to the finish line. As you know.
Speaker 1: This is an aspirational document and we'd like to turn some of them into action and look forward to doing that in the future.
Speaker 2: Thank you for asking.
Speaker 3: Wonderful. Thank you. Those are all my questions on the president.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman Herndon. Next up, we have Councilman Sawyer.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. So, Kirton. Liz, I want to turn to page 39 of the East Area Plan because I think page 39 sort of sums up best for everyone kind of page 39 could be the East Area plan. You could just sort of take that page policy. L six What is policy? Six The overarching policy? Wholesale six recommends integrating additional housing options and ADAS and all East Area neighborhoods inappropriate locations. So it's that recommendation to allow more housing types in our neighborhoods. Okay. And so the wording that was removed that we've moved to put back in the plan, that's that's a part of a six. Right. Correct. It's a it's a sub strategy under several strategies. And in fixing it again, as Kurt mentioned, it was intended to provide that clarity around the ways that we should be integrating housing options . Okay. So like we lived this plan for the last three years or so. Just to clarify for the people who didn't l6 as a policy says, and I'm quoting here, ensure east area neighborhoods are inclusive places by thoughtfully integrating compatibly, does that come compatibly designed missing middle housing and accessory dwelling units to use in appropriate locations? Right. And then l6 a1, the the language we want to put back in says primarily single unit areas should remain primarily single unit. Right. And then Al 61 says, well, missing middle housing units, 2 to 4 units should be integrated into appropriate locations. A2 use should be allowed on all lot. So this is all on page 39. If we vote to move this language back into the plan. So is that is that right? Am I misstating. That's correct. Okay, great. So can you explain two things? Question one. How does all that then work together? So this recommendation again is about integrating housing options into our neighborhoods, and it provides additional guidance about how to do that, right? So considerations for our future regulatory process and the plans are very specific about saying that this should be done through a citywide regulatory process, which we expect to be a residential commercial project. That will be something that will be coming forward next year. And so this guidance basically will be used in that process. As we write zoning regulations, we talk further with the community and we implement the plan guidance.
Speaker 1: So the the.
Speaker 4: Single the language about single unit, again, was intended to make clear what we see elsewhere in the plan, that there's still opportunities for single units and they should continue, but that this is really about thoughtfully integrating so not eliminating single unit, but.
Speaker 1: Integrating those new options.
Speaker 4: Where they're appropriate. And it gives that additional guidance around to use to make clear.
Speaker 1: That those are appropriate on all of us.
Speaker 4: Okay. So would it be fair to say thank you for that explanation? So would it be fair to say then that what this wording of this amendment does is ensure balance in this plan? Correct? That's correct. And would it be fair to say that that is a reflection of three years worth of some pretty tough community conversation ? That's correct. I'd say this recommendation evolved quite a bit over time based on.
Speaker 1: The.
Speaker 4: Community input that we've heard over the last year, plus on the specifics.
Speaker 2: Of the recommendations.
Speaker 4: Okay. And one of the requirements for us to find that this is that this plan can be adopted at all, is that this is consistent with the previous adopted plans. Right. It's got to be consistent with 2040 and Blueprint 2019. We talked a lot about this at Ludy, but just to refresh and for people who weren't present at Ludy, can can you or Curt just sort of walk through then how it is that this is or is not. Consistent with those adopted plans, please. Sure. I'll walk through. So we do we do feel that it's consistent with or without this line with blueprint. Our blueprint Denver does have a very similar recommendation about integrating missing metal housing in low and low, medium places. So both types and then it give some suggestions for how that may happen and appropriate places that could be considered during that process. So this recommendation gives additional guidance in the East Area plan, but we feel that it is still consistent with that intent to integrate, right, not to eliminate single unit, but to integrate those additional housing options. So this line that we originally had in the plan was again intended to sort of re-emphasize language elsewhere in the plan and to make clear that it's this integration. But we do feel in either way, the.
Speaker 1: Recommendation is.
Speaker 4: Consistent with that blueprint. Denver guidance. Okay. Thank you. And so, for example, I was looking through the foreign northeast area plan. Did either of you work on that plan by any chance? Or maybe Laura could speak to that plan or if Sara's here and she could speak to it? I'm not. I'm not sure if there's anyone here who worked on the plan. From CPD. We didn't directly.
Speaker 1: Work on it, but we.
Speaker 4: Could try to answer a question or see if there's anyone else online. Okay. I'm just curious because I found a few examples of some language in the far northeast area plan, which was adopted a year a little over a year ago of some language that's pretty similar. So I just wanted to kind of see if there was some legislative history on that. Like, you know, page 34, promote the continued use of single unit zoning on properties with existing single unit homes and identified by this plan as residential low single units. Page 152 Maintain the character of Mont Bellows. Existing residential areas was the high priority of the community. 3.1.3 Maintain the character of existing residential neighborhoods below. So I was just curious if someone could talk about the, the history of that plan and what that look like and how maybe that. Was adopted and whether some of those conversations happened are similar to these conversations.
Speaker 5: I can I can touch on that. Councilman Sawyer. So the far northeast plan uses the same place descriptions and place types that we use in the East Area plan because they're establishing blueprint. Denver And so in the far northeast plan does have a map of single unit areas. And the places map just, just like the east area plan has a map of single unit areas. And the same description applies. So the guidance in Blueprint Denver is, is to integrate additional housing units into single unit areas. That's part of the description of what a single unit place is. It's not solely single unit properties and how it's defined. And so there's a consistent approach with how we're designating land uses in the in the far northeast and in the east area.
Speaker 4: Okay. Great. Thank you for clarifying that. I really appreciate it. I might have some other questions, but I know my council members have a bunch of other questions, so I will see my time. Thank you very much and congratulations. I really appreciate all of your hard work on this plan. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Sawyer. Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. Liz and Kurt, I have a question about missing middle housing. On page 40, there are photographs of some examples of existing missing metal housing, triplex, duplex, a row house. And so in aspirational terms, it sounds great. But in Denver, we haven't seen any. Sort of attainable that's taken from this page. Middle housing be built at all. New attainable, middle missing middle housing. So I'm just curious on any strategies you have for creating new missing middle housing that is attainable. Thank you for that question, Councilwoman Black. I think you're you're absolutely right on that. We've struggled to have that happen in historically in Denver or recently in Denver. And something that's key to this recommendation about missing middle is that integration of and implementation of affordable housing strategies. We stated that should be part of that process.
Speaker 1: Going forward, whether that's.
Speaker 4: In financial or technical assistance to help existing homeowners take advantage of these allowances. Looking for opportunities for homeownership. But really, what are those programs we can pair with missing middle recommendations in addition to pairing design requirements really are that residential infill project is intended to look at all of these things together so that we're tackling the multiple issues that come forward with achieving missing middle. So we keep hearing about the residential infill project and that we keep hearing people say it's it's not going to eliminate single family zoning. Now we're adding a sentence back into this about single family zoning. So I don't understand how those all work together. Are we are we aiming to get rid of single family zoning? Or are we aiming to preserve it and how are we going to get. Missing middle attainable housing. In either situation. Our intent is not to eliminate single unit turning. Our intent is what we say integrate. But you could think of only, you know, potentially certain lots or certain locations may qualify to add additional units. So that could be based on what characteristics or their location. You know, that's really a regulatory process to come up with those standards about when it may be appropriate. So there would still be single unit zoning in place, but there could be more allowances in those neighborhoods based on that process. So that's not a complete elimination. That's adding those housing options where they make sense. Okay. And then is the goal to ultimately allow 80 use on every single unit law in Denver? Blueprint. Denver is very clear about accessory doing and being appropriate. We also have recommendations about removing barriers and making sure that, again, they're feasible for existing homeowners to take advantage of and that they're designed compatibly. So, yes, that we do have that plan guidance, not zoning in place today to allow accessory dwelling units throughout all of Denver. And that's reinforcing that area plan. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right, Councilwoman Torres, you're up.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. I was. Since your sincerity of what I. What I want to better understand is how it is interpreted when we talk about primarily and predominantly when we see that in the area plan. What does that mean to you all in CPD when you're reading an area plan that uses those terms? Since we're talking about single unit, single unit to unit 80, you kind of permitted areas if loses of there any more incurred, isn't there anymore? How does a new CVD employee who is, you know, has no history with how the crafting of this language was done? Read this and and come away feeling like integration was the goal as opposed to protection.
Speaker 1: And single unit.
Speaker 2: Housing.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Councilman Torrance. Great question. Plans are policy guidance. So ultimately any regulatory change that comes forward will come before a CPD go, before a planning board and city council and have to show that it's consistent with our plan guidance. Right. And there's, you know, not just this line, but the plan overall and any other city adopted plans would provide that plan guidance. And purposefully, a plan is not that exact tricky regulation of what know 50%, 51%, that type of language is not included in that plan because it does give that ability for the future council to interpret whether they feel that that sentence.
Speaker 1: Has.
Speaker 4: Been met, but ultimately is intended to reinforce that it was saying appropriate locations. You're right that we weren't eliminating single unit. The single unit opportunities will still be there in neighborhoods along with these other missing middle options. There was really concern throughout this process that we were trying to kind of just erase complete neighborhoods and we went through iterations with maps and different options for this. And I know, as you're saying, we don't have that history necessarily in the future, but it's really it's intended as guidance. There's plenty of language in the plan about integrating and providing those additional housing options. So I think that's very clear that that we should be having not just single unit in these areas, but it gives that guidance that we should be looking at that we've still maintained the single unit opportunities.
Speaker 2: And. And that clarity, I think, is what's it like? I mean, I'm on the radar right now for folks. And and whether or not even that single line, even if we do refer to predominantly single unit and two unit throughout in other places in this neighborhood plan that this one in particular feels. Like particular guidance as opposed to balance to what might be elsewhere from folks that I've listened to both in this hearing but also in the planning board hearing, I haven't necessarily talked about wishing that the plan eliminated single unit zoning. That was not the commentary that I came away with. So it was much more about just making sure it was very clear that it wasn't protecting it as opposed to calling it out for integration. The. See. Liz, I don't have another question for you. I do have one, though, for Irene, if she's still in our queue. Mm hmm.
Speaker 0: Hey, go ahead, Councilwoman.
Speaker 4: Hey. Yeah.
Speaker 2: Hi, Irene. How are you? I'm good. So you talked a little bit about some of the engagement that you were involved in related to this plan.
Speaker 4: A lot of what we've heard about.
Speaker 2: Is some of the need for things to be more deliberate. We've heard mandate in some of the comments and things, things that an area plan might not be able to provide, but that maybe departments or offices like Nest do or could. In in your interaction with this plan process, have you identified things that either Denver economic development, an opportunity or nest in particular can move forward with or can identify as investment or integration opportunities for city departments? Definitely. As I mentioned, there are two things we're already moving forward with. One is that we have community navigator contacts there with two different organizations in East Colfax. And then secondly, we're working on a contract with multiple organizations to do business displacement prevention in East Colfax and hopefully design a model that can be extrapolated to other neighborhoods.
Speaker 1: As time goes forward.
Speaker 2: I think more importantly, though, there are a number of ideas that came.
Speaker 1: Up in.
Speaker 2: The plan that were put forward by advocacy groups that are not necessarily a city controlled, some are state controlled, some perhaps are federal control. And so I am looking forward to a promised conversation with the East Colfax Community Collective to sit down and prioritize what two or three they'd like to see us really try to implement so that those can be built.
Speaker 1: Into.
Speaker 2: Our budget requests and how we plan to spend our money in the future. And I imagine in any of those would support any of the rest neighborhoods if their state or federal covers. Yes. And in fact, one of the ideas in particular of the East Colfax community had was around trying to figure out how we do a designation as an international district. And we've done some exploration with the state and.
Speaker 1: And with arts and venues about.
Speaker 2: Different practices that might be available. And actually, PUMA, one of the consultants, has agreed to help with that voluntarily, because I think it would be great for the neighborhood. And so what's nice about this is that the neighborhood was engaged and making their request. And we hope to continue to see.
Speaker 1: This as we go to other neighborhood plans.
Speaker 2: I. Right. Thank you. You it as.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman Torres. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. I actually thought Councilman Cashman was in line before me, but let me get to my questions. Thank you. Curt or Liz, maybe that explain. Or answer this. Has there ever been an analysis of how much residential square footage potential exists in the plan area under the current zoning? We've heard a lot of talk, in fact, in the last couple of years about the density that is currently allowed that it's not yet built. And I'm just wondering if we've ever analyzed how much of that there is.
Speaker 5: Thank you for that question, Councilman Flynn. So, yes, we have done an analysis of the zoning capacity of the east area in terms of the ability to absorb the projected growth in employment and residential units. And we found that that zoning, if it was maximized, built out completely, that it would be able to handle the projected growth by the Dr. COG models. We've also found, though, that there's a number of limiting factors sort of built into the zoning to not be able to completely max out the zoning. So there is a for example, there's a number of lots along Colfax that are really too shallow to be maximal, have a maximum zone or build out . There's other regulatory barriers in place and there's a number of properties that we are recommending not be built out to their capacity because that would require demolition. And there's a number of properties that people would like to preserve historically. And so all of those factors came into account when we were putting together our recommendations for the growth strategy.
Speaker 1: Okay. Any do you have any numbers you could put on that?
Speaker 5: Liz? You might. Yeah. Liz If you have those numbers in front of you, I don't have them. But in terms of the projected growth in the area, a.
Speaker 4: Residential, it's 4200 4800.
Speaker 1: Unit units, correct? Correct.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Units are in the in the four neighborhoods. And has that been compared to the existing unbuilt entitlements that exist in those four neighborhoods?
Speaker 4: Yes. And I think that that's what curves speaking to that we have capacity it's whether that growth.
Speaker 1: Whether it can.
Speaker 4: Help us meet our community goals and that's why we have the recommendation about.
Speaker 1: Rate.
Speaker 4: Increases and how that should come with.
Speaker 1: Community benefits. Okay. And I would have to say, it's very rare that that existing entitlements could be completely maxed out in any in any neighborhood to begin with. I remember the old be seven zones downtown. We would have had skyscrapers on every one. And clearly we don't, nor would we want to. Kurt or Lee, as the planning board voted 6 to 3 on this. Are you able to explain the competing reasons that members had for why this was a split vote? It's it's not often that we get a recommendation from the planning board that is that is that a divided.
Speaker 5: Yeah. So. Oh, go ahead, Liz.
Speaker 4: I was just going to speak to throw an amendment itself, to add that to remove the single unit line. That was a vote of 7 to 2 with one feeling that it didn't go far enough. The plan still had other things that talked about single unit and one.
Speaker 1: Just not.
Speaker 4: Supporting that change in the plan. And then the overall vote was a vote of 6 to 3 in support of the plan. So again, that that planning board member who felt the plan didn't go far enough in terms of increasing density and allowing more, you know, housing in general did not support the plan. The seven member who did not support the amendment to strike that line did not support the plan. And then a third.
Speaker 1: Member.
Speaker 4: Felt that there could be more community process as an extension of the process itself.
Speaker 1: So it sounds like for different reasons, perhaps 7 to 2 on striking that sentence that that the community had put in there and then 6 to 3 on the plan with one of the three not thinking it should have added, I guess added more density or allowed more density or cleared the way for that. Okay, Liz, in your answers to our council, Councilmember Sawyer and Black, you're talking about the plan's intent to introduce missing middle units into single family areas, inappropriate locations, I think was the term that you used. Does the sentence that was originally included in the plan that went to the planning board, which the board took out, saying single family areas basically should remain primarily single family. Would that would that sentence prevent any future rezonings to introduce missing middle units in appropriate locations which which blueprint speaks to.
Speaker 4: It would not prevent it, though, would be guidance that should be considered during a regulatory process.
Speaker 1: So basically the sentence single family area should remain primarily single family does not exclude multi-unit four plex duplex inappropriate locations as blueprint advisors. So what does what does not, including that sentence, mean for future rezonings or plan guidance? Could that could that be used to say an entire neighborhood can be reasoned for multi-unit? Such as what? We have an overlay, for example, where it saw mostly twin unit zoning.
Speaker 4: So we would say that it does not give fighters for elimination either, because as Kurt mentioned, we do have a place map that describes similar to the blueprint of our descriptions that these areas are predominantly.
Speaker 1: Go or communities.
Speaker 4: Depending on what that label is on the place map. So it already has that guidance elsewhere in the plan. And then the overall policy L6 says inappropriate locations too. That often provides that guidance that it's not necessarily everywhere.
Speaker 1: But it's.
Speaker 2: Appropriate places.
Speaker 1: Okay. So with it or without it. The East Area plan would mean the same thing for future plan guidance on rezonings.
Speaker 4: Yeah, we would say that it would still be recommending again that integration in appropriate locations and not the elimination of single.
Speaker 1: Unit primarily does not primarily means for the most part does not mean exclusively. Correct.
Speaker 2: Correct.
Speaker 1: So this would not putting the sentence back in which the community had wanted before it got the planning board would not would not exclude missing middle units being introduced, inappropriate locations. Correct. All right. Thank you. That's all I have. Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Flynn, Councilwoman CdeBaca.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. And I have a list here. So the shorter, the better. So, first of all, can you remind me, Curt, what the percentage of single unit zoning is in the food plan?
Speaker 5: Councilman CdeBaca. I don't have that exact percentage in front of me. I can look it up for you, but it's. It's the majority of the east area.
Speaker 4: Got it. Irene does next have the power to make recommendations on whether something is truly consistent with our equity goals in our plans.
Speaker 2: No, we do not. At this point in time, we do not.
Speaker 4: And then for CPD, I Del Fisher mentioned the whole the massive amounts of growth that could we could accommodate right now with current zoning. Can you describe what percentage of the corridor is not utilizing their current entitlement?
Speaker 5: Councilman CdeBaca I don't know, again, the very specific percentage to that question, but I think it's safe to say that, again, the majority of the properties along Colfax are not maxed out. Most of the properties along Colfax today are zoned for three stories and some five stories. And that there is not the market today or has not been the market today to build those out. In addition to that, as I was mentioning previously, we have identified a number of other regulatory barriers in the zoning code and in other codes that we have that regulate development, that are barriers to actually redeveloping many of those properties, as well as just a lot configurations of those properties being very small and shallow probably are not feasible in most cases to build out to, you know, maximum zoning.
Speaker 4: Do you have percentages for that, for those that are not able to be built out no matter the change?
Speaker 1: No.
Speaker 5: But what we have done is what we've mapped out similar to the in the East Central plan. We've done a lot by lot analysis along Colfax and categorized each of the lots into different sizes and the smallest sized lots that we think are not really developable at the maximum level. We've identified those as not appropriate for any additional height. And in many cases, we've identified those with existing what we call character buildings, which may or may not be historic but have contributed to the urban design and the history of the area. We've we've flagged those properties for keeping the same and actually no redevelopment because it would any redevelopment may result in demolition of those properties. So the result is a balanced approach to preservation and redevelopment. And we've added the requirements to any redevelopment that would take advantage of additional height, that community benefits be provided. And with the top priority right now, because we're in a housing crisis being affordable housing.
Speaker 4: Awesome. I have a question related to that in a second, but I'm sure you can anticipate it, but I'll get there. Can you quickly define what a policy means to CPD? Because I'm having trouble seeing the difference between our goals, objectives and.
Speaker 2: A new use of policy. I haven't.
Speaker 4: Used. I haven't seen. The word policy used to describe what we're seeing here. So can you explain what CPD's definition of a policy is?
Speaker 5: Sure. What we mean by policy as it when they're included in area plans is really guidance for future decisions. And so when a future decision around regulation, so whether we're writing those specific regulations with numbers or we're making a decision about infrastructure, that we use these policies in the plan to help guide those decisions in the way that's helping to achieve the outcomes of the overall vision that's articulated in a plan.
Speaker 4: So I'm having trouble with that one because we currently have equity goals and policies around equity that we're having a lot of trouble operationalizing in our rezonings. So can you explain to me if policies are operational actions that we need to take to achieve our goals? How how will rezonings look different after this plan than they do right now?
Speaker 5: So what? It all depends on, you know, the specifics of the actual rezoning case. But for example, if there is a property along Colfax that wishes to rezone to a greater height today, the the policy that would be used is either the neighborhood plan that exists today, which there is one, for example, in the East Colfax neighborhood and Blueprint Denver. So we would use both of those plans. We would use Blueprint Denver and we would use the the old plan that's in place now for East Colfax that's called the East Montclair Plan. That's how it was done in the 1990s. And use those the policies in those plans to evaluate a rezoning decision. As was mentioned before, the East Montclair plan does not recommend affordable housing, does not mention for inclusive neighborhoods or anything about equity and blueprint. Denver recommends that Colfax in general, like other corridors of this type, be allowed up to five stories. And then beyond five stories, community benefits kick in. And so what that would result in is, let's say, a three story property along Colfax today could easily, I would say, meet plan guidance of building a five story building with no affordable housing requirement. If the East Area plan is adopted and it falls within one of the properties that we've mapped out, that's appropriate for up to five stories. Affordable housing would be required.
Speaker 4: Well, that is assuming that we've defined community benefits and included affordable housing as part of that. Those priorities, but I don't think we've achieved a. Static definition of community benefits in this plan either have we?
Speaker 1: Well, similar.
Speaker 5: And if you recall this conversation coming up in the East Central Plan, there are a range of community benefits that are articulated, with the idea being that, again, this is a long term plan over the next 20 years, that one would hope that we're not always in an affordable housing crisis. But there may be other community needs, let's say, ten years from now, that are more appropriate for the given moment. Maybe that's affordable business space or a grocery store in a food desert or a public park, etc.. And so those decisions would require council approval based on the current highest need. The East Area plan does recommend that today because we're in an affordable housing crisis in Denver and in particular, it's the top priority in the East Colfax neighborhood because of the the threat of gentrification and displacement. So we do think that it's articulated clearly that affordable housing is the top priority benefit at this time.
Speaker 4: And so does that mean say for example, say there's a property on Colfax that wants to capitalize on their entitlement zoning to build a boutique hotel, but they're not offering any affordable housing in that boutique hotel. But they say we're going to have a swimming pool, a rooftop swimming pool. And a community benefit would be to offer access to the neighborhood, to that pool. Does that mean or does this plan mean that CPD is going to tell us or recommend to us not to approve that up zoning? Because that's actually not a community benefit agreement that's relevant right now.
Speaker 5: That that specific example wouldn't meet any of the community benefits that are articulated in the plan, and it certainly wouldn't meet the affordable housing community benefit. So as I was going back to sort of this hypothetical example of some of the common properties along use Colfax that are currently three stories. It's it's possible that the scenario that you described could meet existing planning guidance from what there are in place today that were written in the 1990s, that that example would not meet the East Area plan recommendation and therefore, you know, would be highly likely to be found inconsistent by city council.
Speaker 4: Would it be inconsistent with CPD's recommendations, though?
Speaker 5: Yes.
Speaker 4: Awesome. Good to know. And I heard street safety mentioned. Was there a traffic study along Colfax for this portion? I know there wasn't one for East Central, but was there any kind of traffic study that is informing our street safety plans here?
Speaker 5: There was there was also four for East Central. So there's been several traffic analyzes done in the east area. Many at a very high level and more detailed levels depending on the topic. So the Colfax BRT project has done traffic modeling of future traffic volumes both on Colfax and surrounding streets and in the East Area plan. We did an in-depth analysis of crashes and looking at specific intersections which informed the priority safety improvements that are recommended in the plan.
Speaker 4: And will those still be so? You know, when we make a plan, we don't actually get to make the thing happen overnight. So if this plan passes. Is there any funding that comes to with it to do any of the things in our plan?
Speaker 1: Well, no, I mean.
Speaker 5: As as Liz said in her opening presentation, a plan is not two things that are often, you know, a source of of of conversation with the community around implementation plan again as a guiding document that guides future decisions, including budget decisions. So it's not the budget decision itself. It's a guidance for those future budget decisions. So as you know, future budgets are created through the capital improvement program or future general obligation bonds, etc.. Plans will be consulted to look at what were the priority projects that were articulated in the plan.
Speaker 4: So that is, you know, something that I think keeps coming up. We keep hearing that the plan is guidance and it's aspirational. But is it not also a legal document?
Speaker 5: Well, I mean, it depends on what you mean by a legal document. Is it is.
Speaker 4: Do we not use it to justify consistency with plans in our quasi judicial hearings around us zoning.
Speaker 5: Correct. So for certain decisions like regulatory decisions, like rezoning decisions and tax increment financing decisions, there is a requirement to find consistency with an adopted plan. Again, so it's basically saying that you should you have to use this plan as guidance when you're making decisions on rezoning cases, for example.
Speaker 4: Thank you. And the last couple of questions. What are the top three most dense neighborhoods in our city?
Speaker 5: I would have to check, but I would you know, they're they're not in the east area if that's if that's the question. So, you know, Capitol Hill, I believe, downtown, are some of the two highest density neighborhoods. The third. I would have to check.
Speaker 4: And are those the most affordable neighborhoods in the city?
Speaker 5: Well, it's it's depends on what you're looking for, I guess. And I would also have to check, I mean, there's different ways to measuring affordability. So, for example, if you're looking at total affordability, that includes housing and transportation costs combined. And again, depending on your family situation, whether you can get to work with other transportation modes, places like Capitol Hill can be quite affordable because they have smaller units and they're close to transit and they're close to jobs and other amenities. And so what we see in those neighborhoods is that families spend quite a bit less on transportation costs. In fact, some of the highest rates of households that don't own any cars and they get to work on bicycle or in transit are in neighborhoods that are dense like Capitol Hill and North Capitol Hill, etc..
Speaker 1: They're.
Speaker 2: The most affordable.
Speaker 4: Neighborhood in our city.
Speaker 5: What's that?
Speaker 2: I'm sorry.
Speaker 4: The most affordable neighborhood in our city.
Speaker 5: I I'm not sure. I mean, again, it depends on what your definition of affordability is. If if you're if you're in need of a subsidized housing unit. For example, five points, I believe, has our highest concentration of subsidized income, restricted properties. And so, you know, you would you'd be able to find an income restricted property there easier than in some suburban areas because there's typically not as many income restricted units in suburban areas, for example. And if you're able to, again, live in a smaller studio unit and you don't have a large family, you may find a more affordable option in an apartment closer to downtown. So it's it's just a difficult question to ask at a broad scale.
Speaker 4: Thank you. And what plan? What neighborhood plan in the city has stalled. Displacement.
Speaker 5: You know, I'm not sure the answer to that question. The plans are adopted with different priorities and different goals depending on when they created. And so, for example, some of the older plans that were created in a different era, like in the 1990s for the the East Colfax Plan that's in place today. The issue was disinvestment and and population and people leaving those those areas and high vacancies. And so the goal was revitalization and trying to encourage more development, including market rate development. And so in those instances where we're not seeing a lot of emphasis on a plan guiding decisions to more inclusive neighborhoods, I think more of the recent plans where this topic has been a priority, you know, it's it's it's there to new to be able to to tell. But I guess what we do see is displacement and gentrification happening throughout the city in places that don't have plans and places that do have plans. And I think most of our our again, our more recent plans that emphasize affordability and inclusive neighborhoods and equity are two new to see kind of the effect of that over the long term yet.
Speaker 4: And so maybe this is a better way to reframe it. And it's my final question. And if you don't have the data, I would love for us to make it a priority to collect this data. But what neighborhood plan in the entire city has been approved and followed by increased rates of displacement.
Speaker 5: Again. I would have to I'd have to get back to you on that to answer that with any level of accuracy. But again, I would just go back to saying that, you know, oftentimes what we have done in the past in Denver is we've prioritized doing area plans in locations where we're seeing a lot of changes. And so when when you see a lot of changes and a lot of investment going in, oftentimes that can lead to higher prices. And it's not as necessarily as a result of a plan being adopted. It can be actually mostly due to market forces that are in place separate from a plan. And so, you know, I think you're you're asking a very important question. And I think it's something that we are looking at as a department. We just created a tool, a mapping tool that aggregates all of our data sets in the city and overlays that with plan areas. So we can kind of take a look and track what's happening in areas we have and have not planned. And again, what we've seen is gentrification, displacement happening independently of where a plan is. And so this is it's obviously a much bigger issue than just whether there's a neighborhood plan in place or not.
Speaker 4: Thank you. I would love to see the pre preplan rates and post plan rates just for a comparison. Thank you for all that. I appreciate it. Thank you, Madam President. That's it for my questions.
Speaker 0: And cue Councilwoman CdeBaca. Councilman Ortega, you're up.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. So let me start with my first question, Kurt. Since you're still there, why don't I throw this one to you? In the conversation about brain space. I didn't see or hear anything about how green space would be used to do gardens such as community gardens or rooftop gardens. And since part of the conversation talked about food insecurity and addressing some of the healthy food needs of the community. Did I miss something or was that just not captured at all?
Speaker 5: Thank you for that question, Councilman Ortega. Yes, this is an important topic. Again, the plan it's a it's a big plan, as was mentioned several times in the testimony. It's about over 280 pages. We do have a whole section of the plan on healthy food and food at food access, including mapping out appropriate locations for community gardens and using open spaces to grow healthy food. So and not just mapping those areas, but also creating policies and strategies to implement some of those ideas.
Speaker 2: But was any of that incorporated into. Any of the new developments so that you're not just looking at, you know, buying a lot to turn into a community garden. But if you're looking at, you know, over a course of time, multiple three or five storey buildings being added where they're appropriate along the Colfax corridor, and they would get some.
Speaker 0: Sunlight that it.
Speaker 2: Could be incorporated either into the open space of a site is big enough or could include a rooftop garden. So with the policy, it's address those kinds of things as well as looking at separate lots for community gardens.
Speaker 5: Correct. Yeah. So that's that's some of the idea in the policies and strategies is not just, you know, vacant lots, but also incorporating incorporating those types of amenities into new development as well.
Speaker 2: Okay, great. Let me just roll into my next question. And if you're not the right person, we've talked a lot about ideas. Do you have data on what percentage of the overall northeast area that encompasses the plan area that includes ADUS today? That allows I'm sorry, that allows a to use. So so my two questions are what percentage of the area allows them and then what percentage of the housing stock already includes them?
Speaker 5: So Liz can correct me if I'm wrong, but just I don't believe these single unit zoned areas in the east. I don't believe any of them today allow accessory dwelling units or A2 use today with the current zoning.
Speaker 2: Okay. And that's a little different than it was in the East Central area where a number of those. Areas of that plan did in fact allow aid to use, although there had been very few that had actually been constructed.
Speaker 5: Yeah, that's correct. So the east central area where is is primarily multi-unit zoning and commercial mixed use zoning, whereas the east area is primarily single unit zoning today.
Speaker 2: And and even though the language in the plan would allow for the, again, its guidance write a guidance document, but it would allow for ADAS to be incorporated where the lot sizes are big enough to accommodate them. But that in itself does not allow that to happen without the zone change happening. Correct?
Speaker 5: That's correct. Yeah. So a.
Speaker 1: Plan.
Speaker 2: Or lot by lot as people want to incorporate it. If somebody wanted to do that now or after this plan was adopted, they would have to rezone their property until there is, you know, a citywide sort of rezoning that allows that to happen in single family areas, correct?
Speaker 5: That's correct. A rezoning would need to occur either, you know, on an individual lot citywide or, you know, similar to Councilman Sandoval's proposal, too, to do it at a neighborhood level. That I would. Yeah, that would also be consistent with the East Area plan.
Speaker 2: Okay. So now I want to talk about assemblage of lots and. The difference between assembling property. Adjacent to commercial corridors versus assembling them within the fabric of single family neighborhoods that are not contiguous to commercial. So. By. Assembling within a single family block, for example, that has just all single family homes. How would that change the density in this plan?
Speaker 1: Well, if it was.
Speaker 5: If someone assembled single unit properties in a location that used to plan recommends single unit zoning, then the assemblage would would result in single unit homes. Right. So you would if the question is if you could assemble single unit single unit properties and redevelop all those singular properties and into multi-unit, for example, that wouldn't be allowed per the plan guidance in the East Area plan if it was in a single unit area.
Speaker 2: Now if that aborted commercial, how would that be different? The dent on the commercial side, not on the residential side where it's a single unit zone. Correct?
Speaker 5: That's correct. As long as the designation on the land use map, which is the places map, recommends that adjacent zone to be a single unit. You would not be able to combine a mixed use property with a single unit and expand the mixed use area.
Speaker 2: Okay. Okay. So now I want to move to a question about what kind of review was done of the infrastructure and its capacity to handle. Death density increases if the entirety of the area was built out to the maximum capacity. Did did the plan look at. Not just the roads, but, you know, the sewer lines, the the water lines, you know, any of the the utilities, any of the infrastructure. Can you.
Speaker 5: Yeah. So. So in addition to the traffic analyzes that were mentioned previously that were done in coordination with the Colfax BRT project and then also as part of the East Area Plan, looking at traffic and crashes and the state of mobility infrastructure. We also closely coordinated with our stormwater management team and looked at some of those issues and we did find a number of infrastructure deficiencies in terms of stormwater management that inform the recommendations for additional green infrastructure and also stormwater pipes that are in the East Central Plan infrastructure recommendations. The way we deal with water and sewer infrastructure is a little different. And what what happens there is when there is a an individual redevelopment of a property, let's say, along Colfax, that the infrastructure in terms of water and sewer is tested and analyzed for capacity. And if there isn't sufficient infrastructure capacity, then that there's a requirement that that capacity be added through the development process itself. And so that's how we typically handle, you know, water and sewer infrastructure development is through the actual development and permitting process.
Speaker 2: So where we know the zoning allows for higher density. And we've got multiple contiguous sites. Did the infrastructure review look at trying to create anything like a, you know, a metro district that would just focus on the improvements to the infrastructure so that we're not dealing with them one off. Because if you look at. Multiple sites going vertical. Some of them may or may not have parking garages or parking lots that could increase the, you know, impervious surface, the quicker runoff that goes into our sewer systems. Was that part of the the review that our agencies looked at or I guess I'm bringing this up because we have seen where we're looking at areas where lots of development is going to occur and you're going to significantly increase the capacity of what will be in that area. So not just roadway traffic, but just all the other infrastructure. And the example I use over and over is the 38th and Fox area where we've got one roadway into that site, but we've also got some serious drainage problems and you know. We started allowing a bunch of rezonings to happen before looking at the infrastructure. And I'm just trying to see if we looked at trying to address some of that infrastructure impact issues on the front end so that we're not trying to address it just piecemeal. That.
Speaker 5: Yeah. Yeah, that makes sense. I think this is it's obviously a very important question. And obviously, you know, the 30th and Fox area is somewhat of a unique situation in that, you know, some of those challenges are not the same as in the east area in terms of the lack of connectivity to the rest of the city . But again, we did look at the traffic volumes and that did inform our infrastructure recommendations. We did look at stormwater data that did inform our stormwater infrastructure recommendations. And I think your question to how do we pay for it and financing, that's also a big part of the plan. And we do recommend using different tools and creative tools to finance our infrastructure, including tools like metro districts. As you as you may know, a portion of the east area has in place an urban renewal area designation. So a portion of Colfax has tax increment financing as an additional tool to help fund some of those infrastructure challenges as they come up.
Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you for those. I have one question for our city attorney. And Nate, are you available? Yes, I'm here. Okay. My question is about the. Amendment that is being proposed and asking if there are any legal implications to leave the language just as it is as it was moved to us from the planning board. If if it were just to remain intact, one of the speakers made some reference to some concerns. And I just wanted to get your clarification on whether or not, you know. Leaving it the way it is, as it was filed, has any any legal implications whatsoever?
Speaker 1: Thank you for the question. Councilwoman Ortega, Neighborhood Services and City Attorney. There would be no real legal implications if council approves the language that was forwarded from the planning board or if the amendment passes. Correct. Okay. And and as staff has already stated, I with or without the amendment, it would it would still be consistent with blueprint
Speaker 2: . Okay. Thanks so much. I have no further questions. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Hines.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. So I had a bunch of questions that have already been answered. I want to pick up where Councilmember Ortega just left off. That CBD mentioned that it was neutral about the amendment. And can you help me y or can you help me understand why the this amendment in or out, doesn't affect Sebelius position
Speaker 5: ? Yeah, I can answer that. Councilman Hines So that's the thing. As we stated previously, we view the line, the sentence under question as just being additional clarification of similar recommendations that are made in other sections of the plan. So we we find that the criteria that are put forward to an adopt a plan being consistent with Blueprint Denver on the comprehensive plan of an inclusive community process and having a long term view those criteria would be met with or without that sentence in the plan.
Speaker 1: So. I mean, I guess. As as we've already just talked about. District ten is different than.
Speaker 5: Whatever is east of Colorado.
Speaker 1: I don't I'm assuming there are things east of Colorado. I don't know. It's not district so but it's so the sentence on its own in my view it's it seems counter to my personal values. But I know that because we just passed the central area plan a month ago also has been covered. I know that one sentence in a document that spans hundreds of pages. I mean, I just wonder, like, are we really making a mountain out of a molehill? You know, I just this is really become a lightning rod or is it just kind of so I just I'm trying to understand why there are people vehemently in favor and opposed to one sentence in a and a plan that's hundreds of pages. And I guess I'm I'm interested in your thoughts. Because you're closer to the plan than I am. Yeah. Well, I think, um.
Speaker 5: You know, there's, there's very strong opinions by certain community members on, um, single unit areas in general. So there are some, some community members who want single unit areas to remain exactly as they are and be preserved that way for the long term. And there are other members of the community on the exact opposite end of that policy decision, where they want all of single unit zoning to be 100% eliminated. And so there are those there's very strong opinions that we've heard throughout this process, articulating both of those viewpoints, um, what Blueprint Denver recommends and that, which is one of the things we do when we have these kind of difference of opinions at a neighborhood level is we say, okay, what is the citywide guidance say about how to resolve these competing points of view that we're hearing at the neighborhood level and at the citywide level? Blueprint Denver does not say to eliminate single family zoning, and it does not say to keep single unit areas exactly as they are today. So the blueprint, Denver doesn't recommend either of those extremes. And so we've taken a similar approach with the recommendation to the east area is saying that, you know, single unit areas should accommodate some additional housing in a thoughtful, reasonable way, in appropriate locations, etc.. But they should not it should not be done in a way that completely eliminates the single unit established urban design of that neighborhood.
Speaker 1: Okay. Are there areas in the used area plan that don't have a currently have any. Planning document that's less than city wide.
Speaker 5: Yes. Yeah, there are there are several areas and particularly in particular the Hale and the Montclair neighborhoods, that that don't have any neighborhood plan.
Speaker 1: Okay. Yeah. And I mean, we in District ten have areas as well that don't currently have have never had any sort of, you know, non city neighborhood plan. And I think I think it's critical for us.
Speaker 5: To have some sort of.
Speaker 1: Planning document just because with without any sort of. Documentation of the conversation between neighbors, developers and and and the city. I think that's that's tough. But. Okay. And then the last thing I want to ask about.
Speaker 5: Is that.
Speaker 1: The timeline of the East Area plan, I know the East Central Area plan, which covered a majority of the residents in District ten, you know, there were multiple delays. I think that's the same in the East Area plan. I just wonder if you could if you.
Speaker 5: Could.
Speaker 1: Recap, you know, if there were delays and if so, what the what you know, what brought those delays on?
Speaker 5: Sure. So yeah, similar as what happened in Central is that there were a number of requests to slow down the process and do more engagement because there was a feeling that more people needed to hear about it and be able to weigh in, and that required more time, more outreach, etc.. And so similar to what we did in the central plan, we did extend the process to work with those communities that felt like they needed more time or they felt like they needed to help organize and bring more people into the process.
Speaker 1: So that the delays were because you wanted additional community engagement. I'm assuming also now that COVID is here, there were probably also some delays just to make sure that people could get.
Speaker 5: Access to some of the virtual.
Speaker 1: Presentations, too. Is that right?
Speaker 5: Correct, yeah. And in particular, you know, some groups that we had been working with pre-COVID and we wanted to continue that dialog like in the East Colfax Community Collective, for example, needed some additional time to help make that shift to Zoom meetings. And so we extended the process.
Speaker 1: Mid 2019. What was Chris thought? When was when was your plan or vision? Our goal to have the East Area plan come before council like we're here tonight.
Speaker 5: Well, I guess originally, you know, our goal was to complete the plan in 24 months. And so we're we're we're well beyond where, you know, we're past three years now. Yeah. Um, and some of that had to do again with, um, community outreach and extending to get more involvement. And then part of it has this had to do with COVID as well.
Speaker 1: Okay. And just one quick note. I would. I think Capitol is the most dense neighborhood. I don't think CVD is the second. And I think it's North Capitol Hill, then Cheesman, then Speer, then Westwood. I guess that's somewhere not in District ten and then Congress Park after that. So District ten is very dense, very know as far as population density and I don't see any of the used area plan neighborhoods in the top. At least ten neighborhoods. So just to underscore again that the east central area plan and east area plan are not the same animal. I thank you, Madam President. Thanks.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Hines. I've got a couple of questions here. Liz or Kurt, either one of you can take it. If this plan is supposed to provide guidance for the next 20 years for this area. And there's an affordability issue. Why? Would we want to have the statement that says single unit areas should remain primarily single unit?
Speaker 5: I can take that question. Councilman Gillmor So the the approach here that we've seen, I guess, historically in cities of low density areas has been one of incremental change even over that long term time period. So for example, there are many neighborhoods in Denver that have allowed accessory dwelling units for a long period of time. And those accessory dwelling units are oftentimes are never constructed for a variety of reasons, including relying on an individual homeowner to kind of become a developer. Oftentimes. And so when when there is a desire like we've heard in the east area to not recommend demolition of neighborhoods and, you know, large scale redevelopment, that the goal here is to do incremental development in the form of duplexes, accessory dwelling units, triplexes, etc., and the missing middle that's oftentimes done by homeowners themselves becoming their own developers. And that happens very slowly. And so even though there's a long term, 20 year view, this incremental approach to change, we would not anticipate the entire neighborhood flipping around from primarily single unit to something completely different. Even over that time period, we would likely see a more incremental approach that would look kind of similar to some neighborhoods that are in Denver today. Watch Park and in some areas of the east area plan itself where you see single unit character but a more of a sprinkling in of different housing forms like duplexes and row houses, etc.. So that's kind of the thinking of of a more incremental change over that long term horizon.
Speaker 0: And so with that incremental changes, though, from an equity lens, the far northeast area plan that Councilwoman Sawyer referenced on page 34, because I started it yesterday again for for this hearing, I believe that there is an equity issue at hand with this one sentence, because in the far northeast area plan on page 34, it does say promote the continued use of single unit zoning on properties with existing single unit homes. But then it also lays out residential, low single unit and then residential, low medium row house in the far northeast area plan. And the residential low medium row house can include single unit two two unit residential. Rowhouses, but then also small multi-unit buildings, multi-unit buildings. And so why, with the incremental nature of these neighborhood plans, would we again have a statement that doesn't say, promote the continued use? It says Single unit areas should remain primarily single unit. How how was that, I guess, decision made? Because it seems like you could look at it from the flip side. And for those property owners that want a neighborhood to stay single unit only, it seems like by including the sentence in the East Plan, you're giving more protections to those neighborhoods than you might be giving to black and brown neighborhoods. Like we never had an option to say, Hey, do you guys want to put a sentence in there that says single unit areas should remain primarily single unit, that that was never an option given to my community, not that they would have taken it, but I think from an equity lens, we've got to make sure that we're communicating this in an equitable way.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I think that's an important question, Councilman. So just to clarify those examples that you provided in the far northeast where there was different zone, that there was different categories like, you know, row house designation areas and multi-unit designation areas. Those those are also in the east area plan. So the east area plan is not just a single unit, you know, recommended areas. We do have a bunch of areas that we're recommending for two units for row houses, for apartments, multi-unit. There's a there's a variety of land use designations that we're recommending what the sentence under consideration right now would only apply to areas that are we're recommending for single unit areas. And I would just go back to saying that we're using the same terminology that was used in in the far northeast area in terms of how we're designating single unit areas and in in Blueprint Denver. So Blueprint Denver articulates these residential low areas to include a mix of housing units, not only exclusively single unit but predominantly single unit. So the same when the Urban Infill Housing Regulatory Project is implemented, those single unit areas in the far northeast area will be treated the same as single unit areas in the east area. Right? Those that those designations will apply and the single of the predominantly single unit language is in place in both of those areas. If that provides some clarity of clarification for you a bit.
Speaker 0: But I mean primarily. Means something different than promote. And so I think having that additional language in this new plan definitely gives me pause around the considerations of the amendment. My last question is, you know, doing a quick search, is there anywhere in the East Central Plan or the far northeast plan that has this exact wording? Single unit areas should remain primarily single unit.
Speaker 5: I don't believe so. Not that exact wording.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. All right, I. Councilman Sawyer, I was going to have the last question, but do you have a follow up? And then we'll go ahead and close the public hearing out and vote on the amendment.
Speaker 4: I actually just wanted to respond to your question, because where that sentence actually was taken out of the plan, if you were able to read where it was originally put in, the way the entire sentence reads is it says Consistent with adopted citywide policies and blueprint Denver integrate missing middle housing with rules to preserve valued neighborhood characteristics and address unique issues in the East Area, as follows Single unit areas should remain primarily single unit design requirements to ensure new construction is compatible with unique setback heights, etc. etc. So write regulations to discourage replacement of smaller homes with larger homes that are less affordable, etc. etc. So it is part of a it's part of an entire an entire thing. So it's not just that, that one sentence. And, and, and so I just wanted to make sure that that was clear in there. Thanks.
Speaker 0: Yes, thank you. I have printed out the information on the planning board amendment, so I. I have it in front of me, so thank you. All right. The public hearing for council bill 20 dash 1132 is closed. Comments by members of council on the amendment. Councilman Herndon.
Speaker 3: Thank you, ma'am. As you know, since we have since the planning board removed as my thoughts of myself were and I go back to Councilman Stan Sandoval, which you said at committee, we sure are spending a whole lot of time talking about what's out of the plan than what's actually in. And then, Councilman Hines, I think you summed it up today when you just said we're adding I can't I'm paraphrasing, you're giving a lot of power to this to the sentence when I don't believe is there. So I'm going to say those the bulk of my comments for what's actually in the plan and whether this passes with the amendment or not, I believe this is worthy of a yes vote, but I do believe that planning board arbitrarily took it out the way it should be since it's referenced in so many other places. And I think Councilman Flynn did a good job of asking the questions, whether it's in or not. It doesn't change the spirit of what we do. But if community members have concerns about why it was taken out, why not put it back in? So I will support the amendment. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Herndon, Councilwoman CdeBaca.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. Just some thoughts this much like our East Central plan in my district on this same corridor is a fascinating case study. Nearly every single week we have upswings in historically black and brown neighborhoods. Residents of our most marginalized neighborhoods sign up consistently to protest of zoning properties in our vulnerable neighborhoods that are justified because their entitlements or earnings. We go back and forth and back and forth with our developers, begging them for affordable units that they're not mandated to provide. We cross our fingers. We spend our tax dollars to employ entire teams and departments to negotiate with developers, begging them for whatever we can, compel them to toss our way voluntarily . We teeter back and forth on whether or not to allow them their upside earnings that always are justified by a plan like the one we're contemplating tonight. And then we complain that we have to approve their up zoning if plans exist to justify it. We ignore the pleas of low income people explaining how adding market rate units in any area that was below income actually decreases affordability generally throughout that ecosystem. Here we have advocates of neighborhoods challenging densify in their neighborhoods in a majority single unit zoned area. Demographic data suggests that these neighborhoods are predominately white and predominantly wealthier, with the exception of East Colfax. Yet their arguments against density are exactly the same as those from our overburdened bipoc communities. But all of a sudden, you also now have council members who justify densify in our neighborhoods every week. Someone else's district usually mine against the will of my constituents, mostly black and brown and poor, who have changed but yet have changed their tune now on Densify and the neighborhoods in their district and still calling it equity. Something here doesn't add up, and I'll let you all do the math on that. However, I will point to the obvious facts. Density does not equal affordability without mandated protective policies, and we don't have a single, proven or guaranteed anti displacement policy in this plan or any of our plans, for that matter. We don't even have a concrete definition of community benefits that lists and prioritizes affordability. The list of anti displacement policies are not actually policies. If you can read a so-called policy and still have to ask.
Speaker 2: How.
Speaker 4: It is not a policy. Additionally, regardless of your socioeconomic status, race, ethnicity or housing type, we all are clear on the fact that passing this plan is a green light for developers to exacerbate the challenges we have yet to figure out at all of our expense. I can't support an amendment to shield middle and upper class neighborhoods from having to shoulder the burdens of our city. I also can't support yet another neighborhood plan that calls itself guidance without, with and becomes a legal document that promises and dictates what we owe developers without guaranteeing anything for the people who need it most. That's it for my comments. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilwoman, can each.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. I will restrict my comments just to the amendment, because I think that's the section we're in. So first, I want to thank everybody who testified tonight and the many hundreds of people who've contacted my office over the past year, really, but especially the last few months. You know, it's there's been a lot of effort to, I guess, make the case that the amendment has no impact. And if that's the case, I think the risk is that it creates false expectations. The majority of people who testified tonight asking for this amendment did not mention that it made way for middle and missing middle housing . They didn't express their support for those other things. They talked about a desire to only put new housing on major redevelopment sites and to have no none of the growth in the single unit areas. So. So I my my concern is that I can't support an amendment that one has no clear impact on the plan. And two, leads to potentially false expectations or confused expectations from the public about how this sentence will work and be interpreted in the future. So I think it's it's too ambiguous to to be effective in the ways that it may have been intended. And as others have described, there is plenty of existing language in the plan without adding this layer of confusion, because the sentence clearly has taken on the expectations of huge portions of the community who've emailed or testified tonight about what they think this sentence does. And the staff, even the sponsors, described it as doing something very differently. And that's a sign to me that it's not drafted effectively to accomplish its goal when there's a disconnect between those who are testifying for it and what they believe it achieves and what the staff and the and the sponsors have described it as. So I can't support the amendment tonight for those reasons, and I will reserve the rest to my comments for the larger discussion. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, councilman. Connection. Just a quick reminder, it is comments by members of Council on the amendment, Councilman Sawyer.
Speaker 4: Thanks so much, Madam President. Just quick comments on the amendment. I think, you know, we've spoken a lot about it. This is a simple clarity, a move to add clarity back to the plan without this. You know, we've got maps that refer to something that doesn't exist anymore. We've got later sections of the plan that refer back to something that doesn't exist anymore. And so I think this just makes the plan whole again because removing this one sentence added confusion. So this just adds clarity back to it. And I think that, you know, what's really important here, and I think what the community is really saying is that this sentence was, you know, and the maps that reflect the sentence and all of the other sentences that refer back to the sentence throughout the 280 odd pages of this plan were the result of three years of community conversation.
Speaker 2: Three years of hard.
Speaker 4: Fought community conversation. And this plan has its proponents and its opponents. But it's a good plan, and the community deserves a plan. We're better off with a plan than without a plan. And so it would be a shame to have a community full of people not support something because they felt like they were undermined by an appointed body that took out one sentence of a plan thoughtlessly, you know, after hours of testimony on a whim. And, you know, it's not reflective of those three years of community conversation. So I would urge my fellow council members to support this sentence, because this is reflective of those community conversations. And so I think it's really important that we do that. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. It's I think it's actually odd to call this an amendment because it's putting something back into the plan that the community put in over those three years that Councilwoman Sorge just talked about. But that an intervening process removed the sentence doesn't block missing middle housing from single unit areas. It simply responds to Blueprint's policy recommendation to, quote, ensure residential neighborhoods retain their unique character as infill development occurs primarily means only for the most part. Opponents of reinserting this sentence appear to believe that it means exclusively rather blueprint speaks of context sensitive density, inappropriate places, particularly near transit, corner lots and so forth. I disagree with the the person who testified during the hearing that this sentence would be used to keep added density out of primarily single family areas. In fact, the opposite is the case primarily does not mean exclusively. It simply means the existing character can be maintained. While, as Blueprint says, missing middle structures can be added in appropriate places and not everywhere. I think that's a statement that that does need to be made. And even. Madam President, the far north east plan when it says promote a single family where a single family already exists. I view that as an even stronger statement than the one that we're being asked to reinsert here. We need to be careful about introducing what is sometimes called gentle density, which I call displacing you with a smile. I agree with Councilwoman CdeBaca, who talked about how density has made many of our neighborhoods unaffordable, where we've added duplexes in some neighborhoods, we've lost affordable single units and they've been replaced with out-of-reach duplex units. In Denver neighborhoods where we've added general density, we force people out through rapidly escalating housing prices and rents. We have neighborhoods where small and affordable existing homes are replaced with duplex units at each cost, nearly double the price of the house they replaced, and which then drive up property values and taxes on the remaining residents without this sentence. Future up zoning would have plan guidance that could result in eradicating existing neighborhood character. Without putting this guidance back into the plan after it was the result of work and compromise by the stakeholders. We're telling these neighborhoods that that they should not retain their existing character. I don't think that's the aim of the plan after it's after the three years of work. So I support the amendment to restore the voice of the community in its own plan over that of a divided vote on on the appointed planning board. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Thank you, Madam President. Yeah. When I first heard this amendment, I didn't like it at all. It felt exclusive. Then I started thinking about it and grabbed a dictionary and grabbed several. And this, as I read, this amendment doesn't shield anybody. I think both sides need to look in the dictionary. If you're counting on this to preserve your single family neighborhood without change, you're going to be gravely disappointed. And if you're against this amendment because you think it says that there can be no change, I think you're equally as off base. Right now, we've got single unit neighborhoods that when when a rezoning comes before us planning looks at it and says, now, this is a single unit neighborhood. There's no there's no plan guidance. So to do a duplex or an 82 or whatever, I think the planners ten years down the road, 20 years down the road that would look at this, would see a door wide open for for incremental change in the way of multi-unit housing. You know, it doesn't say stay the same. It doesn't even say almost entirely. It says primarily. Primarily means to me when you drive through it, you go, Yeah, it's primarily a single family neighborhood. But there's this that, this and that. That gives it texture and flavor. So. I think it. I as has been said, I just think it underscores other elements of our of our greater plans and this plan that speak to diversity of housing. As I think they should. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Hines.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Madam President, I thought there was someone else in the queue before me. So I know that this is a long discussion. I want to thank everyone who has spent this much of their evening to talk about a big document that a lot of people won't pay a whole lot of attention to outside.
Speaker 5: Of the planning.
Speaker 1: Circles after tonight. So thank you for your interest. Thank you for your excitement in and making sure that our city is in the direction that we wanted to go in. I know that there are some comments of a planning board. I just want to I want to stick up for planning board. And I know that they're an appointed body. I also I also know that part of the reason why they're appointed is because they are planners, they are experts in their field. And and while I may not agree with everything that they decide on there, their purpose is to be experts. And and I think that that our current planning board has achieved that. I think it is a country comprised of people who really know a lot about zoning and are passionate about Denver zoning. So thank you playing board for all you do. I am. As I mentioned in my questions, I am concerned that we are spending a whole lot of time and putting a lot of cycles on one sentence and I just throwing that out there. I'm also concerned that I don't want to push my values on an area of the city that is dramatically different.
Speaker 2: From where.
Speaker 1: I live. We have the four densest so the three densest neighborhoods in the city and numbers four and five as well. So we're, you know, District ten is way different then than areas that are District ten, just, frankly. And and so I don't want to I'm concerned about saying that my values for where I live should be the same, where everyone else lives. As a value statement, I think it should be really citywide. I'm also of an open mind to get rid of single family zoning entirely. Minneapolis has done it. Oregon has done it. I mean, there are places that, you know, that have already taken the plunge and made that happen. I also want to make sure that we do that in a measured approach. I know that Denver and Colorado's history is not the same as Oregon and and and Minnesota and and we are very cautious with our land use. So I just want to throw all that out there. I. I'm I'm afraid that we're making much ado about nothing. And and so this amendment, you know, I, I ultimately will side on the the the planning process and the three years of community input, you know, instead of the planning board. I hope that the planning board understands that, that my thought is I want to make sure that we hear from the community as opposed to from.
Speaker 5: Planning for it.
Speaker 1: But I think you really are the planning board really is a body that. That provides a lot of meaningful information to us and is a is a wise group of individuals. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Hines. Councilwoman Torres.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. My own notes on the amendment. I don't begrudge the planning board because they're appointed and not elected as though that's the only criteria for decision making in the city they're contemplating. And I think they did their job here. I will not vote to return the sentence back to the plan. CPD's made it pretty clear that it's not necessary to the intentions of Blueprint Denver in particular, and that it causes this source of confusion. I'd rather see it eliminated and focus on other areas of the plan that that need some attention. So those are all my comments on the amendment. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Torres. Councilwoman Sandoval.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. I have a lot of people on this slate. And sometimes when we. Talk about area plans. We talk about prescriptive and we use this word prescriptive a lot. And the plans are recommendations. And what I heard tonight was a lot of really good discussion about what the community thought and how impactful this could be to certain groups of people who live in the East Colfax neighborhood and to council mentors is great.
Speaker 4: I really I learned I.
Speaker 2: Have I don't have a degree in planning. I've learned all my planning and everything that I've learned just from watching planning board for since 2012. And I've learned how to take things and have different debates on them and the planning board is appointed. So I don't know what the future of the planning board would do in the when they interpret this language. So with that, I would I'm not going to support this amendment this evening due to the fact that I think that it was actually well thought out. And I watched the planning board and it was a very deliberative process. So thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Sandoval. Madam Secretary, roll call on the amendment, please.
Speaker 4: Black I.
Speaker 2: See the bucket?
Speaker 4: No.
Speaker 2: Clark.
Speaker 1: I. When I.
Speaker 2: Herndon.
Speaker 1: I think I.
Speaker 2: Cashman.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Mitch. No. Ortega. No. Sandoval No. Hoyer, I. Sorry. No. Madam President.
Speaker 0: No. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce.
Speaker 2: The results.
Speaker 1: Of the.
Speaker 4: Six, nays 17.
Speaker 0: Six days, seven eyes. The amendment passes Council Bill 20 dash 1132 has been amended. Councilman Cashman when we may have a motion to pass as amended, please.
Speaker 1: Yes, Madam President. I move that council bill 20 dash 1130 to 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 1132. Councilman Herndon.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. And how do you succinctly at 1026 at night summarize three plus years, 100 plus meetings, thousands of comments on this. Well, I will. And recognizing you have other colleagues that want to comment as well. So I should first start off with a significant thank you to every individual who has weighed in once or multiple times on this plan, because whether you support it or not, you have created a better plan moving forward for the east area. And some of you may not think that and never will, but your critiques and your hard questions were got us to the place where we are. So I sincerely thank you for that. To the CPD and the team, Liz, and all the individuals who who worked on this. Thank you for your diligence. Thank you for your flexibility. Because as we were moving through this, pivoting to to stop and do more thorough community outreach, I appreciate that as well. The steering committee members who from the very beginning and it evolved over time. Thank you for that. Why is this so important? Even in the middle of a pandemic, this area is changing. If you think about real estate, prices in the middle of the pandemic are still going up. And our city and county of Denver, if you think about what's happening, as I mentioned earlier today, 8315 East Colfax received a tax credit. The area is changing. And if we don't have a plan in place to guide this changes. It can go in the direction that we don't want it to go. I mean, I really appreciate the in me back up because if we vote down this plan and just for the north side of Colfax, you've got a plan from South Park Hill, this from the 2000 and on East Colfax, you have the East Montclair plan from the early 1990s, as we mentioned, doesn't even talk about things such as equity or affordability. But that doesn't just mean you approve the plan because it's newer. You have to look into the plan and see what does it actually do for the community. And I believe the plan that we have in place speaks to what the community has asked for through the hundreds of meetings and thousands of comments from CPD going to where you lived prior to the pandemic, to hear from people to us finding every avenue possible to have a conversation during the pandemic. And I printed out several of the different recommendations, and I'm not going to read all of them. Liz highlighted the top six at talking about making the East Area an inclusive place. We talk about preserving trees and landscaped areas. We're talking about helping residents and small businesses stay in the community long term. But then we talk about equity from improving access to opportunity, reducing vulnerability to displacement, expanding housing and jobs. And we go into several different categories throughout the entire East Area plan, whether it's zoning, where we're talking about encouraging to maintain rather than demolishing existing older homes by revising design requirements to encourage renovations or additions, we can talk about the affordable housing recommendations where it says Expand diversity of housing types and affordability to support households at different sizes, ages, incomes in all the neighborhoods. And that's we have recommendations about community serving retail. We have recommendations about pedestrian improvements, neighborhood traffic, calming measures, parks and open space, community safety and well-being. And I won't read all of them, but these are just our recommendations are priorities for this area. But then we go into specifically the particular neighborhoods and I'll talk about East Colfax and South Park just because those are the portions that I, I, I represent. And though I'm not going to read all these recommendations via land use via the economy, but reduce involuntary displacement, address the affordable housing shortage in East Colfax. It's what it's particularly saying on South Park will prioritize land policies that aim to maintain that character in South Park Hill residential areas. These are our values and I think this is what's going to move us forward for the next 20 years. So I'm I'm proud of the work that we've done on this. And not everybody got what they wanted. I would have a conversation with a constituent who wants me to vote no because the plan doesn't go far enough. And then I'll turn around and have another conversation that says with another concession, the plan went too far. So this is what? This is what? You have various constituencies, you find a sweet spot. And I believe we are there and we are much better off as an east area moving forward with this plan than without. The hard work really begins now because it is a plan. So we need to do the work and have the tools in place. If you don't know Councilwoman Zoya and I, we plan to plagiarize Councilman Sandoval's movement to add 80 used East Colfax. It was a great thing to do. And in northwest Denver, we want to start that conversation in East Colfax and other tools we're doing as well. So I think that was kind of succinct. So my apologies. But I want to once again end where I started by thanking everyone for their work on this, because we truly have , I believe, a great product that I'm excited to support and everyone from the beginning to the very end. Thank you for that comments moving forward to make this the plan that we have. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Herndon. Councilman Sawyer.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. I also want to start just by reiterating what I have always said, which is I truly believe that, you know, continuing without a neighborhood plan does a disservice to our community. And there are several neighborhoods that don't have a neighborhood plan at all, especially Hale and Montclair. And I want to thank every single member of our community who participated in this and CPD and our fellow council members. Prior and CURRENCE, thank you for all that you have done and our steering committee members really grateful. It was a tough road to get here, a really tough road to get here. But where we have gotten is pretty amazing. You know, just to kind of clarify, I heard some misconceptions and I want to make sure we really understand that you sort of plan as in rezoning any properties tonight. We're not selling properties to developers. We're not up zoning properties today. We're not closing grocery stores like fliers that went around this weekend. We're not ignoring stormwater problems. We're not allowing any use in every neighborhood overnight because that's already allowed under blueprints. There's you know, we're not relying on BRT funding for the success of this plan because 15 and 15 are already the two most used bus lines in the entire system. The truth is that the East Area Plan is a vision for how these neighborhoods are going to grow in the next 20 years. We are going to grow. We're a city we should grow, but we have to make sure we're doing it in a thoughtful way. And that's what this plan does. It looks at the next 20 years and it says, okay, how should we grow so that we keep the unique character of these neighborhoods, but also add the things that the residents say they care about? So when we surveyed these the residents extensively and in many languages, I might add, they said they wanted small businesses, neighborhood walkability, green space, safer streets, the things that augment the quality of life. And this plan attempts to balance all of those desires in a holistic and thoughtful way. Is it perfect? No, because there are some things the plan simply cannot do. And the groups who are opposing this plan, they want guarantees and they want us, you know, to promise that added density will bring affordability.
Speaker 2: Me, too.
Speaker 4: But unfortunately, no one can guarantee that. But the plan explicitly recommends, I think, 27 different ways to stop gentrification and displacement from happening in East Denver. We've already talked about this tonight. It's happening here. It's a result of market forces. And but there is literally never been a neighborhood plan in Denver that has attempted to do more to address these issues on a policy level than what the East Area plan is trying to do. Some people want the plan to identify specific parcels for green space, but these neighborhoods are built out. We can't take people's private land to make a park. But here's what we can do. We can commit to working with Parks and Rec and make this a priority and identify parcels where we can use to raise funds to purchase these in the future when they maybe become available. And in fact, we are already working with Parks and Rec to do that. We have their commitment. Some people are really concerned about traffic.
Speaker 2: And me too. And that's.
Speaker 4: Fair. This is a big one for our neighborhoods with BRT coming. We can't magically fix that. But here's what we can do. We can commit to working with Dottie and DPD. We've got traffic improvements already coming on 13th and 14th. Our office has saved $20,000 to do a traffic study of Eighth Avenue to implement traffic calming measures and safer crossings there. Some people want groups to halt East Area plan entirely until COVID 19 is over. I can tell you that there is more community engagement now than ever before. Just look at voter turnout. You know, we've look at all the emails that our office has received and phone calls in the last couple of weeks, you know, hundreds and thousands. I've always said that under principles, the principles are blueprint and 20 2019 and 2040. All of our neighborhoods are better off with a plan. When I came into this office, I didn't support the East Area plan. It proposed eight story buildings, which was completely out of character for the neighborhoods. It wasn't specific enough. Most people in our neighborhoods didn't even know it existed. But my goal was never to stop the plan. It was to create a thoughtful plan that made sense for our community. And I think tonight we've achieved that goal. Over the last 17 months, my office has worked tirelessly to engage the community on the plan, pushing the city to fully engage. And Liz and Kurt have gone above and beyond in more ways than I've got time to detail. They have stepped out of their comfort zone, meeting with residents in their backyards, hearing specific concerns about unintended consequences. And because of that work today, we've got something that strikes the right balance. I believe we've reached a place that's thoughtful about development and strategic in our goals. One of my fellow council members once said to me, You've always got to keep in mind you're going to have to see people at the grocery store for the rest of your life. So you'd better be sure you're ready to defend your vote in the checkout line. And 17 months ago, I wasn't ready to do that. But today, I am proud to say that I am willing to defend this plan for all of the years to come in the grocery store, in the checkout line and anywhere else in our community. And I hope that my fellow council members will as well. Thank you.
Speaker 0: And. Q Councilwoman Sawyer. Councilwoman, can each.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. And to my colleagues and the staff who worked so hard on this plan, I just want to thank you for the time that you spent and for your work. I just wanted to I already thanked everyone for participating, but I just want to share a couple observations as I vote for the plan tonight . It's understandable that this has been a hard process imagining a future and preparing for a future that we do not control. Right. And it's not just the pandemic we don't control, but we don't control private property. We have an envelope within which we can create some restrictions, but generally speaking, we don't masterplan each person in a city centrally. That's not something we do in America. And so we have to plan for a future without control. And that is really tough. But I guess here are my two observations. The first is that quality of life is not a fixed resource. It is not the case that there is only asset allocation for a neighborhood or for a city, and that if more people share it or new people come in who receive it, that somehow those who are there currently or those who are existing will somehow be diminished. And I think that this is the theme, right, of city planning, which is that we can and should fight for a quality of life that expands to encompass, you know, for example, more racial diversity in neighborhoods. That enterprise documented in their testimony are not very racially diverse. That will not diminish the quality of life for the predominantly white homeowners in that area. It will change, right, the the makeup of the neighborhood. But the quality of life can be shared by new and additional residents. Right. So. So I think that quality of life can grow with with our communities, with our neighborhoods, with our blocks. And I think that it's not that one person wins and another loses. And so I think that that's really something that this plan fights to really make that point, that this is about, you know, that historic character should be preserved, but it can't just be preserved for the people who've always enjoyed it. But it could also be preserved for for new residents to enjoy, for example. Second observation is that, you know, some folks debated our plans binding. Are they, you know, prescriptive? Are they, you know, guidance? Here's the word I use for plans. I'm I'm nine years into this gig, so take it or leave it. But here's my and I guess I did six years of community organizing around planning and development in Denver before. So let's call it let's call it 15, 16 years in this in this in this field, plans are leverage. And the question is, do they give you more leverage or less leverage than you had before the plan for the things you care about? And I think that, you know, that the two councilmembers who represent this district made all the points about the many ways that these plans create more leverage in terms of equity, historic preservation, affordability and other and other things. The second question is how does the leverage for the things you care about compare to the leverage created for the forces of the market? And I think that, you know, I will say that it is no joke. I used to fight. I'm not joking. Year long campaigns to get the word affordable housing into a plan. Right. Like the one reference to it and one page. This is what I did for a living before I got elected to this council. That's how hard it was. And then I would ride that one phrase that we'd fight to get in for the next three years until I got to 66 unit development, you know, in Union Station neighborhood. Right. So that was the painful process. This is more leverage for equity and these topics than it is. And so the question is to for you all, what's the leverage of us as council members and of your local government? So I already dedicated the entire legislative session before COVID to supporting the Tele right over whatever I'd bill, working closely with the sponsors, providing technical assistance. I will do that again. I know my colleagues all signed on in support of that. The city, you know, registered in support of it. And we will be there again. It is a statewide battle. It's not exclusively in our control. And it's about, you know, building alliances with with our neighbors across the state. Right. But that's the kind of thing that I will commit to doing. I will say that there was a question about resources. This plan has actually created leverage for resources. This council worked with the administration to get funding for implementation to the three equity areas that have newly adopted plans for participatory budgeting. A half million dollars, right. Of leverage of implementation for projects. So that is something that if this plan is adopted tonight, this community can count on. They can count on having a voice to help to spend those dollars in the east central area. I don't know the exact boundaries yet, but the idea was implementation of plan. So. So I think leverage matters. Quality of life matters. And this plan creates more leverage for more people to enjoy quality of life in these areas. And therefore, I'll be supporting its name. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Kenney. Councilwoman Torres.
Speaker 2: Madam President. So I've got five neighborhoods from District three who are currently in the West Area plan process. They are both balancing, I think, expectations of the plan. Many knowing it's not the only ticket toward affordability or.
Speaker 4: Permanence or stability.
Speaker 2: But we're watching all of these processes closely and trying to identify what what makes sense. Westwood Neighborhood has the most recent.
Speaker 4: Plan in my district 2016, and they continue to experience displacement, housing pressures.
Speaker 2: Families moving south into Councilman Flynn's district. And it's not to do with the rezoning. We haven't had a lot of rezonings in Westwood. Kurt said something that sparked.
Speaker 4: Something for me and I wanted to thank him for that. And it was a focus on what else does this plan do and what else.
Speaker 2: Does that inform.
Speaker 4: The plan for? West. It's been incredibly helpful for securing bond.
Speaker 2: Funding for Parks, for Rec, center, for infrastructure, and if.
Speaker 4: Anything, the plan speaks to maintaining a community identity.
Speaker 2: That's important to West Denver. The work that's gone into this is.
Speaker 4: In part due to community input during that process, what the plan actually says. But also those of us in on this call, our community members who stay involved demanding that moving forward.
Speaker 2: And so their responsibility to realizing kind of the soul and the vision of a plan and even what it misses becomes a lot of our responsibility after the fact. So I hope that.
Speaker 4: The work that's gone into the East Area plan.
Speaker 2: We'll do something similar to that in the future. And I also will be supporting it tonight.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Torres. Councilman Sandoval.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. I just wanted to say thank you to the two council members who brought this forward. I worked on a couple of neighborhood plans as a council aide, and I never had four languages with interpretation. So when we're talking about equity and we're talking about access, I want to just bring that to light that tonight at council we had four different languages and English spoken and made access and room for everybody. That is really telling to get community out and to get us out this late and to be participating and to be able to feel, have the ability to speak up. I think that talks a lot about the process and it talks a lot about how I always think about community outreach is like an onion and you want to peel back the different layers to get into the center of it and to get this many people speaking out in support or opposition. But the fact that we had so much community show up speaks volumes to me on how deep of outreach and how impactful the outreach was. And to Liz and Kurt, thank you for your steadfast leadership. I know going into this is not easy and a lot of times you are seen as the force that you have to be up against. And so to still hold that space and create it safe so people can talk about things because one thing you're going to hear is home is where the heart is. And so you start talking about people's homes and you start talking about things. It's usually a person's biggest investment. And so to be able to hold those spaces so people can talk about their homes and have respectful discourse, it's not easy. And I know that you're not that taught that in planning school, so thank you for doing that and thank you for holding those spaces. And to the two council members, it shows volumes on the kind of community outreach that you've done, and I look forward to looking at your EDU process in the future. And with that, I will be supporting this prep plan. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Sandoval. And I'll wrap up quickly here. Congrats to Councilwoman Sawyer and Councilman Herndon. I know that this was a heavy, heavy lift multiple years and your engagement with the community, whether they liked it or didn't, you had that engagement with them. And I think that that's so important and I appreciate that and all of the CPD staff time as well. My husband and I, we lived for a bit of time. Our first home was at 1960 Verbena, and so this entire area is near and dear to my heart and just wanting to make sure that we're able to maintain the important diversity that we have in this neighborhood, especially with black and brown folks. And so I look forward to the the work that's going to come forward, but the work that you have already done and put into this plan and I will be supporting it tonight as well. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 20, Dash 1132 as amended, please.
Speaker 2: Herndon.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Sawyer. I find.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Cashman. I can eat. I have Ortega. I. Sandoval. I. Today. I. Black I. See the background. No. Park.
Speaker 1: All right.
Speaker 2: Flynn.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 4: One May.
Speaker 2: 12. I.
Speaker 0: 12 Eyes Council Bill 20 dash 1132 as amended has passed the pre adjournment announcement on Monday, December 14th. Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 1159, changing the zoning classification for 30 to 2510 Argo Street in five points.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance approving and accepting the East Area Plan, which plan shall become a part of the Comprehensive Plan 2040 for the City and County of Denver pursuant to the provisions of Section 12-61 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code.
Adopts the East Area Plan, as part of the city's Comprehensive Plan. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 10-20-20.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11092020_20-0966
|
Speaker 4: Looking at the blueprint Denver future growth strategies again this is these parcels are considered community centers and corridors which are anticipated to see around 25% of new housing growth and 20% of new employment growth by 2040. Most growth in the city is guided to regional centers, community centers and corridors and select districts of high and medium, high intensity residential areas. And this community centers and corridor certainly falls within that anticipated growth pattern. So Blueprint Denver contains three equity concepts to help guide change to better to benefit everyone, and each equity concept has associated measurements that help inform implementation actions through large rezonings and one with other implementation actions. CPD undergoes the equity analysis when a parcel is proposed to be zoned at five acres or larger at 5.1 acres, this site did undergo an equity analysis. Our first equity concept is access to opportunity. So the basis for measuring access opportunity is a composite of the Neighborhood Equity Index developed by Department of Public Health and Environments, proximity to high capacity, infrequent transit and access to centers and corridors. Access to opportunity helps us to consider if we are making progress towards achieving the vision for complete neighborhoods across the city. So this subject property is an area with moderate access to opportunity score as well. One access to community corridors and centers and scores average on the equity index measurements. Those are social determinants of health, access to health care, child morbidity and built environment subjects while scoring poorly on access to transit. I did want to caveat that, that the access to access to transit metric is specific to two rail transit. There is a so while the subject site scores poorly on access to transit due to little proximity to light rail stations, the RTD number three bus line has a stopped directly in front of the property on Alameda Avenue. The second equity concept is vulnerability to involuntary displacement. Basis for measuring this metric is the vulnerability to use Displacement Index, developed by the Denver Economic Development and Opportunity Office. This combines data from median household income percentage of people who rent and percentage of population with less than a college degree. This application scores actually. Pardon me, the parcels associated with this application score a moderate to high vulnerability to involuntary displacement, displacement scoring vulnerable. In two of the three metrics that's median household income ratio and bachelor's degree attainment ratio and not vulnerable on the third metric of rental occupancy ratio. The application identifies the Salvation Army's housing and components are paired with programs that provide career guidance and workforce training, initiatives that allow those living on their property the opportunity to incrementally move their way up, creating new and better opportunities. Staff finds that this rezoning application has the potential to have a positive impact on the vulnerability to displacement metric if the Salvation Army is able to. To continue with the services that they have outlined in their application. So the third concept in equity is expanding housing and jobs, diversity. We're looking at the housing map here. Housing diversity map combines census tract level data measuring the percentage of middle density housing, and that's housing with 2 to 19 units. Home size, diversity, ownership versus rental housing costs and the number of income restricted units. So this parcel is in an area that scores not diverse in four of the five metrics. There is diversity in home size, but housing diversity, tenure diversity, housing costs and number of affordable units. Are all. Not as diverse as. As as desired. The application. The applicant states in the application that the proposed development on the site would create a greater mix and range of housing types in the Burnham West neighborhood, offering diversity and housing types with amenities attached and supported by programs through the Salvation Army. Steph concurs with this based just on the on the base zoning of the mixed three, multi-unit residential is an allowed use in the proposed zone district and that can have a positive impact on the housing diversity by allowing an increase in the number of multi-unit residences in the area. And finally, to jobs diversity. So this map shows the mix of jobs depicted by color within the city block groups with less than 100 total jobs, including the block that this parcel falls in, do have less than 100 jobs. So we're left out of the analysis. So there are not a whole lot of jobs located in this area. The proposed zone district max three allows for a very for various commercial office and retail jobs. And increasing access to a range of many quality jobs enables people of different incomes and education levels to find employment and wealth building opportunities as there are few jobs in this area. Staff finds that this application could have a positive impact on the area's job diversity by allowing a zone district that allows for more and different commercial and. Office retail uses. Moving on to consistency with the neighborhood plan. So the Barnham Barnham West Neighborhood Plan was adopted in 1986. Some of the key concepts within the plan were a desire to maintain residential zoning along West Alameda, developed setbacks and landscape policies for new developments within the neighborhood business zones. Focus on developer owner occupied infill and am looking for traffic solutions. I wanted to call attention to one specific recommendation in this plan that is now 34 years old. It shall be the recommendation to maintain the residential zoning along West LME Avenue and to selectively review any proposed developments which might be advantageous to neighborhood interests through the planned unit development approach. In the years since this plan guidance was initially developed, the city has moved away from a preference towards customized zoning and plan unit developments. The adoption of the 2010 Danbury Zoning Code greatly increased the menu of available zoned districts, with the hope that customized zoning would be less necessary. And given the many more standard options now available that could be tailored best to a community needs. Further blueprint Denver explicitly recommends against the use of custom zoning solutions, such as periods when standard zoned district solutions are available due to the problems that arise, inconsistency and inefficiency of administration, among other challenges. So I just wanted to point out that that recommendation for a PD approach would seem to be outdated with current plans. And while a mixed use zone district is not a residential zone district, the M three does not preclude the development of residential uses. And in fact, the applicant is. Again, not germane to this rezoning application, but the applicant is proposing to develop four multifamily I'm sorry, multi unit residential in this area. Criteria. Two, there are no waivers or special considerations being made. It will be standard zoned district being adopted, which is consistent with uniformity of district regulations. Number three, furthering of public health, safety and welfare. This rezoning is consistent with this criteria, primarily through implementation of adopted plans and allowing for a mixed use of districts which enable a mix of uses on one zone which allows people to live , work and play in the same area. Reducing car trips and achieving improved public health outcomes. For a justifying circumstances. A significant portion of the person has retained chapter former Chapter 59 zoning in the form of 5550. So that in and of itself is a justifying circumstance to get it into a new standard zone district. And the applicants also note the change to such a degree that the proposed rezoning is in the public interest and that is specific to the e sud x parcel two on the eastern edge of the proposed rezoning. Geoff also finds that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the neighborhood context on district purposes and intense the request to the maximum district is within their advantage. Neighborhood context again generally consists of single and two unit residential with uses with small scale multi-unit residential uses and commercial areas typically embedded in the residential areas. And the general purpose for the mixed use zone districts, as stated in the DCC, is to promote safe, active and pedestrian scaled diverse areas through the use of building forms that clearly define and activate the public street edge and ensure new development contributes positively to established residential neighborhood and character, and improves the transition between commercial development and adjacent residential neighborhoods. I also wanted to take this moment to clarify that this parcel would be subject to protected district standards as it is surrounded by some single unit and two unit zoning. So keep that in mind as well. And again, talking about the earmarked three districts specifically applies to areas or intersections or primarily by collector or arterial streets where a building scale of 1 to 3 stories is desired and the property to be resolved is on Alameda Avenue, which is classified as a mixed use arterial street, and the desired building heights articulated in redacted plans are up to five stories. And again, the request here is only to go to three. CVD recommends City Council approve the application based on a finding that all review criteria have been met. The applicants are available for questions, as am I. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, James. Council has not received any written testimony on Council Bill 966, and we have six individuals signed up to speak this evening. And I'd like to remind the speakers to please give us your name and city of residence.
Speaker 5: And our first.
Speaker 0: Speaker is going to be Brant Bartels.
Speaker 4: Madam President, Brant is with the applicant team and perhaps is not prepared to offer testimony at this time. All right. He should be on the line.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Check in with the staff. We want to, at least since we're in the public hearing portion, have Brant. Come on up. Because if he'll answer questions, we want to acknowledge him. And so we'll go ahead and. I try to get. It's not looking like we have Brant. So we'll go ahead and move on to Brian Conley.
Speaker 4: Good evening, Madam President. Members of council, this is Brian Conley with the law firm of Arden Johnson. I'm the project's land use attorney, and Brant and I are both on for the purpose of answering questions. So I'll leave it at that. And Major Richard Pease of the Salvation Army is I'm going to be giving the outlook and presentation.
Speaker 5: All right.
Speaker 4: I Major Richard Pease. I reside in Lake.
Speaker 0: Oh, you know, we're going to go ahead, Mr. Pease. We have you scheduled a bit further down, so we'll.
Speaker 4: Go.
Speaker 0: And come back to you here. Next up, we have Jessie Parris first. Go ahead, Jessie.
Speaker 3: Was a council that marched Apple. The missile. Pierce and I live in District eight. In Denver, Colorado. Now from Denver, it's now black star for self defense calls for social change as well as the of Colorado and mile high schools. Now will be the next mayor of Denver in 2023. And a few questions for the occupant. With this rezoning, I want to know exactly what is going to be here. A saying something about mixed use commercial. Is it going to be shops? Is it going to be a mix of housing and shops? If there's going to be house, then what is going to be the Amala before the house? And if there's not going to be house, then what kind of shops are going to be present and how long? If doing so, would it be actually affordable? Would it be for 20, 60 years? 100 years? And was there a traffic study done? It's not complete to answer those questions. I was going. Appreciate it. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Jesse. Next step now we have Richard piece. Go ahead, sir. And we're going to need to go ahead, Richard, and have you unmute.
Speaker 4: All right. Have you got me there now? Mm hmm.
Speaker 0: Yep. Go ahead.
Speaker 4: Great. So I'm Major Richard Pease with the Salvation Army. I'm a resident of Lakewood, but I do work at the Salvation Army on 1370 Pennsylvania Street here in downtown Denver. So, honorable members of city council, it's my privilege to represent Salvation Army this evening. I would just share with you that we are committed to serving our neighbors in need in the Denver metro area. Having been here since 1887, keeping our promise of doing the most good for our community. And we plan to do so for at least the next 133 years. We are seeking this rezoning as our property is currently under a very restrictive period which effectively only allows for what is currently built on the site and prevents us from best serving the needs of Denver rights. The proposed IMX three zone district would allow us to build housing first trauma informed model bridge housing, providing comprehensive case management for up to 85 homeless families at a time, enabling them to get back on their feet to build a new core community center, which would be a gathering place for the neighborhood, providing after school programs, a gymnasium that the community may use, programs for seniors and much more, and to build a new regional headquarters and administration building on our property. While Blueprint Denver Height Guidance calls for up to five stories on this site, we believe the proposed zone district allows for a project that will provide significant community benefits while being in line with the character of the neighborhood. We're particularly excited about the opportunity to build the new bridge housing, which will expand on the success of our existing Lamberth Family Center at 29th and federal. Last year, 79 families were served using the Housing First Trauma Informed Care model, and 98% of them exited into permanent, stable housing, giving the current circumstances, we believe more strongly than ever that housing like this will be necessary for families in the years to come. We also believe that this will be a win for the residents of the city and county of Denver. Building on our existing partnership with Denver, working together, we will continue to address the issue of homelessness among families in a Housing First trauma informed care model that seeks to break the cycle of poverty and meet people where they are at. Together, we can provide life transforming services to our neighbors in need. We hope to have your support and we are happy to answer any questions that you may have on this rezoning proposal.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our last speaker is comrade defense.
Speaker 4: Hello. City Council of Denver. Fuck you. Me, Major. Whatever. From the Salvation Army. 75 families. Really? 75 families. Today alone, myself and some comrades fed over 200 individuals and families. I distributed over $300 worth of emergency winter gear that the city and county of Denver fails to do. It is going to be freezing tonight. It is wet outside. People are going to die. And we're talking about rezoning. We're talking about pedestrian friendly walkways, which really is just a racist term and a way in which you're going to prevent homeless people from being able to find somewhere to survive. Fuck you.
Speaker 3: Major. Fuck you.
Speaker 5: We'd ask you to please address.
Speaker 0: The council as a whole.
Speaker 4: Figure out how to better serve the city. These are residents. They're human beings. People. It's not people. Over the top property. Over people. People over property. I am ashamed of how this city is falling apart.
Speaker 3: Fences everywhere. What is this, The Hunger Games?
Speaker 0: We're asking you to. Where are you on the rezoning for zero nine?
Speaker 4: Getting their houses dry, cozy while thousands are freezed. Seeing what you can actually see.
Speaker 0: From the.
Speaker 2: There. I don't give a fuck.
Speaker 5: I read.
Speaker 4: My first three.
Speaker 0: Merits of the fuck.
Speaker 3: You President. Fuck you. It's a race.
Speaker 5: To.
Speaker 0: Go ahead.
Speaker 5: On.
Speaker 0: The merits of the rezoning. All right. Thank you. That concludes our speakers this evening. Questions from members of council. Councilwoman Torres.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 5: My first question is for James from CPD. One of the things that you mentioned wasn't something I have a lot of understanding about. It was the subject to protected district standards. Can you describe that a little bit more for me?
Speaker 4: Absolutely. So the protected districts are any of our single unit or two unit districts within the city of Denver. And the protected district standards are specifically designed for the single and two unit zone districts that are adjacent to non protected districts. So in adjacent to mixed use zone districts or commercial zone districts or something like that. And I don't have the memorized, but there are, you know, a series of setbacks and setbacks and things that are designed to allow white access and deference in general to the single unit and to unit zone districts. You know, in recognition of it being a, you know, there being a transition area from community corridor areas to more residential areas.
Speaker 5: What would that look like with with this particular project?
Speaker 4: So that would look like, as I sort of mentioned, enhanced setbacks and and setbacks in bulk planes to properties. So this is there are single unit districts to the specifically to the north. Weather map for you. So again, to the north, west and east, there are single unit zone districts in direct proximity to this parcel, so they would have to comply with additional set back and bulk plan requirements. I don't have them pulled up off the top of my head, but it's a.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I know James Justin even in big picture, not really knowing what like blueprints are what they're exactly planning the the prop there's a big green there's a big open field in a large part of the property. If they were to build something there, you're talking about four three stories. It wouldn't be three stories right up to the house. It would have.
Speaker 4: Yes, that's exactly that's exactly what we're talking about.
Speaker 5: Okay. Okay. And, Major. I'm sorry, Mr. Pease. The. Question around. The project that you're you're hoping to build. I'm I'm thrilled about the prospective of the community center there, the bridge housing. It really is one of those kind of housing components that's desperately needed. I am curious, though, about the potential of it not getting built and what would happen to the property in in that circumstance.
Speaker 4: So. Councilmember, we would not proceed with construction until we have the funds for the project. And unless we do the project, we don't plan on making any changes to the property. So we've been there since the seventies and we're not planning on going anywhere. We just want to improve the services that we provide on our property.
Speaker 5: Okay. Madam President, I think those were all of my questions for now.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Torres. Councilwoman Ortega, you're up.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam President. My first question is for James. James, on this particular site, will there be a separate curb cut into the property or will they have to pull it off one of the side streets? I'm trying to figure out whether or not that's going to require any approvals from C dot. I believe this is a state highway corridor. I could be wrong about that, but wanted to get your input on that.
Speaker 4: Thank you for the question, Councilwoman Ortega. I do not know the answer to that question and I would be happy to try and find it out for you.
Speaker 5: Okay. I know with some of our projects that we've done in various areas of the city where it does require a curb cut, sometimes it hasn't always been that cooperative. And I'm not sure, Mr. Pease, you may be able to speak to kind of where the traffic will come off of Alameda into this site.
Speaker 4: Sure. I would just we would continue to use the curb cut that we have that goes to our existing senior residents. That would be the main curb cut. We do also actually have three three on the property already, and we're actually going to be taking that down to two. So certainly that all, I believe, happened during the design phase.
Speaker 5: Okay. And so besides the 85 units, first of all, can you talk about what the bedroom sizes are that you're looking at? And then is there any other anticipated housing besides those 85 units?
Speaker 4: So certainly the current plans are still in development, but we're looking at a 450 square foot apartment per family that has the bedrooms and a bathroom in it, and there would be no additional housing on the campus.
Speaker 5: So those are very big families. There are only 450 square feet.
Speaker 4: They're about twice the size of our current rooms at the Lambeth Family Center.
Speaker 5: Okay. Okay, let's see. So will you be looking to get any low income tax credits for the project?
Speaker 4: We would certainly be open to any funding opportunities that would be available. And I would also. I'm sorry. Go ahead, Councilmember.
Speaker 5: I'm just asking if you have someone on your team that's familiar with the low income tax credit process, because it can be very cumbersome and it's rare that an applicant gets funding their first time out of the chute. It also requires support from the city if you're going to be asking for any city financing, because that helps sort of, you know, kind of line you up for for a greater approvals at the at the charter level.
Speaker 4: Sure. We do have legal counsel that's familiar with the low income housing tax credit process, and we have been successful in other jurisdictions in obtaining that. So we're confident that if we were to move in that direction, we could be successful in partnering with the city on on getting that. And then if I could, just going back to your question about the unit sizes. I did want to mention that we are actually designing the property as well to have all of the the units be interconnected with adjoining doors so that as family sizes change, we could scale up to give them two of the units if it's a a, you know, a six or eight member family. So we certainly wouldn't expect a large family to be put into a small space.
Speaker 5: Right. Okay. So the commercial space, a lot of that will be your admin offices moving to the campus still, is that correct?
Speaker 4: Correct. So the the we are moving our divisional headquarters, which serves as the regional administration for Colorado, Utah, Wyoming and half of Montana onto the property. We are taking it down from our current size, partly because of COVID, partly because of the requirements of the property. But it will give us a more cost effective way to serve the community and probably reuse a building we have on Capitol Hill that there are others in the community that could make better use of it than us.
Speaker 5: I was going to ask if that if this project is contingent on selling that property, or do you intend to continue to keep and utilize it for other purposes within your Salvation Army family?
Speaker 4: Sure. We do plan on on selling that property. We believe that there are significant folks in the community that would love to to be there and would provide a significant funding towards the project for the privilege.
Speaker 5: Okay. Thank you. Those are all the questions I have, Madam President.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. James, maybe you could address just the basic question for me on the selection of the image, the reason for this. Did you were any other zone designations considered with the applicant? There's already a five storey building on the site, six storeys. If you go on the north side downhill and IMX three is one, two, three storey. So I'm just wondering, does the existing.
Speaker 3: Building.
Speaker 4: Become a non-conforming use or was there some other zone designation that was that was discussed here? What an excellent question. Let me go to some of my hidden slides. I ask only excellent questions. The reason I ask is because if it does become a non-conforming use in the next three, there might be restrictions on alterations or changes to the existing building that might in the future be problematic. I'm just wondering if that was discussed and vetted. Yes, sir. So this question came up, that planning board as well pulled the relevant zone section or definition. So the five storey structure would become a compliant structure, which is a structure that was legally established that meets one of these two following conditions. So in this falls in number number two, the legally established structure was conforming under former Chapter 59 on June 24th, 2010, but does not currently comply with an rezoning code building height standards, citing form standards or design element form standards. So we have there are different levels of, you know, conforming compliance, illegal, irregular. This is the most lenient of those of those forms. They would not have issues. They couldn't put a sixth or seventh storey on top of it, obviously, but they would not have issues in modifying the existing structure. Okay. That was my one concern with this. Thank you, Madam President. That's all.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Sandoval.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Speaker 1: So my question is for the Salvation Army. You have your you used to be headquarters in Globeville, correct? SS Pennsylvania. Yeah, we had a site down there.
Speaker 4: If you're referring to our adult rehabilitation center, that was at the rate below where 25 and 70 crossed. That's actually a different part of the Salvation Army. That wasn't a facility under our purview.
Speaker 1: What part? How can you explain that in a different way?
Speaker 4: Sure. We have an adult rehabilitation center command that handles all of our adult rehabilitation centers in the 13 Western United States. And that is, well, we're one Salvation Army. We have different departments, as you can imagine. We're pretty, pretty significant sized. And so they handle the alcohol rehabilitation program. So that was their men's residence that is temporarily suspended operations. While we're trying to find they're trying to find a new location and restart that program. They do still have a women's residence here in operation in north northeast up near Westminster.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you. How can we guarantee that you won't sell this land? Now that I know you've been here for a long time, that in if you look at the redevelopment of Denver as a whole zone, districts that are red zone two or three stories have the most desirability through developers. And this one. Did you talk about adding a date and a development agreement with the Office of Housing Instability? Did you talk about entering into some type of housing agreement or a development agreement so that we can guarantee that the actual affordability of this land will be there?
Speaker 4: Oh. Oh, there you go, Brian. Yeah. Councilman, the end of all this is Brian Connelly, land use attorney for the project. We did have those conversations, as I think you're aware, at the Luti committee hearing. But the idea of having a development agreement that would basically obligate the Salvation Army to remain at this property was discussed, and we explored that with the city attorney's office. And I will just say that the Salvation Army was willing to enter into some type of agreement like that. The reality is that under both city and state law, zoning regulates, uses, not users. And so the city doesn't actually have the authority to enter into an agreement that would obligate a particular user to remain at the property. Now, with respect to the question of whether.
Speaker 1: Talking about so you're you're speaking to a different type of a development agreement, I would never want a development agreement that says the Salvation Army had to stay on the land. That's ridiculous. I'm talking about a development agreement that the city.
Speaker 2: Often.
Speaker 1: Times enters into where it requires affordability for the build for the for the developer. I would never. So if you have we're talking about a type of development agreement that made the Salvation Army stay with the land. That's not legal. But I'm talking about a type of development agreement that says if you redevelop this land, you will develop 80% units or ten 20% units at 80% AMI. That happens all the time.
Speaker 4: Yeah. And where that happens and I guess I would also, as a member of the city attorney's office to speak to this, where that typically happens is where there is an up zoning occurring, where there's a height increase that goes over and above what blueprint Denver calls for. And my understanding is that it's not the city's practice to require that where you have a zoning designation that generally complies with the blueprint designation, as is the case here.
Speaker 1: Well, that's that's new to me. So I've never heard that before because you can't get a rezoning if you don't follow Blueprint Denver standards. So each applicant has to be within the recommendations within Blueprint Denver's. It would be odd for us to be approving something that goes above and beyond the recommendations of Blueprint Denver. Correct. Intoning stay within the form of Blueprint Denver. And I'm working on several in my council district. So contrary to your belief, we, we, we enter into these all the time at Denver City and the city and company of Denver does.
Speaker 4: Correct in your code criteria though don't contemplate entry into a development agreement as just a matter of course.
Speaker 1: No, you're correct. It's not it's not required. There's nothing that is required right now because of the Telluride agreement until the state amends the Telluride. I'm asking why you didn't voluntarily do that. If that is your mission for the Salvation Army, it doesn't seem like it would be above and beyond anything that goes beyond the mission of the Salvation Army. It actually seems like it is in alignment with the Salvation Army and their mission to house those most vulnerable in who need housing. So I'm just wondering why it wasn't done yet.
Speaker 4: Like I say, Councilman Sandoval, we offered that we were willing to enter into this agreement. We were told that this was not a circumstance in which the city would enter into this type of agreement. So I guess I would defer to staff and the city attorney's office for further explanation.
Speaker 0: And Councilwoman Sandoval, we have Adam Hernandez from the city attorney's office.
Speaker 1: I don't think it. But but with all due respect, Madam President, it's not Adam Hernandez. It would be with someone, Britta. Because oftentimes we enter into our development agreements with the Housing the Office of Housing Stability. We don't enter into the agreements with Adam Hernandez. So I'll just I'll quit asking my questions. But I just find it interesting that you were not willing to enter into a development agreement when you are rezoning and you are abandoning the rest of the land from the current PWD. Thank you, madam. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Sandoval. And James, I think we can go ahead and have you stop sharing your screen for us. Thank you for putting up the complaint structure. Slide up. All right. And our next question is from Councilwoman Each.
Speaker 1: Thank you, ma'am. I'm president. A couple of the questions here I think might be clarified by a little more clarity on the type of housing. So, major, please, you use this term bridge housing, which kind of is, you know, I think it may be an insider term. Can you clarify a little bit about the difference between bridge housing and like what we would consider permanent housing? That is an apartment with a kitchen that, you know, so tax credits, for example, and some of the types of housing agreements were describing are generally for permanent housing, where a family has a lease and they get to stay until, you know, the end. And so can you just, I think, talk a little bit more about bridge housing and what it is and how it's different.
Speaker 4: I'd be happy to. So bridge housing, which uses the Housing First trauma informed care model, is specifically designed to be 90 days or less. So the idea here is not that we're building transitional housing. That's up to two years, which is, as you mentioned, one of the requirements generally of low income housing tax credits, which is why we've thought about it, but not really explored that too deeply. That is the model that we use at Lambeth, which is very successful and we believe that in moving forward with that model, if we expand to 85 units, we could conceivably for those who don't know, Lambeth Family Center has 20 units, so we're talking over four times the number of units, which means that we could conceivably help four times as many families each and every year with with our bridge housing, which, as I said, is up to 90 days, offers intensive case management. We also do some case management after the fact, combined with several other programs that we do, as well as other providers in the Metro Denver Homeless Initiative and the various partners that we have, including the city and county of Denver and with host that is that helpful? Councilmember.
Speaker 1: I hope so. Thank you. Okay. I'll I'll I'll save the rest of your comments. Thank you.
Speaker 4: All right. You're welcome.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Hines.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 4: Major peace. Do you. Do you currently serve anyone who needs this housing? Is there. Is there anyone that you might turn away who might apply or be interested in this housing? No, councilmember, we. Our mission is to meet human need without discrimination, so we do not turn folks away. I do know that we do work very closely with coordinating entry to make sure that folks are coming through, both coming through coordinated entry so that we can make sure they have access to all of the resources that are available throughout Denver Metro. That's just more of a technical side of things, but we definitely do not turn away folks that are in need. So there's there aren't any classes or protected classes like the LGBT community except anyone who applies or anyone who meets the qualification space available. Yeah, typically the qualification is the spaces available and you generally have to be literally homeless or we have a referral through a coordinated entry. So other than that, to be honest, we don't ask any of those other questions because they're not relevant when someone is homeless or hungry or cold or needing needing housing. Thank you, Major. I would agree. One other question. What about accessibility for people with disabilities who people who have mobility impairments or intellectual disabilities? Is that are you are you considering that population as well? We are as we as we develop the program elements. Certainly, this is kind of an on ongoing process to improve that. Certainly the building will be built to all ADA specifications. And then from a programs perspective, we will make sure that we tailor that's part of the the Housing First trauma informed care piece that goes into that may have we have several experts in our social services department that work with that and certainly we work with Host as well and would collaborate on making sure that we met those needs. Yeah. Thank you again, Major, for those comments. I think I actually saw you on the sidewalk in front of your location and cattle and that's my district. And I think you you happened to be walking by as I was rolling by. So could could be. I like walking out for lunch occasionally, especially down to the Great Wall. They have good orange chicken. Yeah. Yeah, I, I heard I've heard people come from all over the metro area to, um, to that particular Chinese restaurant, so . But your on your location and Kapil is a gem. I'll just. I'll just look at that. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Councilman. Councilman Torres.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam President. Major piece. What's the space? The square footage of the open space that you have now.
Speaker 4: I would have to defer to my team so much. I don't have that number off the top of my head. So either Brant or Brian, does one of you have that number? I don't have the current open space in the property and I think rent might be on. He may be a participant and with his hand raised.
Speaker 5: That's okay. I don't need an exact figure. Off topic. I'm just wondering if you had or the Salvation Army had considered whether or not this face could be used for an open campsite like a safe outdoor camping location.
Speaker 4: We have not discussed that with the Safe Outdoor Spaces Committee.
Speaker 5: Would you mind if I followed up with you about that?
Speaker 4: Sure. I'd be happy to to discuss that with you, Councilmember.
Speaker 5: Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Torres. All right. Seeing no other questions from my colleagues. The public hearing for Council Bill 20 Dash 20966 is closed. Comments by members of Council. Council Member Torres.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam President. This I appreciate the amount of engagement that the Salvation Army has done with neighbors and through a number of back and forth comments. I think it was really important that all of the property owners and residents that surround this property in what is now a pretty large, wide open space, know and appreciate kind of what what your vision is and and and what your what you're hoping to build. I 85 units is 85 units. And I think everyone is is necessary and needed. And so I appreciate the work that you've all undertaken to to try to bring that to reality. Thank you, Madam President. And I look forward to supporting the project.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Torres. Councilwoman Canete.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Madam President, I also just want to thank the team for having done outreach extensively over, I think probably well over a year ago, if not longer ago, that I first heard about this. And, you know, the inclusion of a range of services. Right. It's hard to believe gymnasiums right this moment. Right. It feels very far away in our future. But we know that more than ever, kids will need places to go to recreate when they can safely. And, you know, in particular, I think that bridge housing is is an example of the range of options we need. We have a lot of families that, you know, kind of fall off the cliff of motel and shelter before they're able to get the permanent housing. And so that that word bridge, it literally means kind of that that feeling of that gap. And so, you know, I do think that your history in the city and, you know, I appreciate the experience you all have had running emergency camps in other countries for those who are refugees of war and civil unrest. And in our case, we have economic conditions here. And so, you know, I also am assured I appreciated the questions about not turning anyone away, although our federal government took a minute to try to undo a number of anti-discrimination provisions in the shelter arena, which I think bridge housing will more likely fit under that than housing. But we also have state public accommodations laws that cover the full range of housing. And so if anyone needs, you know, reassurance about that, we've spent a lot of time over the past few years educating providers on the range of anti-discrimination protections. So I'm excited that that we are, you know, moving forward with this rezoning today that meets the criteria in particular for the land use change proposed. But it's always great when the use is also something our community needs. So thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Canete. And I'll go ahead and chime in as well. But based on the criteria, this rezoning meets all of the guidelines that are laid out for it, and I would encourage folks to support it. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 2: Tourist. I. Black I. See tobacco. Clark, I. When?
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 2: Brendan, I. Hi. I. Cashman.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 2: I. Ortega, I. Well, I. Sawyer. I. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the result.
Speaker 2: Climate.
Speaker 0: 12 Eyes Council Bill 966 has passed. Councilmember Black, will you please put council bill? 1027 on the floor for final passage.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 4407, 4501, 4505, 4601, and 4595 West Alameda Avenue in Barnum West.
Approves an official map amendment to rezone property from PUD 550 and E-SU-Dx to E-MX-3 (single unit to mixed-use), located at 4407, 4501, 4505, 4595, and 4601 West Alameda Avenue in Council District 3. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 9-22-20.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11092020_20-1027
|
Speaker 0: 12 Eyes Council Bill 966 has passed. Councilmember Black, will you please put council bill? 1027 on the floor for final passage.
Speaker 1: Yes, Madam President, I move that council bill 20 dash 1027 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It's been moved and seconded. You've got either Herndon or Hines.
Speaker 3: Herndon.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Herndon, the combined public hearing for Council Bill 1027 and Council Bill 1028 is open. Speakers may offer comments on either, 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 we have Liz Weigel up.
Speaker 1: It evening. Thank you, Madam President. And Council members. Can you see my presentation carefully? This presentation will cover both the Text Amendment and Map Amendment, both of which are sponsored by Councilwoman Amanda Sandoval in order to allow accessory dwelling units or to use in the Chaffee Park neighborhood. The tax amendment creates a new zone district, the ESU B1 district, which would allow accessory dwelling units on single unit residential lots with a minimum lot size of 2500 square feet. The map amendment reasons all single unit residential districts in Chevy Park to allow accessory dwelling units. While I'm presenting the two amendments to concurrently text amendment must be considered for approval first. This will allow consideration of the MAP amendment pending the establishment of a new zone district. The proposed rezoning is located within Council District one in the Chaffee Park neighborhood. It includes the area in Chevy Park that has residential zoning. This includes approximately 1400 parcels bounded by Federal Boulevard, Osage Street, 52nd Avenue and Interstate 70. The proposed Map amendment intends to rezone properties between federal and town that are currently ESU dx2 ESU d1x properties b between Tyrone and Paco Street that are currently ESU B to the proposed ESU b one zone district properties between Pecos and Osage that are currently ESU d t s d once the proposed zone, districts are the same as the current zoning districts, except that they would allow accessory dwelling unit use either within the primary structure or in a detached structure. Similarly, the new ESU b one district would retain the same standards of the ESU district, but would allow it to use. I'll go over the existing context. The proposed rezoning area is currently if you be if you Denise had access I mentioned all three zone districts are single unit residential districts and they allow the Urban House primary building form with a maximum height of 30 to 35 feet. The district also allows the suburban house primary building form. There is a view plane in this portion of this area that starts at the park at 4/51 Street and extends towards downtown. This results in building height limits, ranging from approximately 34 square feet at the south end of the park to approximately 75, 79 feet towards Interstate 70. This range of heights generally exceeds the allowable maximum height for both the current and proposed zone districts and does not.
Speaker 4: Impact the rezoning.
Speaker 1: In terms of existing land use. The area is predominantly single unit residential land use that you can see in yellow. On this map. There are a few public and quite public uses throughout and the proposed rezoning is adjacent to a commercial office mixed use, parking, open space and some industrial uses. Here are some images from within the.
Speaker 5: Proposed.
Speaker 1: Rezoning, with examples from each of the three zoned districts. And here are some images from surrounding areas. The Council office worked closely with the Chevy Park Neighborhood Association and began outreach for this rezoning last fall. This outreach included fliers canvasing two town halls and an online survey. We also took the text amendment to the agency's Zoning and Planning Committee in July of this year. The application was formally submitted in May of 2020, and on September 16th, the Planning Board voted unanimously to recommend approval. 12 speakers at that hearing, ten in support and two in opposition. CPD has received a letter of support from the Chevy Park Neighborhood Association. We've also received 26 comments in support from members of the public, citing a desire and appropriateness for its use in this neighborhood and the importance of use as a tool to promote affordability and aging in place opportunities. We've also received six comments in opposition, citing concerns around parking density, neighborhood character and short term rental. Because this rezoning is legislative, you know, it is only subject to three review criteria shown here. Text amendment is subject to these same criteria, so I will discuss them together. But the first is consistency with adopted plans. So we do find that the press text and map amendments are consistent with several strategies from current Plan 2040 shown here, and there are a few that I'll call out specifically. The amendments are consistent with the to these two equity strategies because the text amendment creates a new zone districts that will allow any use and the map amendment enables it to use in the entire neighborhoods. Use can provide additional housing options, including those for seniors and families, and they can provide residents more flexibility to remain in their homes. The amendments are consistent with our climate strategy because they will allow additional housing units on lots with existing houses where we have existing infrastructure and services such as sewer, water and transit in place. In Blueprint ever the theories called out as an urban edge context. The proposed zone districts are consistent with this plan direction, which would remain predominantly residential.
Speaker 4: With.
Speaker 1: A single and two unit uses. The proposed.
Speaker 5: Zone.
Speaker 1: District are consistent with the future places mapping, which is called out as low residential and described as single and two unit and places where accessory dwelling units are appropriate. There are some residential collectors and arterials in the area, but most of the.
Speaker 4: Streets.
Speaker 1: In the rezoning are on designated locals.
Speaker 2: Under.
Speaker 1: The Blue Point growth strategy. These areas are expected to see 10% of job growth and 20% of housing growth by 2040. The additional accessory dwelling units permitted.
Speaker 5: By the.
Speaker 1: Rezoning would be consistent with that growth strategy. The amendments are also consistent with additional strategies and blueprint. These are detailed in the staff report, but I'll briefly summarize them here. A policy for of our land. Usain Bolt form section states that we should diversify housing choice by through the expansion of accessory dwelling units throughout all our residential areas in the city. Policy 11 recommends that we implement Blueprint's plan recommendations through large scale legislative legislative rezoning, which should include community input and be guided by our equity concepts. Now Policy five focuses on the importance of mitigating involuntary displacement, which I'll discuss in the next few slides. So similar to the reasoning you just heard text amendments and a large map amendment should be guided by our equity concepts and blueprint over the first of which I'll go over access to opportunity. This is a composite score that includes our Neighborhood Equity Index, also proximity to high capacity, frequent transit and access to centers and corridors. The Chevy Park neighborhood has moderate scores in this category, with access to rail transit lower and access to centers and corridors marrying throughout the neighborhoods. The text amendments create ECB. One will create a new zone district within our urban edge context to allow to use, which would allow more residents to live in neighborhoods with access to amenities and quality of life infrastructure. The proposed rezoning in Chaffee Park will bring more residents to an area that has access to health care, high life expectancy, and it does have access to bus transit and corridors and centers in some portions of the neighborhood. The proposed rezoning will not have a direct impact on creating new corridors or centers, as it will only allow residential uses. The second equity concept is vulnerability to involuntary displacement, and this is a score that includes median household income, percent of renter occupied units, and the percent of residents with less than a college degree. Chaffee Park is more vulnerable based on median household income and education levels, as shown in bold on the slide. It does have high homeownership. The text amendment will allow more properties in the urban edge context neighborhoods to establish an 82 on their property, which can be an important opportunity to build wealth and help keep current residents in place. It also provides more options for households for.
Speaker 4: Vulnerable.
Speaker 1: To displacement to stay in the neighborhoods. The proposed map will similarly provide opportunities for existing homeowners to supplement their income, while also increasing housing options and allowing a greater range of incomes to live in the neighborhoods. The third equity concept is housing diversity, and this includes five measures, including the percent of middle density housing, home size, diversity of bedroom size, ownership versus rental housing costs and the number of income restricted units. Chevy Park is considered not diverse for the three measurements shown in bold. The text amount amendment will expand housing diversity by allowing a new housing option that is typically smaller and a different price point than existing single unit homes, often found in urban edge neighborhoods. The map amendment to allow it to use will introduce a new housing type to Chaffee Park and bring more renters to a largely owner occupied single unit residential neighborhood. The last equity concept is jobs diversity. This map shows the mix of jobs and areas of the city with the dominant industry depicted by color. Chevy Park shows a greater proportion of retail and manufacturing jobs compared to the city overall. The text amount map amendments will have a negligible impact on jobs for the city because their residential district. And I will also cover housing inclusive difference. This plan was adopted in 2018 and contains recommendations that are relevant to the Text and Map amendment. The plan recommends expanding the development of accessory dwelling units as they incentivize affordable and mixed use housing. It also promotes their development as a wealth building tool.
Speaker 4: For low and moderate.
Speaker 1: Income homeowners. The proposed text and Map amendment expand access to A2 use and are therefore consistent with these recommendations. In terms of the additional criteria, we define that the amendments will result in uniform regulations applicable to all new development within the urban edge zone districts. The proposed Text Amendment and Map Amendment will further public health, safety and general welfare by implementing Blueprint Denver.
Speaker 4: For.
Speaker 1: Excuse me, the proposed rezoning. We'll also improve public health outcomes by allowing more residents in an area that has higher life expectancy and access to health care, plus.
Speaker 4: Transit.
Speaker 1: Centers and corridors. It will also further the general welfare of the city by providing more housing, diversity and opportunities to help residents at a range of income levels continue to live in the neighborhoods. Given the finding that all review criteria have been met, staff does recommend approval of both the TEX Amendment and the MAP amendment.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Liz, for the staff report. Council has not received any written testimony on Council Bill 1027 NOR Council Bill 1028. And we have seven individuals signed up to speak this evening. And we will start out with Jason Warnock.
Speaker 4: Hi there. Sorry about that. Good evening. My name is Jason Hornick, and I live at 50th and Decatur Street. I'm on the board of the Chevy Park Neighborhood Association, and I'm the leader of our ADU Task Force. So I'm delighted by the opportunity to speak in support of both items on this historic bill. This vote is the culmination of a two year effort that began when multiple residents approached the R.A. asking how they could build an ADU on their property. After consulting with CPD and examining the comprehensive plan, we realized that the best path forward would be to pursue a mass legislative rezoning with the help of our city council office . With their leadership, we performed extensive outreach in the neighborhood, and I'm very proud that we were able to show that a majority of our residents are in favor of this gentle increase in density. The physical character of Chaffee Park hasn't changed that much since it was built in the 1940s. But the situation around it has changed quite a bit. This neighborhood was on the edge of town. It was built, but it's now just two neighborhoods away from the downtown of a major American city with miles of sprawl on the other side. Even though Chaffee, the park's built environment, remained stable, despite all this external change, our land values have skyrocketed, which has caused economic and social instability for our residents. Under our current zoning code, our residents only have two options to deal with this instability. Stay and try to keep up with their rising property taxes or they can cash in and sell their property and move away. We're trying to give people a third option, one, where they can capitalize on the increasing land value without having to move out. An option that could allow them to alleviate the pressures of increasing housing costs and provide care for their extended family without sacrificing their independence.
Speaker 3: An option that won't benefit them. It won't just benefit them as the.
Speaker 4: Owner of the property, but will benefit the person that rents it as well by providing them a reasonably priced home. This option allows us, the residents of Chaffee Park, to do something this city has been struggling with for years, providing more housing. Legalizing 80 years will give us that option. So I won't directly benefit from this bill as I won't be building an ad on my property. But I strongly believe that my neighbors should have the right to do so if they choose. Because I realize that this is bigger than me as an individual and it's bigger than us as a neighborhood. It's about the city and our land use values as a whole. We're growing so fast that attempting to live the same way we did in the past is actively harming our future. So our comprehensive plan clearly recommends that 80 years should be allowed by right everywhere in the city. I'm extremely proud of the work we did to get here tonight, and I'm very thankful for our council, women's leadership and courage. And I'm hopeful this process provides enough proof of concept that it should be legalized across the whole city without having to duplicate this effort neighborhood by neighborhood. So we can instead use that time to figure out ways to make them more affordable for the people that need them the most. And that will be our next effort. So if you vote yes, of course. Thank you very much for your time. Have a good night.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Frederick Glick.
Speaker 4: Hi. Good evening. My name is Fred Glick. I reside at 3850 North York Street in the Clayton Neighborhood Council District number nine. I'm also a property owner in the Chaffee Park neighborhood. I'm here tonight to urge you to support this combined text amendment and map amendment to allow to use throughout the Chaffee Park neighborhood. The application before you tonight represents the outcome of an admirable and amazing public process in the R.A. and Councilwoman Sandoval and her staff deserve great respect and gratitude for their efforts. There are a lot of good reasons to allow aid use throughout the Chaffee Park neighborhood, providing opportunities for residents to age in place, helping homeowners to build their equity in their homes, enabling multi-generational and extended families to live together. The residents of Chaffee Park have also made clear that they would like the benefits of increased density, including opportunities for neighborhood retail, which would be made much more viable with increased density. When I participated.
Speaker 3: In one of the public.
Speaker 4: Sessions organized by Councilwoman Sandoval's office in the Arno, I heard people express fears that they wouldn't know who is living in their backyards. As the owner of an aide to you. I'd like to make sure it's clear if you choose to have an aide to you. You also get to choose what you do with it. Rent it out. How does a family member use it as a.
Speaker 3: Home office.
Speaker 4: Store? Old newspapers in it. We rent our Adu and we used.
Speaker 3: A web platform to take applications and conduct background checks on.
Speaker 4: Prospective tenants. We interviewed them called references. We chose who to rent our you to. In approving this application.
Speaker 3: You begin to fulfill the Denver Rite Mandate to allow.
Speaker 4: To use throughout the city the one off rezoning to allow you to use on individual properties the city is seeing more and more of are a barrier to those hoping to have a to use. Not everyone can readily afford the fees required and navigating the city rezoning process.
Speaker 3: Isn't necessarily easy. These one off.
Speaker 4: Rezonings also consume considerable city resources, which I cannot believe the city comes close to recouping through the fees charged. In many respects, the application before you tonight is about equity and opportunity. Many residents, including in my own neighborhood of Clayton, see the borders between where 80 use are allowed and where they are not as arbitrary. Many of my neighbors who are on the wrong side of the line would like the opportunity to have an ADU to house an aging parent, to generate additional income to do their part to help alleviate the housing supply crisis Denver faces. I hope you will not only approve this application, but also look at it as a model of what should come next, whether citywide or neighborhood by neighborhood. The ability for residents to have air to use should not be reliant upon whether they can risk the fees required.
Speaker 3: Whether they come to feel.
Speaker 4: Comfortable navigating the rezoning process. I thank you for your time and consideration.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Nola Miguel.
Speaker 1: Good evening, councilmembers. Nolan Miguel, 4930 Vallejo Street. I also live in Chevy Park and I'm part of the R.A. and I'm actually interested in this reason, both for personal reasons and for systemic reasons that I think are important for the whole city. I would like to build a Grammy flat and I say Grammy because that's what my kids call my mom. And I would like her to be able to move in my backyard, ideally or any place close to us. And we have been looking around the neighborhood walkable distance from our house.
Speaker 2: Where my kids to walk over to.
Speaker 1: And there's nothing in the neighborhood that's affordable under $400,000. We've been looking at ARIA, at the condos there, looking for housing there.
Speaker 2: We're looking over $400,000 for all of those options. She retired.
Speaker 1: About two years ago.
Speaker 4: From.
Speaker 2: The University of Wisconsin and would like move here because.
Speaker 3: All.
Speaker 2: Of us and especially her grandchildren.
Speaker 1: And we need a different a different type of option. We're also, you know, we have a pretty big lot. It's 10,000 feet. I'm very interested in the idea of activating our alleyway. It's a huge amount of space that it's unused and activated.
Speaker 2: Throughout the neighborhood.
Speaker 1: I also think that we have plenty of parking. I just just say that throughout the neighborhood and in our front and back yard, there's parking. Systemically, I think of as many have said so far, we really need affordable housing and rental options outside of just building large, large apartments. And this is a great infill option. Also very thankful to Councilwoman Sandoval and her office in figuring out a solution for the east part of the neighborhood. I'm really thankful that we could do this as a comprehensive neighborhood and appreciate all your work on this. Also, just 80, you should be across the city. It's the reason we've been looking at it in D.C. for a long time as well. But our little there's so many pressures in D.C. with with investments happening right now. That putting another thing in there just didn't seem like quite the right time. And we really would like to see this be across the whole city instead of being neighborhood by neighborhood. Also, those support services for low income homeowners is critical. Critical. We could I've looked into how much I could get for a loan, how much we could if we could figure this out. And we couldn't do this without the investment from my.
Speaker 5: Mom.
Speaker 1: To be able to build this. So I think it's critical to have investment strategies to do some of the West Denver Renaissance programing. Also, just to use, if possible, to have a structure that could be a one story garage and unit on the same level. That's really the most affordable.
Speaker 2: Thing to build. Thanks very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Lucia Brown.
Speaker 1: Hello. My name is Lucia Brown and I live in the Baker neighborhood in Council District seven with John. And I'm also president of the Baker Historic Neighborhood Association. And. We've had 80 youths in Baker forever. We had carriage houses built and so even before 80 were allowed in the zoning, we had them here because of grandfathering. I have a carriage house in my backyard and we converted. It was my husband's office for 16 years and we just converted it over to an apartment. And not only does it provide more necessary housing in Denver, it's an extra source of income. And so I'll when my husband retires, we'll still have some income coming in to the house. And I know that there are people who are concerned about like short term rentals and issues like that. But because Denver has such strong short term rental laws with the property having to be the primary residence, there really would be very little negative impact. And also the area of Chaffee County, I don't think would be a high demand area for short term rentals. It's not like it's close to downtown or close to a lot of amenities. So it would probably be more profitable for the home owners to lease long term. So I just want to be on the record as saying that I fully support this text of amendment change and I agree with NOLA that this should be done citywide and not neighborhood by neighborhood. It's a no brainer way to do gentle increase in density and allow for different kinds of housing options and allowing people to age in place. It also deals with being green, you know, more dense. It lowers your carbon footprint. So that's where I stand. And I appreciate the council allowing us to speak on this issue. All right. And hi.
Speaker 2: Everybody.
Speaker 0: Hello. Thank you. Next up, we have Susan Powers.
Speaker 5: Good evening, everyone. First of all, I wanted to thank Councilwoman Sandoval for bringing this forward. This is and actually also thank the Chaffee Park Neighborhood Association, because I think they're the most thoughtful, I know in the city. And how often do you have the R.A. coming here saying, yes, we have. We we approve this, we we recommend this. So I'm I'm I'm speaking as a property owner as part of the RDA Denver development within Chaffee Park. But I guess those percent 11 1475 Dale Gagne, which is District nine, the area Denver development, which is the 17 acre redevelopment of the former Mary Kress Convent, is immediately adjacent to this area. It's it's part of the city and in Chaffee Park is not part of this rezoning because it's being built out in in in ways where we have adus already there. And I am going to say, too, and if she's still listening to this, that we do have an affordable co-housing unit available. So I, I think I have to make sure that I let that person who was speaking earlier know that she maybe her mom can move in there. But I'm here to support this. We've been we've been involved with with this neighborhood for over 15 years, with the Mary Kris property. And we have intentionally developed it as a as a mixed income project will end up with for 40% of the units as as affordable as it's developed and finished up in the next two years. But I think that having the 82 option here is, as everybody has said, is gives people who are long term homeowners in the Chaffee Park neighborhood who are you know, it's the neighborhood that is being impacted by the growth that's coming from the south, the ability to stay in their homes, build a unit that might provide them with the income that is necessary for them to carry to carry on their normal life. In this in this neighborhood. We've I've watched this for the last however many years as as things have jumped across I-70 and have been concerned about whether the character of that neighborhood was going to change, to continue to change. And and I think this is a way to kind of counter some of that gentrification. So I hope that your support this tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Alison O'Kelly.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Can you hear me? All right?
Speaker 0: Go ahead. Perfect.
Speaker 1: Thank you. So, my name is Allison O'Kelly. I live in the 4800 block of Decatur Street in the neighborhood as well. I bought my home a little over seven years ago right before a property values started skyrocketing. So I was I was lucky to be able to afford a house at the time. And I'm lucky now to have realized some of those equity increases that Jason spoke about earlier this evening. I speak today in support of the neighborhood rezoning of the neighborhood. I do want to make sure I disclose that I do work in affordable housing. So I would support this gentle density increase in any neighborhood in Denver. But I do in particular as a resident of JP Park. I think that creating this neighborhood zoning allowance makes it possible for us to do so without creating the administrative burden that has already been discussed but is put upon the Planning and Zoning Commission, as well as any residents who would like to build an ADU. And so I think the fact that we're doing this is a neighborhood wide proposal has been a really smart thing. And I also agree with recommendations that this become a city wide approval rather than additional neighborhoods needing to go through the process that we did. I think that the height and setback limits on buildings that were discussed in the presentation earlier will ensure that there aren't any abuse that would cause negative impacts on the adjacent homes like I know a number of neighborhoods have been concerned about before ideas came in and they saw what the limits were on those. I also think that we can ensure community access in safety to the neighborhood because as NOLA said earlier, we have fairly wide streets and a lot of space for parking. Most of the houses in our neighborhood have parking both in the front and in the back. So access to those units is not going to create additional traffic and it's not going to create.
Speaker 2: A lot of mobility.
Speaker 1: Of the residents. I think that not everybody in the neighborhood will be in a financial position to start building 80 years if this is approved. I myself wouldn't build one anytime soon, but I think it's really important the opportunity that's going to provide to increase affordable housing in the neighborhood and homeownership stability. I think those of us who have elderly relatives in the neighborhood or in the broader metro area see this is a great opportunity to discuss with those family members the possibility of senior family members downsizing and being able to combine homes in a way that works for the entire family. And while I don't see myself doing that soon, my family, my parents live in North Glen and they're very vital seniors now. But things can always change. And I like the fact that we can look at this together as a potential opportunity down the road. So I do want to thank our council member and Naomi Grant as well. And I thank all of you for your time and hope you will support this. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our last speaker is Jesse Paris.
Speaker 3: It's getting in the middle of the council watching at on her. So Black star maximum for self defense. It makes it harder for social change as well as the Unity Party of Colorado email lines. And I live in district eight and Christopher Hamm is district and I will be the next member in 2023. I support this rezoning tonight and are one of the many hopes as our push for the green for city council our laws last year. And I am very familiar with this district because I've marked this area. Two years in a row for candidates that ran for office, most recently in the state Senate. So on the safety part area. So I'm a councilwoman and I support this rezoning. I believe that this should pass tonight. I just got a few questions. I want to know that some of the comments or lack of the opposition at the planning meeting and what were the six? Not as an op ed or comments at the at the hearing that the company had in regards to these animals. I support it. I would like to see them in every district in this town, as Laura and others have already stated. So if someone can please answer my questions, I will greatly appreciate it. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Jesse. That concludes our speakers questions from members of Council on Council Bill 1027 and or Council Bill 1028. Give it another moment for any hands raised. All right. See? No questions of members of council. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 1027 and or Council Bill 1028. Councilwoman Sandoval.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. So thank you all. It's an honor to be here before you today with this application. As it's been discussed, this is the first time an entire neighborhood has been zoned to allow accessory dwelling units. And honestly, I wouldn't be here today with all of you if it wasn't for the residents of Chevy Park. They came together and approached me before I was even sworn into office to talk about how we could get this done. And one of the things that we found out early on is that you're voting on two things. You're creating a new map and then you're creating a new zone district, because on the east side of town, the parcels are so small that there was not actually a zone district that would allow accessory dwelling units. So I had to create I had to slow the process down a little bit and work with community planning and development and create equity throughout the whole entire neighborhood. So the whole entire neighborhood would be able to allow it, have the opportunity to have accessory dwelling units. I would also like to think my aid council I'm sorry, my aide, Naomi Grundy's, who graduated with her master's in land use planning and she and I came up with an idea and how to get involvement from the neighborhood. She worked on a survey that was really well received and did a lot of the back work, which I call talking to neighbors and explaining this in a way where it's digestible. I feel like a lot of times when we're talking about rezoning and we're talking about land use, we use terminology that's not very accessible. And those in the city and county of Denver or those of us on city council, we understand it because we have lots of meetings with planners who explain it. And so I feel like it's my job to be able to explain it to everybody who would be impacted by these rezonings. So thank you, Naomi, for your steadfast leadership on this. And I would also like to talk to Jesse's concern. So some of the people who were opposed to this were nervous about having strangers in their backyard. They were nervous about parking and they were nervous about change in northwest Denver. I was born and raised. There has been a lot of change. The built environment has changed drastically since the 2010 zoning code, and so a lot of change. Change can be challenging and it can be a lot of fear based. And so we listened to everybody, and I made the tough decision to move forward on the application based on a lot of the equity concepts that you would have found in the document that Liz presented. And we also met with the city assessors to make sure we talked about taxes. We met with the fire department to talk about Allie with we met with Rene Martinez Stone, who runs the West Denver Collaborative, Renaissance Collaborative, who works on building 80 years in West Denver to figure out how we could work all together in TAPI Park. I had this survey in English and Spanish. We had our fliers done in English and Spanish, and so we had two responses in Spanish. So that shows me that it's working as long as they can have access to the information. And with that, if anyone if my colleagues have anything, any other comments, I would absolutely, really appreciate your support. This is a big deal for those who have housing over there. And I'll give a personal example. I have a cousin who has Down syndrome who lives in this neighborhood, and I would like his caretaker to be able to live there. We are making succession plans for him. He's one of my dear cousins. He's exactly my age in 40 and been working at McDonald's. And I would like Ben and all my other relatives who live in Chevy Park to stay in this neighborhood. So with that, I would ask that you support this initiative to help create some gentle density in Chevy Park, and I feel like it meets all the criteria. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Sandoval. And seeing other hands raised for comments, I'll comment. I would hope that all of our colleagues do support both 1027 and 1028. And just want to give you a huge congrats, Councilwoman Sandoval, because this was a heavy lift and your leadership and your community engagement and to have seven speakers here to all basically be in support of it goes a long way towards your community outreach and engagement. And so I just want to sincerely congratulate congratulate you and the Chaffee Park neighborhood, too, that they're going to have this additional tool for general dental density in the neighborhood. And with that being said, Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 1027, please.
Speaker 2: Sandoval, I. Where I. Torres, I. Black.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: See the buckets, I. Clark.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 2: When? I turned in.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 2: Cashman.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 2: Can I? Ortega. I. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results. 1313 Ies Council Bill 1027 has passed. Counsel Woman Black, would you please put Council Bill 1028 on the floor?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance relating to the Denver Zoning Code to establish the Urban Edge Singe Unit B1 zone district.
Approves text amendment #7 to the Denver Zoning Code to establish the new E-SU-B1 zone district and other associated amendments in Articles 2, 4, 10, and 13. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 9-29-20.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11092020_20-1028
|
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results. 1313 Ies Council Bill 1027 has passed. Counsel Woman Black, would you please put Council Bill 1028 on the floor?
Speaker 1: Yes, Madam President. I move that council bill 1028 be placed upon final consideration and due process.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It's been moved and seconded by Councilman Herndon. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill ten 1028.
Speaker 2: Black. I. CdeBaca. I. Clark, I. Twin. I. Herndon.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 2: Hi.
Speaker 3: Hi.
Speaker 2: Cashman. Hi. Janet, I. Ortega. I. Sandoval. Hmm.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Sawyer. I. Tomorrow, I. Madam President.
Speaker 0: Hi, Madam Secretary. Please close the voting and announce the results. 3913 EIS Council Bill 1028 has passed. Congratulations, Councilwoman Sandoval. Our pre adjournment announcement on Monday, December 7th Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 1133 changing the zoning classification for 2201 Arapahoe St in five points and required public hearing on Council Bill 113 for changing the zoning classification for 1055 Locust Street in Montclair. Any protests against Council Bill 1133 or 1134 must be filed with the Council offices no later than noon on Monday, November 30th. There being no further business before this body, this meeting is adjourned.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for multiple properties in Chaffee Park.
Approves a legislative map amendment to rezone multiple properties from E-SU-B, E-SU-D, and E-SU-Dx to E-SU-B1, E-SU-D1, and E-SU-D1x (allowing accessory dwelling units), located in Chaffee Park in Council District 1. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 9-29-20.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11022020_20-1106
|
Speaker 0: No items have been called out. The first item up is Bill 1106. Council members say to Barca, Will you please put Council Bill 1106 on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 1: Yes, Madam President, I move that council bill 20 dash 1106 be placed upon final consideration and do pass again.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded by Councilman Herndon. Questions or comments by members of Council Councilmember CdeBaca.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Madam President, we spoke about this one at length last time. I don't want to beat a dead horse, but definitely want to go on record as a no. I don't want to accelerate our debt issuance at a time like this. And I will be a no tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 0: So thank you, Councilwoman. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 2: Think about that?
Speaker 1: No.
Speaker 2: Park.
Speaker 3: All right.
Speaker 2: So when.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 2: Herman.
Speaker 4: Hi.
Speaker 2: Hi.
Speaker 3: Hi.
Speaker 4: Cashier I.
Speaker 2: Can meet.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Ortega. I said no. I. Sawyer, I. Torres, I. Black. Hi, Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 2: One May 12 hours.
Speaker 0: One May 12 Eyes Council Bill 1106 has passed. That concludes the items to be called out all bills for introduction or ordered published council members. Please 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 CdeBaca, will you please put the resolutions for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor?
Speaker 1: Madam President, I am having a challenge opening the SharePoint with the list of them.
Speaker 0: Is it if you open up the script and scroll down? I believe they've been placed in the script.
Speaker 1: They are not. It is referring me to the SharePoint and so I can dig this up. But if the clerk has it available, I think it would be a little bit faster if she could read them.
Speaker 0: Okay. Sounds good. Counsel Secretary, would you like to read them or would you prefer me?
Speaker 2: I can go ahead and read them. We will place the resolutions for adoption both on final consideration, on final consideration and do pass for 2012, 20, 2011, 35, 2011, 36, 2011, 37, 2011, 39, 2011, 4020 0962, 2011, 2020 1142, 2011, 69.
Speaker 1: 2010, 83.
Speaker 2: 2011, 25, 2011, 45, 2011, 85, 2011, 86, 2011, ten, 2010, 70, 2010, 90, 2010, 91, 2010, 92, 2010, 93, 2010, 94, 2010, 95, 2010, 96, 2010, 97, 2010, 98, 2010, 99, 2011 120 1101 20 1102 20 1103 20 1104 20 1105 2011 1620 0855 and 20 1078.
Speaker 1: And I move that those listed resolutions be adopted and bills on final consideration, placed upon final consideration, and do pass in a block for the following. And those were the ones listed by the clerk.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman CdeBaca. It has been moved. Get a second.
Speaker 2: Second.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Secretary. Roll call, please.
Speaker 2: Black. I see. The. I mean.
Speaker 4: Like I said.
Speaker 2: When.
Speaker 3: I heard it, I.
Speaker 2: Hi.
Speaker 4: Hi.
Speaker 2: Catherine.
Speaker 4: Hi.
Speaker 2: Can each. I am Ortega. I. Sandoval. I swear. I thought it. I. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 2: 3939.
Speaker 0: Is 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 965, changing the zoning classification for 4714 North Bryant Street. A required public hearing on Council Bill eight excuse me. 983 Changing the zoning classification for 1790 South Humboldt Street and a required public hearing on Council Bill 984, changing the zoning classification for 2520 South Marion Street. Anyone wishing to speak on any of these matters must go online to sign up during the recess of council. If there are no objections from members of council, we will take a ten minute recess. Council Members, please remember to turn off your cameras and your microphones and we will return at 7:42 p.m..
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance authorizing the issuance of (1) the “City and County of Denver, Colorado, General Obligation Elevate Denver Bonds” for the purpose of financing and defraying the cost of acquiring, constructing, installing and improving various civic facilities; and (2) the “City and County of Denver, Colorado, General Obligation Better Denver Refunding Bonds” for the purpose of refunding, paying, and discharging all or a portion of the City’s outstanding Taxable General Obligation Better Denver Bonds (Direct Pay Build America Bonds), Series 2010B; providing for the levy of general ad valorem taxes to pay the principal of and interest on such Bonds; and making other provisions relating thereto.
Authorizes the issuance of City and County of Denver General Obligation Bonds, Series 2020A-B in a principal amount not to exceed $465 million for the purpose of funding approximately $170 million of Elevate Denver bond projects approved by Denver voters in November 2017, to refund existing Series 2010B Better Denver General Obligation Bonds, and to pay associated costs of issuance. Th
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11022020_20-0965
|
Speaker 0: Please refrain from profane or obscene speech. Direct your comments to council as a whole and please refrain from individual or personal attacks. Council Member State Abarca Will you please put Council Bill 965 on the floor for passage?
Speaker 1: Yes, Madam President, I move that council bill 20 dash 0965 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved. And I get a second. I get. Thank you. The required public hearing for council bill 20 deaths 0965 is open. Maybe. Please have the staff report.
Speaker 3: Yes. Hello? Council president. Are you able to hear me?
Speaker 0: Mm hmm. Go ahead, James.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Did you need any assistance from us? James, for the presentation.
Speaker 3: I apologize. I am attempting to share my screen right now and am having an issue.
Speaker 0: We'll see if we can get you some help here.
Speaker 3: Appreciate it. I believe Zach has a copy of my. Presentation as well. I'm not able to control it myself.
Speaker 4: Oh, yeah.
Speaker 0: All right. We'll go ahead and get Zach. He just needs 1/2 and he'll pull it up and then you can go ahead and get started, James.
Speaker 3: Thank you so much. I appreciate it. And thank you for being with me with these technical difficulties.
Speaker 0: No worries. It's our. It's our new way. So thank.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 3: So I'm seeing a presentation pulled up and. 4714 Bryant Street.
Speaker 0: All right. I was looking at that and that didn't look right. So. I'll have that. Get the correct one and get it up there.
Speaker 3: That's the one. Thank you so much. I appreciate your patience and your help. So before you today, we have a requested rezoning from you, as you see to you as you see one. This rezoning would allow for a detached edu.
Speaker 4: Highway.
Speaker 3: In the. Urban Single Unit C Zone District. The property in question is located in Council District one in the Sunnyside neighborhood. Next slide, please. And next slide. So the location is on Bryant Street in between 47th Avenue and 48th Avenue, just south of Interstate 70. The proposed rezoning from U.S. to U.S. allows the urban house and detached accessory dwelling unit building forms. Max building height is between 30 and 35 feet, depending on light width, and you need a minimum lot size of 5500 square feet for this zoned district. Next slide, please. The existing zoning is USAC and it is surrounded by other U.S. U.S. parcels. There is a US hub one several blocks to the south and ESU directs zoning to the North Cross, Interstate 70. And next slide, please. Existing land use is predominantly single unit residential in the area with some public and quasi public uses in the vicinity. Next slide. This is an existing building form and scale. The photo in the upper left hand corner shows the property in question, and there are several photos of the neighborhood in general to give additional context. Our process line. This item was heard at the 916 Planning Board meeting and voted unanimously recommending approval and Luti unanimously moved this application to the full council on September 22nd. As of present, there have been six letters of support from neighbors, no letters of opposition, and no statements from the R.A.. There are five review criteria that must be met to approve. This requested rezoning consistency was adopted plans, uniformity of district regulations, furthering public health, safety and welfare, justifying circumstances and consistency with neighborhood context and zoned district purpose and intent. So there are four plans that are relevant to the proposed site. Comprehensive Plan 2040 Blueprint Denver. Housing and inclusive. Denver and the Sunnyside Neighborhood Plan. So the proposed rezoning is consistent with several of the tenets of Plan 2040, including equity and climate positions. Equity, Equitable, Affordable and inclusive. Goal two Strategy A is to create a greater mix of housing options in every neighborhood for all individuals and families. This zoning allow for an additional dwelling unit that is accessory to the primary single unit dwelling use and introduces a new housing type to a largely single family neighborhood. Accessory dwelling units can provide housing for individuals or families with different incomes, ages and needs compatible with single unit homes that currently dominate the Sunnyside neighborhood. For climate. Oh, sorry. Go ahead. Let's find. It is. You know, this property is located in the urban neighborhood context. Small, multi-unit, residential and mixed use areas are typically embedded in one and two unit residential areas, and your block patterns are regular, usually with alleys, and you can expect a high degree of walkability and bankability in this context. The Denver Blueprint Blueprint Denver Future Places map and subject site is designated within the low residential future place types, which is predominantly single and two unit uses on smaller lots. Accessory dwelling units and duplexes are appropriate and can be thoughtfully integrated where compatible the future street types. Rent is a local and or an designated street, as is 47th Avenue at this location. Looking at the Blueprint Denver growth strategy. This is a version of the future places maps showing aspirations for distributing future growth in Denver. This subject property falls within the all other areas of the city where we expect to see 10% of jobs and 20% of housing growth by 2040. Consistency with Blueprint Denver Strategies. Specifically, this 80 year rezoning is consistent with a policy for diversity of housing choice through the expansion of accessory dwelling units throughout all residential areas. Slide please. Says, also consistent with housing and inclusive Denver, which is a plan that was adopted in 2018 and although not adopted as a supplement to plan 2040, was still adopted by city council and can be considered relevant to the review criteria for this MAP amendment. And there it is. The proposed rezoning is consistent with a number of priorities and recommendations, including legislative and regulatory priorities, recommendation to expand and strengthen lending frequency regulations for affordable and mixed income housing, including expanding the development of accessory dwelling units. Next slide, please. The last plan that is relevant to this parcel is the Sunnyside Neighborhood Plan, which was initially adopted in 1992 and re adopted in 2002. The plan is silent on its use and only contains a single housing related goal, which is to stabilize and upgrade the housing stock by encouraging long term residency and increasing homeownership . The proposed MAP amendment is consistent with this plan goal, as construction of an 80 year will provide the opportunity for additional long term residency in the neighborhood. Criteria to the proposed rezoning will result in uniform application of zoned district building form, use and design regulations. There are no waivers or specialized zoning requested criteria three Furthering the Public Health, Safety and Welfare. This plan, this proposed rezoning, does that primarily by implementing adopted plans such as Blueprint Denver and by providing additional housing unit that is compatibly integrated into the surrounding neighborhood. So the applicant lists the as the justifying circumstance since the date of approval of the existing zone district has been changed to such a degree that the proposed rezoning is in the public interest. As discussed above, Blueprint Denver specifically recommends the city diversify housing choice through the expansion of accessory dwelling units throughout all residential areas. And that plan was adopted after the date of approval of the existing zone district, which makes it an appropriate justifying circumstance. And finally, criteria five Consistency with neighborhood context zone district. Purpose and Intent in your urban neighborhood context. It primarily consists of single unit and two unit residential uses of a single unit with an air to you certainly falls within that realm. Residential districts in general are intended to promote and protect residential neighborhoods within the character of the urban neighborhood context. The building forms standards. Design standards and uses work together to promote desirable residential areas, specifically the U.S., U.S. one district, a single unit district which allows urban houses and detached accessory dwelling units with a minimum sunlight area of 5500 square feet. Setbacks and light coverage standards accommodate front and side yards, similar to you as you see, and allow detached accessory dwelling units in the rear yard. CPD recommends City Council approve the application based on the findings at all. The review criteria have been met.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, James. Council has not received any written testimony on Council Bill 20 20965. And we have seven individuals signed up to speak this evening. Our first speaker is Rachel Subfloor. And maybe we don't have. Rachel here. And so. We'll go ahead and go to Sally Squires. All right. Go ahead, Sally.
Speaker 5: Good evening, everyone. Thank you so much for taking time to meet with me this evening. I really appreciate it. I learned a lot tonight from watching you guys. It's been fascinating. I actually am the homeowner at 4714 Bryant Street. And I've lived here for 12 years. I've lived in Sunnyside for 20. And I purchased this property 12 years ago because I loved how cute and quaint it was. It's it's back on the property. It's a it's a it's almost 100 years old. And I just I love this neighborhood. And I when I started thinking about doing an ad, you started talking to the neighbors and just kind of getting their feedback. And everybody thought it was a really great idea. So I have a lot of support in what I'm what I'm planning on doing here. And my hope is eventually one day to have that the 80 you for any of you who have elderly parents to to be a residents for either my mom or my fiance's mom so that they have somewhere safe to be and that they that we can help take care of them in the future. I think especially with this pandemic, it's really opening everybody's eyes to how important we need to take care of each other right now. So I did get several letters of support. I think I have six letters and I and I'm hoping some of my neighbors.
Speaker 3: Could could stick.
Speaker 5: To could stay on tonight to share with you their thoughts as well. We're really fortunate to be able to see Sunnyside growing. And and there are several ADAS over here.
Speaker 8: And it's it's I just think they're wonderful. And I'm sorry if I sound nervous. I am a little bit so.
Speaker 5: But I just again, I want to thank you so much for your time. And I am requesting from the Council that you approve rezoning 4714 Bryant Street from the you as you see to the you as you see one. Thank you so much for your time this evening, everybody.
Speaker 3: I really appreciate it.
Speaker 0: All right. Well, thank you, Sally. And next up, we have Jesse Paris.
Speaker 4: If you can remember.
Speaker 0: Mm hmm. We can hear you, Jesse.
Speaker 4: Great. On Jefferson Parish. Don't know. The next year, in 2023. And I represent a group, Homeless and Low Black Star Action for Self Defense, Positive Action for Social Change about the Labor Party of Colorado. And while my mom stated I will be your next mayor in 2023, it looks like the occupant in the city did their homework with this rezoning. I just have a few questions I like answered the first. This area was one of the first areas of town to get rapidly gentrified, ethnically cleansed out those that watch it. So your take on it? Yes, because I supported it throughout my campaign. And what about the city council by almost 2000 votes, way more money. So I've been recently in this neighborhood campaigning for my Pops massacre, one of the worst things in it, and I've seen drastic changes throughout all areas, never let, especially on the north side of town, in the north side, Sunnyside, Chaffee Park, Brooklyn Park. So, you know, it's going to be a reluctant yes for me tonight. I'm really disheartened that this council did not pass a proposal that can move this campus. My constituents that are suffering the most during this pandemic, and it's really shameful to see this council just blatantly shut them down. But yeah, in 2023, you guys can be voted out. And I walked around every street in Denver, so I know where everybody lives. So all of us watching today. How stupid. So. With that being said, it's going to be a little bit yes for me. I support 80 News. I have a question now. How many of you have been afraid in this run and what are the racial demographics of the occupiers? If you could answer those questions, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, we have Jamie Haskell.
Speaker 3: Hello. I'm Jamie Haskell. I'm 4723 Beach Court, which is directly east of Sally's residence. Across the alleyway, the back of our property lines touch each other. I've lived here for almost nine years. Sally has been very transparent and has communicated well with our neighbors on her intention of construction, and it has been very much appreciated on on her openness with it. I've seen the eighties are desirable to stabilize the neighborhoods in Denver and provide more housing to a city that is clearly in a shortage of housing. This would also allow for owners of in our neighborhood to remain in their residence instead of selling to a larger developer than them creating a monstrosity. Instead of the plans that Sally have, which would maintain the sunny site architecture that you can find in the area, I just want to say I support the rezoning request for 4714 Bryant Street to allow Adu, and I appreciate the Council's time to listening to this rezoning request.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Jamie. Next up, we have Bruce O'Donnell. Bruce. You might need to unmute your self.
Speaker 2: Hello? Can everybody hear me?
Speaker 0: Mm hmm. We had Bruce O'Donnell apologize.
Speaker 2: I think there was some kind of political mix up, but this is actually Rachel Offer.
Speaker 0: Okay, great.
Speaker 2: With Bruce O'Donnell at Probability Group.
Speaker 0: Perfect. Go ahead, Rachel, please.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 1: So good evening, City Council.
Speaker 2: My name is Rachel Safa and I live at.
Speaker 1: 3327.
Speaker 2: Arapahoe Street in Denver. As I mentioned, I am with Federal Realty Group and we are assisting the homeowner with the rebuilding process.
Speaker 7: So as identified.
Speaker 1: In the security staff report.
Speaker 2: Along with planning board unanimous decision, both recommended approval of this rezoning as this application meets the legal criteria.
Speaker 7: In addition, these request is.
Speaker 2: Consistent with supported by many of the goals and objectives of Denver's adopted plans, which include Compton, 2040 Blueprint, Denver and the Sunnyside Neighborhood Park. The rezoning is also supported by housing and inclusive. Denver, which is.
Speaker 1: A citywide five year plan that outlines the housing.
Speaker 2: Policies, strategies and investment priorities. The plan also for the school is to create and preserve strong and opportunity rich neighborhoods with diverse housing options that are accessible and affordable to all Denver residents. This rezoning will retain the character of low residential places and facilitate compatible infill development. Again, it directly addresses the Google suburbs along largest recommendations excuse me of a diversifying housing choice through the expansion of accessory dwelling units throughout all residential areas. This rezoning fulfills the complex strategy for focusing growth by high and medium capacity transit corridors.
Speaker 1: This property is located within.
Speaker 2: Half a mile of Federal Boulevard, which was designated as a health policy towards the corridor. As someone who personally relies on public transit, even throughout these times, I can't emphasize enough how important it is. Ability to transit is access to transit is always in my top three criteria when looking for a place to live.
Speaker 1: Lastly, the owner and.
Speaker 2: Applicant engaged with their neighbors and reached out to the community, which has resulted in six letters of support from her immediate neighbors, either on the food locker or across the alley. And as of presently, we.
Speaker 1: Are unaware of any.
Speaker 2: Opposition. With that being said, I'll request that City Council vote to approve Council Bill 20 Dash 0965.
Speaker 7: The.
Speaker 2: Rezoning for a 4714 French street from U.S., U.S. to U.S. C one. Thank you very much for your time. And I'm available to answer any questions of council housing.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, we have Bruce O'Donnell.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Madam President, I am sorry I had to quit earlier. Can you hear me now? Go ahead. Members of council, thank you for your time this evening. And it's interesting that this rezoning request is one week ahead exactly of the legislated rezoning to allow to use two blocks north of this site and to order in. So it's consistent with everything going on in this one. And I asked the council voted to approve the rezoning, and I'm available to any questions, if you have any.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Bruce. Our last speaker is Brant Westbrook.
Speaker 3: Hello? Can you hear me?
Speaker 0: Mm hmm. Go ahead.
Speaker 3: Good evening, City Council. My name is Brant Westbrook, and my house is located next door to Sally at 4712 Bryant Street. I have been Sally's neighbor for just over ten years and I really appreciate, appreciate having the opportunity to speak in favor of this rezoning request. I will say Sally has been a model neighbor and I've always appreciated that she's asked for my permission or feedback over the years any time she's planned something for her yard near our property line. And not surprising, today's request was no exception. Sally actually caught me in my front yard one day this past spring and she was very excited to share all the design details of her project plan for a new home, which would naturally fall in line with the other houses on the block. Of course, given the size of the property, it made sense for her current dwelling to become an aid to you. Now, in all honesty, I was previously unfamiliar with the term to you, but in researching its concept specific to our city through Blueprint Denver, I believe the benefits of this particular request would greatly outweigh any drawbacks, especially given the current housing shortage and increased financial stressors due to the pandemic. If this will help to serve to increase the value of nearby properties, allow Sally and Greg to remain at this residence and allow for someone else to be able to enjoy Sunnyside at an affordable price. Then I certainly have no issues with it. That being said, I fully support this request and I hope that you vote to change the zoning at 4714 Bryant Street to allow an ADU. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. That concludes our speakers tonight. Questions from members of council. All right. So, you know, questions the public here.
Speaker 2: Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 3: Again. I couldn't get to the button quickly enough.
Speaker 0: No worries.
Speaker 3: Just curious because how the site fits with all of the setback requirements, because the existing buildings are look to be all the way back at the alley. And any idea? Maybe James can answer this or the applicant what the plans are for where to locate the ADU. I think you can present Flynn as James as CPD. I will take a quick stab at this and then hand it over to the applicant. So the current plan is, as I understand it, is for the existing residents to become the A-Team with a new principal structure in the front. In the front. And as long as they meet all the setbacks and size requirements, that is certainly something they are allowed to do. Okay. Does the existing structure meet all of the height and and setback requirements? So based on a cursory look, it appears to at now, obviously a formal site development plan is not required at the rezoning process, and that would be something they would need to be going hand in hand through with our colleagues over at Development Services. But a cursory glance, it looks it appears as if they will be okay. Okay. And unless the aerial imagery is dated, it appears that there are three structures already on the site. What this zone district, with the addition of the ADU, allows a primary, a principal residence, a garage. An accessory dwelling unit and another accessory structure like a shed. Is that the case? I believe that the answer is there can be three structures of though I will need to run to my code real quick to confirm. Okay, maybe the applicant could could address that. Scully to say to.
Speaker 1: You that I am here.
Speaker 0: Without either Sally or Bruce O'Donnell. So either one of you.
Speaker 5: I think Bruce.
Speaker 3: Probably.
Speaker 5: Understands that a little bit better than I do if I speak.
Speaker 3: To him.
Speaker 5: And will make it sound very, you know.
Speaker 3: Okay. That's a really huge, long garage. It really is. It really.
Speaker 5: Is a huge corner.
Speaker 3: Here. Right.
Speaker 0: Go ahead and jump in there. Bruce.
Speaker 3: Yep. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. I think you're correct that the plan is, is that the existing residents become the avenue and then the garage remain in a new home, be built up closer to Bryant Street. That is the primary structure and would become self residents. And of course, all of that would have to go through development, review it to make sure it complies with all of the criteria. Okay. Thank you. I was just reading through the staff report and that's why I was asking, because it seems that the proposed zone with ac1 allows a detached accessory dwelling unit, detached garage, which we have. And then it says other detached accessory structures, which I imagine would be the shed that's right in front of the garage. So. All right. Well, good luck to you. I appreciate that. That's all I have. Madam President, thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. One last call in. The other questions from my colleagues.
Speaker 2: All right.
Speaker 0: I'm carrying for Councilor Bill 20 dash 0965 is closed comments by members of council. Councilwoman Sandoval.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 1: So thank you, James. For this staff report. And thank you, Sally and Bruce, for bringing this forward. I will say when I first got this application, we prior to it becoming formalized and I saw that we had a consultant working on an accessory dwelling unit. I will say that I immediately put a call out to all my neighbors and all the people who I represent, saying that we would help them through the process as I'm doing for the neighbors on the other side of I-70, doing more of a legislative rezoning. So with that, I know Sally met with the registered neighborhood organization, which is Sunnyside. I know that they're normally write a letter of support. They weren't meeting very much during the summer due to COVID. So normally this is a very active, registered neighborhood organization and fortunately they were not meeting. So normally they do and they do support accessory dwelling units and it's met all the criteria. And it is a unique situation in northwest Denver where we have these zoned lots and these parcel lots that are longer and have these old dwelling units on the back when people didn't need as much room as they do nowadays. And so Sally will be building her primary house in the front and then turn her house that she's currently been living in into an accessory dwelling unit, which I think is a great resource for our neighborhood and a great way to keep our missing little housing stock in northwest Denver. And to one point to Jesse. I always appreciate hearing public comment. We have monitored how many accessory dwelling units have.
Speaker 2: Come through.
Speaker 1: One offs. They're mostly in Sloan's Lake. And unfortunately, we don't have the demographics of who lives in each house. We don't ask that information when I'm when we're doing this type of work. We know the demographics from the census blocks. So I could tell you some of the demographics of each neighborhood. But when people are coming to my office for rezoning or asking for assistance or during the application process, that is not one of the questions that I ask is what type of ethnicity that they are. So unfortunately, I do not know that information, but I did want to address that for one of his questions. And with that, I would ask my colleagues to please support this rezoning. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Sandoval, seen no other hands raised by our colleagues for comments. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 2: Sandoval. I swear I saw it. I blacked out. I see the walker. I. Clark. I Flynn.
Speaker 4: High.
Speaker 3: Herndon I am.
Speaker 2: High.
Speaker 3: I am.
Speaker 2: Cashman. I commute. I am Ortega. I am Madam President.
Speaker 0: Hi, Madam Secretary. Please close the voting and announce the results. 3913 Ayes Council Bill 965 has passed. Council members say to Barca, will you please put Council Bill 983 on the floor for passage?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 4714 N. Bryant Street in Sunnyside.
Approves an official map amendment to rezone property from U-SU-C to U-SU-C1 (allows for an accessory dwelling unit), located at 4714 Bryant Street in Council District 1. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 9-22-20.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_10262020_20-1196
|
Speaker 0: Will you please read proclamation 1196 for us?
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. Whereas October is recognized as Worldwide Dyslexia Awareness Month. And. Whereas, Dyslexia is a learning disorder that affects the language centers of the brain in a manner that leads to difficulties in reading due to challenges in recognizing words and or word sounds. And. Whereas, individuals with dyslexia are problem solvers that thrive in decoding some of the most complicated academic and societal challenges. And. WHEREAS, students with dyslexia are entitled to a supportive, inclusive environment that promotes educational progress with evidence based, multifaceted interventions in order for them to attain their full potential. And. Whereas, individuals with dyslexia have gone on to become some of the most successful entrepreneurs, scientists, artists and engineers in our community. And. Whereas, advocacy. Denver was established in 1954 by parents as the arc of Denver to address the lack of access for children with disabilities to public education and formally changed its name to advocacy. Denver in 2009. And. Whereas Advocacy, Denver is a nonprofit civil rights advocacy organization that is dedicated to the protection of the human rights of people with disabilities, including dyslexia. And. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City and County of Denver support the demands of advocacy Denver. That the public school system complete culturally and linguistically appropriate evaluations and implement evidence based strategies where practice where a practices designed which are practices designed to meet the individual needs of the student in order for them to meet their potential. 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 recognizes the month of October as Dyslexia Awareness Month and October 26, 2020 as advocacy Denver Day in Section two that the clerk in the city and that the clerk of the city and county of Denver shall affix the seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation and that copies be transmitted to Pamela Buscaglia, executive director of Advocacy Denver.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Sawyer, your motion to adopt.
Speaker 3: I move that proclamation 20 dash 1196 be adopted.
Speaker 0: I don't think it has been moved and seconded. Comments by members of Council Councilmember Sawyer.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Madam President, every October, dyslexia and forms of dyslexia, including two scrappier, are recognized during Dyslexia Awareness Month. Tonight, members of Council wear red to raise awareness about dyslexia, which is a learning disorder affecting up to 20% of the world's population. Despite the challenges that dyslexics face, they are out of the box thinkers and creative problem solvers. So it's no surprise that famous and inspirational dyslexics include people like Lippi, Whoopi Goldberg, Magic Johnson, Stephen Spielberg, and our very own Senator Michael Bennet. Dyslexia awareness is especially important to our office, and we'd like to recognize two wonderful and brilliant members of the District five family who have dyslexia. One who prefers to remain anonymous. And the other one, my daughter, Olivia. You are both amazing humans who we love very much. We watch you not just overcome your disability, but thrive and you inspire us every single day. This proclamation also declares that today, October 26th, is advocacy. Denver Day Advocacy. Denver was one of the first our chapters and was established in 1954 by parents to address the lack of access for children with disabilities to public education. So advocacy. Denver's mission is to promote and protect human rights of people with disabilities and support their full inclusion and participation in our community. Advocacy. Denver is an advocacy organization for children with a range of disabilities, including to dyslexia and to scrappier in public and private schools, including DPS. So this proclamation, specifically States Council's support of students with disabilities, the right to an inclusive education, the right to assessments, the right to accommodations, the right to evidence based interventions, and an environment that allows them to thrive and meet their fullest potential. Because our students deserve nothing less. So I want to thank advocacy Denver for 66 years of service to our community so that every single person with a disability has the right to live equally and freely and with dignity and respect. It's because of organizations like Advocacy Denver that kids like mine.
Speaker 5: Can.
Speaker 3: Learn and thrive in the city and county of Denver. So for all of you out there who are the parent of a child who have special needs of any kind, you understand the depth of my gratitude when I say thank you from the bottom of my heart, and I encourage my colleagues to vote yes on this proclamation . Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Sawyer. And I'll quickly share. Both of my daughters have dyslexia, too. One was diagnosed when she was in fifth grade, which you can only imagine how her elementary years went. She could never pass a spelling test and so spend a lot of time sitting on the wall. And then our youngest daughter, she was diagnosed when she was in kindergarten. And the supports and advocacy and resources are amazing the earlier that you can detect and get those supports. And so thank you, Pamela, for your organization and council member Sawyer for your advocacy and. Madam Secretary, roll call, please.
Speaker 4: Sawyer.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 4: Torres. I black.
Speaker 3: Eye.
Speaker 4: I see the bucket.
Speaker 7: I.
Speaker 4: Clark.
Speaker 5: I. When I.
Speaker 4: Herndon.
Speaker 6: I.
Speaker 4: Hi.
Speaker 5: I am. Cashmere High.
Speaker 4: Can h I ask Ortega Sandoval.
Speaker 7: Hi.
Speaker 4: Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 4: 13 Eyes.
Speaker 0: 13 Eyes Proclamation 1196 has been adopted. We have 5 minutes for proclamation acceptance. Council member Sawyer will start the five minute timer if you'd like to introduce. Who will accept the proclamation?
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. Tonight we have Pamela, bachelor and Pamela. I think I messed up your name earlier. Apologies. She's the executive director of Advocacy Denver, and she is joining us to accept the proclamation. So, Pamela, thank you so much for being here and take it away.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Amanda Sawyer and Denver City Council members for this proclamation and for recognizing the work of the advocacy Denver team and board advocacy. Denver's programs serve people with disabilities from ages, birth through lives. Individual advocacy is the cornerstone of our organization and staff maintains skills and knowledge about the different systems, both public and private, and the protections of individuals with disabilities through its programs and services. Advocacy. Denver addresses and advocates to eliminate the barriers for clients in accessing education and other community systems. Each year, between 304 hundred parents of children with disabilities enjoy one on one assistance with one of our advocates to address issues they are facing and to provide the education and skills to empower them to make informed decisions. We work with a large community of parents whose child is diagnosed with dyslexia and are eligible for specially designed instruction and accommodations. Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act or Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, when provided appropriate services and interventions, we know that these students can participate and excel in the general education curriculum, graduate from high school, participate in post-secondary education, become gainfully employed and grow and enjoy the same privileges as typical peers. We know that everything is possible when children with disabilities are provided educational programing designed to help them meet their individual potential. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. We really appreciate you being here as well. Pamela. All right. Moving on in the agenda, Madam Secretary, please read the bills for introduction.
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation recognizing October as Dyslexia Awareness Month and Declaring October 26th, 2020 as AdvocacyDenver Day.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_10262020_20-0922
|
Speaker 0: Has been moved and seconded questions or comments by members of council. Council members say the pocket.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. Just wanted to call this one out because we've talked about it at length. And I believe that we as a city have to repair the harm that we've done, and that starts with our contracting choices. For that reason, I think it's highly inappropriate for us to approve this contract as it reflects that we do not take murder and security seriously in this city. We approved a $4 million contract earlier this year in an emergency pinch for Allied, as we needed the staff to for the new congregate shelters. Most of us thought that we needed some special security company to provide these security services. And because there was no company large enough to compete for the emergency contract we approved Allied, knowing that as contractors for RTT, another public entity paid for by tax dollars that they nearly murdered a black man at Union Station simply for for being black. They beat him within inches of his life and refused to make him whole in the courts. In fact, it came to our attention during committee that Allied not only continues to deflect real responsibility for their actions with this gentleman, they attempt to get a gag order to prevent the victim and his attorney from speaking publicly about the victim's brutal beating because of the current heightened race relations. Now, that seems a little backward to me, if you ask me. They tried to silence the victim. And that, I feel like, is something we need to be taking into consideration. And now we're considering a $25 million contract that doesn't actually require special talent or training during the $4 million contract earlier this year. We know that there was a murder on their watch after we approved that contract. Nobody was fired. Nobody was held accountable for allowing insecurity under a $4 million security contract. And it turns out that allied security scope it it doesn't actually require special training. All it requires is observing and reporting, never intervening. So it sounds like a job we should be allowing others to do, not necessarily a global security firm known for egregious harms ranging from gender discrimination, child abuse, racism. The list goes on. And so I'm a passionate no on this contract tonight. And I hope those of my colleagues who care about safety and dismantling racism will join me in a no vote. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Hines.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam President. I know we've had conversations with safety before about how they bring before us votes that authorize funds for things in the past. And I'm frustrated that here we are again. I know that Mr. SAP took one for the team. And I you know, the last time we talked about this and I said, I understand, Mr. Sapp, that you're the messenger, but I really don't. I think it's confounding to the political process. We're supposed to vote for things before the money is spent. And this contract is starting May 7th. And I'm just I'm frustrated that we're that we're again, voting on contracts that that are in arrears. So I just want to put that out there. I hope that we can that we can have three functioning branches of government if we are supposed to authorize funds. I hope we can do that before the funds are actually spent. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Hines. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 2: CDEBACA No.
Speaker 4: Clark.
Speaker 5: All right.
Speaker 4: When?
Speaker 5: I.
Speaker 4: Pendant.
Speaker 5: I.
Speaker 4: Hi. No. Cashman.
Speaker 5: I.
Speaker 4: Can I? Ortega.
Speaker 5: I.
Speaker 4: Sandoval. I. Where? Now. Taurus.
Speaker 2: No.
Speaker 4: Black.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 4: In the box.
Speaker 3: No.
Speaker 4: Madam President.
Speaker 0: No. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced the results.
Speaker 4: Six, nine, seven, nine.
Speaker 0: Six nays, seven I's Council Resolution 922 has been adopted. The next item up is Resolution 1163. Councilmember Torres, please go ahead with your comments on Resolution 1163.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. I just want to thank you, Madam President, for your support on this. This change would add a land acknowledgment to our diversity council agenda to be read after the Pledge of Allegiance. Why is this important? One of the a bit of background I have been involved in something that was pretty meaningful to me and my husband, which was the Sand Creek Spiritual Healing Run Walk. For the past several years, thanks to my former agency, the Agency for Human Rights and Community Partnerships, which supported the event over many years and commemorated and ensured that we don't forget the Sam Creek massacre. It begins near where the Fort Lyons location was. Over the weekend, my husband and I stopped to look at a state landmark in my district on Eighth and Vallejo because we had never seen what the plaque said before. And we found the plaque recognized that the neighborhood of Lamar Lincoln Park was the site of Camp Weld or Fort Weld. The industrial part of District three was the site in September 1864, where leaders from the Cheyenne and Arapaho tribes met with the U.S. Army representatives. So I last saw Commander John Shillington, Governor John Evans and Major Edward Wynkoop for peace talks. The tribe believing they had reached and complied with peace with the U.S. Army, set up camp at Sand Creek near Fort Lyon.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Amendatory Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Universal Protection Service, L.P. d/b/a Allied Universal Security Services, LP to add fund requirements, increase the maximum contract amount and extend the term for security personnel at homeless shelters and facilities during the COVID-19 health crisis.
Amends a contract with Universal Protection Service, L.P. doing business as Allied Universal Security Services, by adding $1,500,000 for a new total of $5,500,000, adding three months for a new end date of 12-31-20 and adding required CARES language to the contract to allow the City to seek reimbursement for service related costs associated with the COVID-19 pandemic for security personnel services at congregate and non-congregate shelter locations (GENRL-202054453-01). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 11-16-20. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 9-29-20.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_10262020_20-1163
|
Speaker 1: So I last saw Commander John Shillington, Governor John Evans and Major Edward Wynkoop for peace talks. The tribe believing they had reached and complied with peace with the U.S. Army, set up camp at Sand Creek near Fort Lyon. Only two months later, John Sherrington would carry out the Sand Creek massacre. This work is important. It's relevant not only to know our own city's history, but how it was built and how we improve upon that past. I will continue to work with the Denver American Indian Commission and the Native community over the long term to ensure the content of the land. Acknowledgment remains up to date and relevant, and I appreciate the support of my colleagues on this resolution.
Speaker 0: Thank you, council member Torres, for your leadership on this and happy to support it. The next item up is Resolution 1080. Councilmember CdeBaca, please go ahead with your questions on Resolution 1080.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam Chair. I really just wanted an overview on how Head Start here at Montessori has been recalibrating during COVID. We've had a couple of constituent calls and I want to understand what is happening with funding right now during COVID. How are we allocating it when we're not able to accept kids at in-person?
Speaker 0: All right. We've got Mr. Al Martinez up to answer your question.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Councilwoman. So funding has continued uninterrupted and will continue uninterrupted for the foreseeable future. We are in the process of awarding amendments to the base contracts that were funded as of July 1st. But you're absolutely right. Services have been interrupted. Interrupted. We have many programs that are operating under the strenuous conditions. We have some programs that operate in in-person learning, some that operate a hybrid model, which is a combination of in-person and virtual learning. Some are doing 100% at home learning, and so it varies across the seven delegate agencies that we fund. But funding has not been interrupted at all. We have a bill that another set of amendments that will be coming through that will be awarding Head Start COVID funding, which will support some summer operations that were funded just a few months ago, that took place a few months ago, when most as our programs are not open, they were allowed to request funds to open under COVID, and we gave them that permission and now we're going to give them the money that was associated with opening. So it varies really across the agencies that we fund. We also have vendors that are providing services, whether in health, mental health. Some of these services are being provided remotely because with the rise in cases we are vendors are not allowed to go into the Centers for the Health Department role. So I think under the circumstances we are doing a very tremendous job in meeting the needs of the families that we serve in Headstart.
Speaker 3: Is it possible? And thank you for those answers. Is it possible to see a breakdown of the 321 children that this is paying for, what kind of service they're getting, if it's the in-person, the hybrid or the virtual?
Speaker 5: Sure. It would just take it would take me a little bit of time to do that, because they're the mile high. Early learning has children all across Denver. They're in multiple neighborhoods and in zip codes. And so but I could surely put that together and give you a good idea of how many are in need or two or five at which center, how many are in need of two. One nine, you know, just throughout their primarily though in northeast Denver and southwest Denver that's out there traditionally where they have been located. But I could do that. I just need a little bit of time.
Speaker 3: Thank you. That would be really helpful just because I anticipate our modes of providing services changing. And I would love to just have an accurate count of who's getting what and what there's a gap for or what we need to be putting in place. So thank you very much, Mr. Martinez. That's it for my questions on that one. Madam President.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilwoman. The next item up is resolution 1111. Councilmember CdeBaca. Go ahead with your questions on that resolution.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. Same situation here with Save Your House. They used to provide respite care, housing, and I'm wondering if the contract is exclusively the caseworker in the caseworker services or if housing is included and how caseworkers are doing their work right now during COVID.
Speaker 0: All right. I believe we have Rachel Goldberg here ready to answer or Erin Hall.
Speaker 3: I would direct that call to Erin Hall. She's the program administrator over that contract.
Speaker 0: You might have to mute Aaron.
Speaker 3: Yes, you're right. Go ahead. Oh, sorry about that. And actually, I might defer to Erin streaming, who is another.
Speaker 2: Person that can speak more globally because it's not just specific to the screen.
Speaker 3: It sounds like you want to know more about caseworkers and how they're doing their work. Nope. Specifically on Savio House, it doesn't have a number of how many kids you're serving here, so that would be helpful too. How many kids are you serving? How are you guys pivoting during COVID? For the caseworker caseworkers? And is this including respite care? Thank you. I can answer that question. First of all, Savio House, just to kind of give an overview, they have two branches overall. They do have their treatment side, which the treatment side did use to operate a residential treatment center. The contract that this money is through is with their physical fiscal agent side, which is the Saville Management Group. And so this money actually funnels through Savio House, through our Denver Collaborative Partnership Program, which is actually Denver County's CSP, which is Collaborative Management Program, which is funded primarily through House Bill 1451 that was created like 15 years ago. So that's the structure. So Savio House actually doesn't provide the services there, the fiscal agent for DCP, so that the money through this this grant through the feds, federal government comes through the state and then through the county, and then we give it to Savio House to manage. They do not provide respite care through this money. They provide intensive case management and family advocacy that could include services in the community, that could include possibly sometimes rental assistance. That also could include some of the impacts that cognitive has had on families. It's really needs based on family to family. There is a lot of flexibility on what we can and cannot provide under this program. And that was part of the motivation to have it go through DCP, because we can have access to provide services to families outside of the child welfare system. So how many families is it serving this year right now? It's 35 families, right. Currently this year. So and the the grant is anywhere from 20 to 40 is how it was written from the federal government. And is there a way, since Sabio is just the fiscal aid, is there a way to get the report from the direct service provider on what the funds are being used for? Yes. Yes. Yeah, we do have a budget. I can follow up with them to get a breakdown of how the funds are spent. Some. Thank you. That's it on that one from.
Speaker 0: All right. Great. Thank you. The next item up is Bill. 1110. Councilmember CdeBaca. Go ahead with your questions on Bill 1110.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. I mean, there's a lot of good stuff on here tonight. And I was a former youth provider, so having been a provider for summer youth employment and right in the middle of their shift to DPS being the prime contractor, essentially, I'm curious about how DPS with partners was able to recalibrate during the COVID summer and how these dollars were paid out to youth. I know we're extending it, so I imagine there were some complications, but I really would just like to know how we recalibrated. Where did the money go and how many youth were served?
Speaker 5: Thank you. Thank you. Councilman CdeBaca, this is Tony Anderson. I get to be the director of Workforce Services for Denver Economic Development, an opportunity. Really appreciate the questions and the call out in the opportunity to talk about summer youth employment program this year. As you would all imagine, it was an interesting summer and we are really proud of what we were able to do in partnership with Denver Public Schools. I have Eric to be adored here joining me and will look to him to talk a little bit more about the program, specifics and total number of serve. But essentially, we're here today for tonight asking for an extension of this contract for two reasons. First reason being to extend the amount of time that the youth have to actually complete the virtual job readiness training. I'll talk about what a normal summer looks like and provide a little context to this. But essentially reason one is to give the youth more time to complete those virtual job readiness assignments. And then the second main reason was the major change. The contract is to allow a bit more proration to pay the stipends to the youth based on the exact amount of time that they completed of the virtual job readiness training . And so going into this summer, we had a $1,000 stipends available for up to 325 youth to complete this virtual job readiness training, which was done through the Google platform, through Denver Public Schools. And essentially what we wrote in the contract is they could get 50% of that that stipend if they completed 50% of the training. There was kind of a 1 to 1 portion and then a202 portion that they could get the additional $500 giving that $4,000 in their hand for completion. And what we found is we had to use that completed 75%, and we had some youth that completed 25%. And rather than give them zero or give them just 500, instead of that 750, you know, the the spirit of the program this year was to get us get the full 325 youth enrolled and get as much of the dollars in their hands as possible. And so, you know, for us, a normal summer looks like in, you know, January, February, March, it's heavy recruitment of the youth and the employers for the placement. You know, April, maybe comes that time where we're matching up the youth with those employment opportunities and those work experience typically start in June and run June, July, August, giving us September for kind of final invoicing and then October for a final report. And as you would imagine, COVID 19 and the timing of that, which hit right in March, left us scrambling a bit. And as we saw other cities really canceling their summer youth employment program, we were determined not to do that. And so we spent that kind of March and April period trying to figure it out and landed on what I think was a really fair and equitable solution across the board for folks. And what that did is and it sent us back into recruitment mode into that May and June and enrollment time period. And so youth just got a later start. Youth were starting in July and August and you know, just to allow more flexibility, which again was the entire spirit of our summer youth employment program. That's why we're coming forth with this extension request. And I'll pause there and hopefully Eris can jump in and talk about where we are today. Otherwise, I can definitely give an update. Yeah, sure. Absolutely echo the challenges that we face in terms of designing all the contract negotiations that took place as a result and then just the implementation. And I think it was a lot for us to expect our participants to continue to move into the virtual space and have all that screen time, etc.. But they're doing it right. Most of our youth onboarded in July. They just haven't completed the pace that we expected. So we're currently serving.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 3: WhatsApp is looking for the numbers. How many students are currently in the process of receiving their dollars?
Speaker 5: That's 106. 106.
Speaker 3: Awesome. Awesome. Well, I will touch base with you guys when you start administering the rest of those to find out completion percentages and what was more or most common? Where did they stop at? Just because, you know, I still am engaged in the youth development world and very curious to see how we continue with this. So thank you. That's it for my questions on this one. Madam President.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman. And thank you, gentlemen, for joining us and answering those questions. The next item up is Bill 1106. Councilmember Torres, will you please put council Bill 1106 on the floor for publication?
|
Resolution
|
A resolution amending the Denver City Council Rules of Procedure.
A resolution amending the Denver City Council Rules of Procedure which adds a Land Acknowledgement to follow the Pledge of Allegiance. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 10-20-20.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_10262020_20-1106
|
Speaker 1: I move that I have to build 21 one of 60 ordered published.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded questions or comments by members of Council Council member Sayed Ibaka.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. First, I want to quickly explain to the public what a bond is. A bond is a loan. A city passes a bond to pay for a range of different things, from deferred maintenance to new capital projects. And in some cities, not Denver, but in some cities, housing. Once a bond is authorized by the voters, the city can draw on the loan to pay for those approved projects. The bond dollars are issued in phases, and this current issuance has been accelerated with the justification from the mayor that borrowing to complete projects during a global pandemic will jumpstart our economy. That, to me, feels like saying that when I'm unemployed, that. I. I should spend on my credit card. With no real way to pay it back in order to jumpstart my life. Some of us spend our money that way. And with personal finances, that's a risk. And the risk is much lower. But when we do that as a city, we place that burden of paying our annual loan payment of hundreds of millions of dollars over the collective power of the taxpayers. And so right now, our taxpayers are struggling. They were struggling before COVID. Skyrocketing property taxes are at the root of involuntary displacement and rent hikes. So I, in good conscience cannot approve an accelerated issuance that will saddle our taxpayers with more debt as a city in such uncertain times, times that are calling for a much more careful spending and attention toward an uncertain future. So I hope that my colleagues tonight will see the wisdom in not spending beyond our means in the middle of this crisis and allow us some time to recalibrate as a city before we issue more debt. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. We've got councilwoman. Blackout.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Madam President, I was just wondering who might be in the meeting from the Department of Finance to talk about the legalities of this bond. It was approved by voters in 2017, and we have ten years to complete the projects. And so I think Michel Johnson might be on the call and she can address that. Or maybe somebody else. I'm not sure whose this is.
Speaker 1: Michelle.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Oh, there's Michelle. Go ahead, Michelle.
Speaker 1: Know. So thank you, Councilwoman CdeBaca, for your comments and Councilwoman.
Speaker 2: BLOCK for that. Just now.
Speaker 3: Your statement is correct.
Speaker 2: So once a jobs program has been authorized by voters, we do have ten years to issue the bonds before the program or before the authorization becomes viewed as stale. And so there is that time limit from when we when voters authorize the election in 2017. I also just note that, you know, our geo debt is currently well under the city charter limit of 3% of actual real personal property value. And in addition, you know, we our geo bonds are repaid by dedicated property tax mill levies. And the issuance of these new bonds does not change the amount of. Bond principle or bond interest, no levies that we plan to levy for 2020 or 2021 collections. So that doesn't change irrespective of whether these new bonds are passed through or not.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Michelle, could you restate, Michelle, what city agency you're with, please?
Speaker 1: I'm sorry. This is Michelle Johnson with the.
Speaker 2: Department of Finance.
Speaker 0: All right, great. Thank you. Councilmember Black, do you have any follow up questions?
Speaker 3: And no, just that there also is sort of a refinancing element of this. Michelle, do you want to comment on that?
Speaker 1: Absolutely. So the.
Speaker 2: Item.
Speaker 1: For approval consists of two components.
Speaker 2: One is the name. And for the elevated bourbon program up to 170 million of PAS. And then the second component is about 290 million for the funding of our 2000 and the better bonds. And that portion is to achieve interest cost savings. Under current market conditions were anticipating the ability to achieve about 57 million of net present value savings on the refunding piece, which is pretty significant. And as we talked about in committee, you know, from a debt management perspective, we do look to combine refunding opportunities with new money issuances to save on cost of issuance and for efficiencies . And so these two are drafted together under one bond ordinance and is combined, if you will, for or.
Speaker 5: Approval under this item.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Michelle.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilmember Hines.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam President. Councilmember Black actually asked some of the same questions that I was going to ask. I do want to say. I do want to ask, though. You mentioned it's $57 million in savings from the restructuring. Is that what. Could you translate that into a percentage?
Speaker 1: Absolutely.
Speaker 2: That's about.
Speaker 1: 19.7% of.
Speaker 2: Our refund in bonds.
Speaker 5: Have you, in your experience, ever gotten that or realized any where near that kind of cost savings from bond issuance or bond restructuring in the city of Denver in your time?
Speaker 2: I've been.
Speaker 1: With the city since 2014 and.
Speaker 2: I have not seen our present value savings to that level. So this is this is pretty significant power to me.
Speaker 5: Okay. Thank you. I mean, I guess so. I have a financial background and I would say this is actually good for the citizens of Denver to take advantage of the interest savings from 2010 to the present, where we're we're saving more money for our citizens by doing this restructuring. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember. Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 2: So I wanted to ask a couple of questions and then make a statement.
Speaker 7: Michelle, are you still on?
Speaker 2: Mm hmm. She's okay. Um.
Speaker 7: So when I had my briefing, one of the questions that I asked was about our commitment to local hire.
Speaker 2: And by now.
Speaker 7: Making sure that we're working.
Speaker 2: Towards goals instead of just continuing to call all this a.
Speaker 7: Pilot project, we're well past the pilot in terms of ensuring that these particular projects.
Speaker 2: Which will create a number of.
Speaker 7: Jobs for people who work in the various construction.
Speaker 2: Fields.
Speaker 7: Will actually be paying livable wages to the people working on the site. And that has historically.
Speaker 2: Been one of the benefits of doing bond projects, particularly.
Speaker 7: When you're in.
Speaker 2: Economic times.
Speaker 7: Like we are now, because it's actually putting money back out into the community for, you know, all the various supplies as well as the wages that are paid, which then those workers spend money, you know, throughout our community as well.
Speaker 2: But can you tell me.
Speaker 7: Where.
Speaker 2: You guys are at with a commitment.
Speaker 3: To.
Speaker 2: Being beyond calling this a pilot.
Speaker 7: Program and now ensuring that we're setting goals on the hiring? So can you just speak to that? I think Scott.
Speaker 1: Retract from our team is going to take.
Speaker 2: That one woman. Okay, Scott, appreciate you. And I'm sorry I didn't give you a heads up that.
Speaker 7: I was going to raise this again tonight.
Speaker 2: But since it was called out, I thought I would just.
Speaker 7: Piggyback.
Speaker 0: On on it being called out.
Speaker 2: To ask where we are. You're. You're missed. I can't hear you.
Speaker 5: Councilwoman. Can you hear me now? Yes. Great. Thank you for that question. This is Scott Rich RATH on the program manager for the Elevate Denver Bond Program. And we're actually proud of the accomplishments we made when this was a pilot in its early issuances. Several projects that made up that pilot were Elevate Denver programs. Many of them were under contract for construction prior to the outset of the program. So they were, in some cases, for the contractors, volunteer voluntary programs. And nevertheless, our program management office works on a regular basis, monthly or more, with Marcus Johnson and the DOE group that spearhead the Workforce Development Program. We are pleased to say we will be moving from this pilot now and in fact, with issuance, four have targeted a number of projects that would be great candidates now to enable the city to firmly establish this program moving forward. In fact, just last week yeah, just last week, we shared that list with Marcus Johnson and the team. We have a meeting set for just after the scheduled adoption of issuance for if that should happen to go ahead and outline a plan for those projects that have capacity and ability to move into the workforce program. We've analyzed all projects that are 0 to 5 million of anticipated construction, 5 to 10 million of anticipated construction, 10 to 25 I'm sorry, 10 to 50 and 50 million or more. A lot of our large projects were early in the program. They were partnered with our city partners such as Denver Art Museum and Denver Health, which had large dollars of construction. Those were already under contract before the program launched. But we do, however, now have a number of city led projects with dollars in issuance for that would enable us to firmly establish this graduate out of the pilot program and into a more permanent program. But again, the Elevate Denver Bond Program will lead that. We will be a partner to Dito and and that workforce development team will will run point on that for both bond and non bond projects alike.
Speaker 2: So Scott, can.
Speaker 7: You identify kind of what that percentage looks like.
Speaker 2: Of those projects that will.
Speaker 7: Incorporate the.
Speaker 2: Commitment to.
Speaker 7: Local hire?
Speaker 5: Yes, I can I can speak in rough terms from number of projects standpoint or a project count standpoint. It will be relatively small. There are over 450 total projects within the ten year program. But from a dollar amount standpoint, it will be substantive. Perhaps when all is said and done, more than 50% of the dollars would be eligible to participate in this program. Looking forward, we have large projects that have more than $15 million of construction, such as Westwood Recreation Center, that would become part of the program. So when, you know, when we tally up the total dollars, it will be a much larger percentage than if we look at the individual projects we have. As you know, Councilwoman, a number of projects that are from $50,000 irrigation sprinkler renovations to $250,000 paving projects where we're just laying asphalt. Those are not ripe opportunities necessarily to put large numbers to work. But the bigger projects, particularly those that are vertical construction projects, recreation centers and whatnot, will provide great opportunity.
Speaker 7: Thank you for that.
Speaker 2: I just wanted to make us a statement and that is that in my number of years with the city.
Speaker 0: Almost 40 years with the city.
Speaker 7: I have never seen our interest.
Speaker 2: Rates this low that allow us to take advantage of being able to do.
Speaker 7: The refinancing and save money that.
Speaker 2: Councilman Hines just talked about earlier. So this really is a great deal for the taxpayers.
Speaker 7: Because it's ensuring that these projects are going to get completed. And as you all know, these are projects that were asked for by the residents of our city. There was a.
Speaker 2: Huge public.
Speaker 7: Outreach to the residents asking.
Speaker 2: For input on what should be in this bond package. And so these are.
Speaker 7: Projects that will provide incredible benefit to our neighborhoods.
Speaker 2: I know Westwood has been.
Speaker 7: You know, waiting for that recreation center for many, many years. And so I just want to say I'm delighted to support it tonight.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam President. Most of what I wanted to say has already been said, so I'll be very brief. I would have thought that the effectiveness of stimulus spending, infrastructure spending, would have been adequately demonstrated by FDR 90 years ago. But more recently, we have the lesson of the better Denver bonds that were put out in 2007, approved in 2007, and carried out in the in the ten year period after that during the Great Recession. And what we found what the team found was that not only did the bids and the work come in under our budget , under our estimates, but it also allowed us to pool those savings and do even more projects. And now that we are in another recession, now is the perfect time to provide jobs. And and to echo Councilman Himes, it's also the perfect opportunity to lessen the impact on taxpayers by refinancing at a lower interest rate and paying them off earlier. So this bill makes makes complete sense, and I urge every member to support it. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Flynn. Councilwoman CdeBaca, you back up?
Speaker 3: Yes. Just wanted to thank you, Madam President. Just wanted to throw some final words out there. There is a relationship in the in the world that we're ignoring when when these rates go down, they're going down for a reason and incentivizing us to take out more debt at the same time in exchange for that cost savings that we're perceiving. And so for regular people out there, it's like a cash out refinance of your home where you basically take out equity, more equity in order to pay back on, but you're buying down your points. And so it's a relationship that I think cancels itself out in the long run if we're still borrowing while we're experiencing some kind of decrease in our percentage rate. And so just wanted to throw that out there. I understand people feel very differently across the country and in our city about debt. And so still, I'm a no appreciate you all humoring me. Thanks.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Clark.
Speaker 5: Thank you. I'm sure I just will respectfully disagree with the two analogies that have been used. This is very different than taking out credit card to spend where you would have to pay for that. We have a dedicated source of revenue for this. This is not eating into budget for anything else like you would if you're spending on your credit card. And now you have to choose between spending this money or that money so that that analogy is not relevant to what is going on here, nor is it accurate. And also, this is not a cash out refinance. This is refinancing our existing debt to lower our payments, reducing the total cost that Denver taxpayers will have on a suite of things that Denver voters already approved with with that revenue stream. So this is also inaccurate. I just wanted to be on the record saying that both of those analogies were inaccurate representations of what is happening here. This is a refinance of existing debt, which brings our costs down. This is spending that can go to jobs of work that is already done and comes from a different revenue stream and is not eating up something else in the budget as increasing credit card spending when you have a decrease in income would be. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Clark. Councilman CdeBaca.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. Just to go on and clarify, it is the same thing because we're refinancing debt and taking out more debt, and it is similar in that we float the mills. So the city sets the multiplier when we're deciding what to multiply our assessed values at. And so that is something that directly affects the taxpayers at any time, especially during a crisis like this. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And just a quick reminder for folks, we've got two more items on the call out and then three hearings tonight as well. And so thank you, Councilman Councilman Hines.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam President. I would agree with Councilmember CdeBaca that we are refinancing, that. I would disagree with Councilmember CdeBaca. We are not taking on any more debt. We are only doing what the people have already told us to do. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Madam Secretary, roll call, please.
Speaker 3: CDEBACA No.
Speaker 2: Clark.
Speaker 5: Hi. When I. I.
Speaker 4: Hi.
Speaker 5: I.
Speaker 4: Katherine. I can eat. I. Okay. I. The end of all. I so. I saw it.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 3: Black I.
Speaker 4: Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 4: Well, that that's one day.
Speaker 0: 12 eyes council bill 1106 has been ordered published. The next item up is Bill 855. Councilmember CdeBaca, please go ahead with your questions on Bill 855.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. I am curious about the source of funds for this agreement. Is this the tax, the the revenue source that we had voted on for basically to address food injustice?
Speaker 0: We've got a line up, I believe, to answer.
Speaker 2: Akhmatova's in a difficult please.
Speaker 3: I'm Leanne Sadowski and the food systems administrator with the Denver Department of Public Health and Environment. And I'm overseeing this project, also known as the Food and Communities Project. This is not synonymous with our Healthy Food for Kids Tax Initiative. There is a separate initiative that was voted for on the ballot and has established approximately $11 million a year to go towards healthy food for kids and related tuition. Education. Councilmember Torres and Councilmember to sit on the commission for that tax fund. This project is a neighborhood based community food project where we've been working with communities in the east and West Colfax area and in the surrounding jurisdictions as well. To hear from them about their concerns and needs when it comes to community food, to set goals, to establish action plans, and to support community based pilot projects as well as long term policy change and systems change around supporting community food access in those areas. So the grant is citywide, but the pilot projects you're currently working on are both in District three. They are. Peter, remember my.
Speaker 1: Council district that I.
Speaker 3: Had there in the East Colfax area and the West Colfax area? So they are sort of the East Coast, northwest, Aurora area, Lakewood. Barnum sort of neighborhood's awesome. And who are the primary partners on both sides of Colfax? Yeah. So in the communities we're working with a number of different community based organizations in each of the focus areas, as well as with the local public health agencies in Jefferson County and the tri county health department. So in the the West Side neighborhood, we are working with the Sun Valley Community Commission, we're working with the Lasko Housing Development, we're working with the co-op at first Community Organization, just to name a couple. And then on the east side we're working with Eastside Neighborhood Association. Ah, and oh they're, we're working with partners like the Village Exchange Center and several in.
Speaker 1: Northwest Aurora.
Speaker 2: As well.
Speaker 3: So it's a, it's a mix of different kinds of partners depending on the communities. And some of those partners have received grants to pilot projects in those neighborhoods. Awesome. Thank you very much for that clarification. That's it for my questions on that one. Madam President.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman. The next item up is Bill 1194. Councilmember Torres, will you please put council Bill 1194 on the floor for publication?
Speaker 1: A move that canceled the 20 dash, 1194 be ordered published.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance authorizing the issuance of (1) the “City and County of Denver, Colorado, General Obligation Elevate Denver Bonds” for the purpose of financing and defraying the cost of acquiring, constructing, installing and improving various civic facilities; and (2) the “City and County of Denver, Colorado, General Obligation Better Denver Refunding Bonds” for the purpose of refunding, paying, and discharging all or a portion of the City’s outstanding Taxable General Obligation Better Denver Bonds (Direct Pay Build America Bonds), Series 2010B; providing for the levy of general ad valorem taxes to pay the principal of and interest on such Bonds; and making other provisions relating thereto.
Authorizes the issuance of City and County of Denver General Obligation Bonds, Series 2020A-B in a principal amount not to exceed $465 million for the purpose of funding approximately $170 million of Elevate Denver bond projects approved by Denver voters in November 2017, to refund existing Series 2010B Better Denver General Obligation Bonds, and to pay associated costs of issuance. Th
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_10262020_20-1194
|
Speaker 1: A move that canceled the 20 dash, 1194 be ordered published.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded questions or comments by members of council. Council member say the Barker.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam Chair. Just. I mean, Madam President, just wanted to call to attention. We've heard from many people over the last few weeks about the potential of gutting the Fair Elections Fund this year to fund our proposed council amendments. We've heard a lot of opposition to that idea. I stated it in our operating operations meeting last week, but I'll say it again for those tuning in for the first time, the way that this source fund for our amendments was unilaterally slipped into the letter by the mayor or letter to the mayor by Councilman Flynn was disrespectful to those of us who did our homework and proposed our own identified appropriate sources for each of the amendments that we proposed. The choice to defund fair elections instead of defunding the police or the militarized occupation of our communities by DPD and other private and partner local law enforcement entities was tone deaf to the hundreds of people who've devoted their time to us through emails, calls, testimony. As someone who's been chastised for direct filing and allegedly not engaging community. I find it ironic that we're voting on a direct file defunding the clerk in recorder's office without having that office's support to get this fund. In fact, I reached out to them about the proposed idea when it happened and they knew nothing about what was going on. And so I hope that my colleagues will recognize the self-serving nature of defunding the Fair Elections Fund, a fund that could potentially actually help pay for a challenger to take anyone and all of our seats . I hope that with that recognition, recognition that you will not give the public a reason to come for your seats. Colleagues, please vote no tonight and show the public that we respect them enough not to undermine fair elections and this fund in its very first year of implementation. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilmember Hines, I had to call you out as well. You had asked to call this bill out. And so out of respect, do you want to go ahead and say your comments? And then I've got Councilmember Flynn up.
Speaker 5: I can defer to Councilmember Flynn and go after him. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Okay, great. Just wanted to make sure I know that both you and Councilmember CdeBaca had called it out. Councilmember Flynn.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam President. First off, I didn't slip anything into the letter. I didn't write the letter. I brought this up in our budget meetings as a potential source because after my study of the issue, I thought it would it was something we should consider. First of all, this does not gut the fund at all. Not even close. The voters literally, literally gave us the authority to consider suspending or reducing the general fund transfer in a year of a fiscal crisis. The group that wrote this ordinance included this provision in their initiative. Why was it put in there if they don't want us to consider it? This does not override the will of the people. It literally uses a provision in the bill that the citizens wrote and and gave to us. If the sponsors didn't want us to consider this, they shouldn't have included it in the law. Secondly, this bill does not do away with the fund, and it leaves the fund with more than adequate resources to meet the demands of candidates in the next election. I would not have pursued this without first doing my homework on it. I take great pride in doing my homework on on bills and coming prepared. It is effectively a $500,000 reduction over the four year period. The 2019 election were the most expensive we've ever had with a very competitive mayor's race. Three open seats, three incumbents defeated. I would have used only $4 million of the $8 million fund. Even the sponsor of the original initiative, with whom I worked to rewrite this into a more workable system with the clerk's office and refer it to the ballot. In 2018, they ran a simulation of the 2019 city elections, assuming that the Fair Elections Fund would have been in place then and published it on the website, on their website, showing that up to two and a half weeks before the May election, only $2.7 million would have been distributed among the 51 candidates. I would not have submitted this recommendation if I had any doubt that it would leave the Fund without sufficient resources. The recent memo that we got from the clerk's office significantly overestimates the amount that will be needed. I shared my analysis with you all over the weekend. I demonstrated that by backtracking some of its assumptions and the scenarios, and I found multiple areas where it was just overinflated. There was so much cushion in these figures. It could have been written by the Mypillow guy. But I do understand and I respect my colleagues who are persuaded otherwise and will vote differently. I realize that the votes aren't there, here, aren't here now to move this forward. But the optics that I was concerned with is that with city workers forced to take between three and four weeks without pay through furloughs this year and next, because of our budget crisis that we wouldn't consider a half million dollar reduction in the tax subsidies to our own campaigns. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Flynn, Councilmember Hines.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam President. I know we have a lot going on tonight, so I want to be as brief as possible. I would say the clerk has performed his own analysis. And according to their analysis, the the fund needs the money that the people voted to provide it. I trust Denver elections know about elections. That's what they do, after all. And and when I have to decide between the validity of an elections analysis or a colleague analysis about elections, I'm going to trust elections. Also, I believe that the idea is to provide funding for everyone, not just incumbents. And I'm concerned that if we run out of funds, this could turn into an incumbent defense fund, not a fair elections fund. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Hines. Councilman, cashier.
Speaker 5: A Thank you, Madam President. I'll just start by saying that I totally reject the notion that anybody is considering this issue on either side in some attempt to gain advantage in any future election. When this topic was first brought up, I thought, well, if we wanted to borrow, say, a half million bucks and get it replenished the next year, that might be something I'd consider. But after receiving the mayor's response to our list.
Speaker 2: Of amendments.
Speaker 5: I felt he got a little bit carried away with diving into that fund. I have great respect for Councilman Flint, tremendous respect for Clarke Lopez and his staff. I would tend to lean towards.
Speaker 2: The clerk's.
Speaker 5: Assessment of the landscape, but mainly we have no idea what this is, how much money we're going to need.
Speaker 2: And even more.
Speaker 5: Concerning than that is we have no idea where our country is going budget wise. So I'm going to take the conservative approach to protect the fund that our voters passed. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Ortega. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 2: I won't repeat what my colleague, Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 7: Already shared, but two things that I want to mention.
Speaker 2: Is that.
Speaker 7: We basically have said that we're going to engage in a re-imagining policing effort.
Speaker 2: That is.
Speaker 7: Underway, and we were awaiting recommendations from that process to then determine.
Speaker 2: What kinds of changes we might want to see to the police budget. Now, even.
Speaker 7: Aside from that, you know, we identified as a priority to add more funding to the STAR program, which.
Speaker 2: The mayor agreed to do. We in.
Speaker 7: The letter offered basically of the items $371,800.
Speaker 2: To come out of.
Speaker 7: That fund or two.
Speaker 2: To take it away from the police recruit class. Secondly, I don't know how many of you are aware of a recent poll that has been done that looks at where the public is.
Speaker 7: In regard.
Speaker 2: To, you know.
Speaker 7: Support of policing in our city. You know, we hear a lot from people who come to our meetings on a on a regular basis.
Speaker 0: And I don't discount their input, but there are a lot of other people.
Speaker 7: That are in this city who have weighed in via this poll.
Speaker 2: And I'm trying to pull it up right as we speak. But the bottom.
Speaker 7: Line is that when you look at and I'm happy to share with you all that it's saying that 60%.
Speaker 2: Of the responders the question, one of the questions was asked, do you want the police to spend more or less or the same amount of.
Speaker 7: Time in our neighborhoods? The answer was 60%. The same more was 24%.
Speaker 2: And less than.
Speaker 7: 16%.
Speaker 2: Was to on less. And so that's that's just.
Speaker 7: One of the questions. There are a couple of others on there. I think.
Speaker 2: It's important.
Speaker 7: To just kind of know and understand the sentiment of.
Speaker 2: Where the public is on that. And then the.
Speaker 7: Last thing is. Today's economic times and the challenges we're dealing with with our city budget. Have never been.
Speaker 2: Worse.
Speaker 7: Than they are today.
Speaker 2: And the folks who drafted this particular bill gave.
Speaker 7: City council, gave city leaders.
Speaker 2: The option to look at that fund, not not funding it fully.
Speaker 7: In these kinds of.
Speaker 2: Conditions.
Speaker 7: And and so to see the full court press that.
Speaker 0: Was put out by the.
Speaker 7: Very, you know, leader who spearheaded bringing that forward to try to, you know, dictate to us that we should not be using this. And, you know, again, I don't want to repeat what Councilman Flynn just said.
Speaker 2: About how much money.
Speaker 7: Would be needed for the 2023 elections. I think, you know, the conditions and the provision.
Speaker 0: Absolutely give us the authority to do that.
Speaker 7: And so given the fact that our letter suggested that as one of the funding sources and now we're saying, you know.
Speaker 2: We we don't want to use it.
Speaker 7: I think is disingenuous to the process that we're we're going through right now. So just want to share that.
Speaker 0: I think this is absolutely an item that.
Speaker 2: Should.
Speaker 7: We should be considering to address some of the priorities.
Speaker 0: That council has identified.
Speaker 7: In a time that we're asking for money for for a number of things when, you know, everybody else was taking cuts.
Speaker 2: And, you know, some of those are really good and important items.
Speaker 7: But at the same time, everybody's cutting. We've been adding.
Speaker 2: To this budget. So I just wanted.
Speaker 7: To share my thoughts about where I'm at tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Clark.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam President. You know, I think that it's good that we disagree and that we all have different opinions. That's democracy at work. What I struggle with is the attempt to portray this as something that it's not. Rather than having a debate and all of us advocating that there may be a better source of funding than what's proposed. Arguments that I think have real merit. And I think we should. But I think we should be able to have this debate without resorting to dressing this as something that is not. And I completely agree with Councilman Cashman. I don't believe that anyone is trying to do this as an attempt to thwart what the voters had in mind or to keep their job. I think this has to do with the fact that we have a huge financial crisis and we were in that and we have a bunch of amendments that we as council asked to be included and want to change to the budget. So I just want to be clear, this does not gut the fair election fund. I believe looking over the analysis that there will still be plenty of money in this fund to fully fund the 2023 municipal elections. Even if we were to choose to do this as the voters envisioned, even with this amendment and voters approved this specifically with the provision that this is an appropriate thing to consider and debate in the midst of a fiscal crisis. This is the biggest fiscal crisis we've ever seen. So this is not the time to at least look at this then. Then when is that was built in to the bill? I believe that this is a responsible way to look at funding these things. And again, not that there aren't merit to other arguments about, hey, there is a different way to fund it, but I think that this is a reasonable option. I appreciate that. Councilman Flynn, you know, brought this forward for our consideration. And I do think that it's an avenue to fund these amendments without taking away from other critical city services that have already been cut during this crisis and and to retain plenty of money for the intended use in 2023. So I will be supporting it today. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Clark. Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 3: Thanks, Madam President. I'm going to say a lot of the same things that have already been said. I would never support an effort to override the will of the voters. Just as Councilman Clark just pointed out, this doesn't do this. In fact, the fair elections bill that voters approved allowed for this very scenario in the city might be in a budget crisis. Following up on what Councilwoman Ortega said about our financial crisis and Councilman Flynn's comments about the sacrifices our city workers have to make when they are taking three or four weeks of unpaid furlough days, I think there is no other better indication of the crisis that we are in right now. I do believe this bill ensures that the Fair Election Fund will be replenished so that adequate funds will be available for the 2023 election. I, for one, will not be using any taxpayer dollars for my next campaign. I am going to vote yes tonight because in our letter that we all agreed to, we put the Fair Election Fund as a possible funding source. I don't know why we would have put that in the letter if we didn't think it was a realistic option. So I agree that we don't have the votes here tonight, but just because of the fact that we put it in the letter, I will be voting yes tonight. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Torres.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam Sident I just a commentary that we sent six key recommendations to the mayor for budget changes with a number of suggestions for sources. It was the mayor who sent back preliminary approval for all those recommendations to come from the Fair Elections Fund. There were other sources identified, and I think we put thought into those. And I would like to make sure that that we go back to those next week. While I believe the clerk made a good faith effort to support what the council might be going through right now in not necessarily opposing this move as long as the fund was made whole again. But I don't think we need to dip into the fund to get these things funded. I think there are other sources within the city. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman, can each.
Speaker 3: Excuse me. Thank you, Madam President. So I have been following this discussion really closely, and I think that it concerns me that there is a narrative in our country right now that it's all or nothing and that, you know, two very subtle things that seem opposing can't be true, that it's all black and white. And I guess that, you know, I will just say that I feel like the letter was the function of a very crunch time line. People did their best. Some people apparently had time to review it. Some people didn't. But there were not bad intentions there. Right. But it was also true that it was rushed and it is hard for human beings with the workload that this council has to meet very compressed timelines. So, you know, in terms of the analysis, I think it's both true that fewer dollars would be needed under a scenario in the past. But I also I don't know what explains the Clarke's difference in analysis, but I think people will behave differently in future elections where they know matching is possible. And so I think it is reasonable to say that we should go the conservative route and fully fund just in case to be prepared for this first cycle. And that that's a prudent thing to assume that behavior would be different based on this law. It doesn't mean that someone you know, I don't know. I don't know if that's why their analysis came out differently. But but I think I just I think that it if I were in a different timeline, you know, we I'm not interested in sacrificing some of the items on our amendment list. Right. So I guess what I would say is, if this were closer to PAC thing, what I'd want to do is amend it and have it continue to second reading so that we can more thoroughly get a chance to evaluate whether or not things can pass with the sources that were proposed. Right. So, for example, I had none. You know, this was listed as an option for one of the amendments that I worked on, which was the staff contribution. But the staff contribution exceeds the value of this entire contribution. So it does not these dollars are not enough to fund our entire list, even if we were to approve this tonight. But they may be a source that could help a few items get over the finish line that might struggle. So I will just say that I gave several conditions to Councilman Flynn on my support for this measure. One was that we didn't reduce the funding completely in 2020 because I thought it was important that the community see the ongoing commitment to the fund. And the second was that it be restored to the full amount in the next year so that we would be made whole for this cycle. And I acknowledge we may be over funding it for this cycle. We don't know and I think it's fair for the community to see the full amount funded for one cycle and then we can evaluate if it really is only two and a half million, maybe we slow it down for the next cycle. Things will also get more expensive in four years. So you can see that taking a conservative route might continue to keep a balance. But you you don't want the taxpayers dollars sitting there unused. So I guess that, you know, if this were, you know, a seven, six type situation or six seven, I might say, let's continue the conversation for another week so that we can see if indeed this might be the source needed to get some of these items over the finish line. But I would amend it to change the restraint restored amount. I'm not going to do that on first reading because I think that it's it's likely not going to pass. But I just want to describe the the fact that it could be a situation where we find some items from the sources that were suggested because there were very important reasons for those sources and they're reasonable sources. I think, for example, an $80 million parks budget can afford a $360,000 restroom expense, for example. I wouldn't suggest this or any other source for that. You know, there's a there's a reason why that budget should be carrying this, but it may be that other items do need these dollars. So so I guess that I just want to reiterate things that I've heard from people on both sides, which is that it's important for the community to have trust and for them to have trust. I think consistency of funding, even at a reduced level in accordance because we do have a fiscal crisis. And I do believe I just want to be clear that if I vote no on this tonight, I am in no way, shape or form saying that it is inappropriate to reduce the payment to this fund in the future. It may be necessary and it may be appropriate. And the goal then is to catch it back up. And frankly, if this city were to ever have a situation in. Where we had more qualified candidates than this fund could support. We would have a moral obligation to run a supplemental. So frankly, I don't even feel like the fund balance is the determining factor. The determining factor should be how many dollars are needed, and it is our moral obligation to fund that. And that is what we have a contingency fund every year. We have a 2% contingency fund. Even in a recession, we have a 2% contingency fund for unexpected items. And these dollars could be if we have five recalls or retirements that were before the end of the cycle in 2022, for example. And we were not fully funded yet. We could then use a supplemental that is what that contingency fund is for. So I just want to be clear. The value of fair elections is not under attack today. Even the funding for fair elections is not under attack. We have a balance in the fund today, but I do think we have not given the right details in this proposal to fully support the trust of the community by fully that funding it for at least one full cycle. So. So I am likely to know tonight unless it looks like this is going to pass, in which case then I will be moving to amend it on final reading.
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman.
Speaker 5: Councilman Herndon thinking I'm president. I want to thank my colleagues who have articulated quite nicely how what this doesn't do. So I won't reiterate that nor repeat it. I think that in this particular case, we're doing just what the voters allowed us to do. And during the worst fiscal crisis most people can ever, certainly in their recent history, to not even consider this source of funds, I think, would be irresponsible, because most other sources and we could certainly have conversations about our reserves, but the percentage that we had going lower than that would make me uncomfortable. Taking from other sources what we require more cuts to our city. And I, I believe that our city has had enough cuts, particularly for 2021. So considering utilizing some of these funds so that our city agencies wouldn't have to take even more of a deeper cut, I felt fiscally was the prudent way to go and that's why I am supporting this moving and I would certainly hope this would be something that we would consider to do. But I certainly appreciate the dialog and reasons why we should. And I don't I don't have any ill will towards the court because if I was elected recorder, I would have concerns as well. But I think we should acknowledge no matter which analysis was done, click on Recorder's Office, Councilman Flynn's office. There are assumptions in that and you have to make those assumptions. So I would certainly I support this moving forward and I hope that my colleagues would consider it. But if not, we're going to have to make some hard choices about where else we're going to make cuts even more painful. Painful, deeper cuts. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Herndon. Councilman Hines, I have you back up in the in the queue.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam President. Just two quick points. I do want to thank all my colleagues for the reason conversation that we're having, and I respect everyone here. Second is, I would disagree that the Fair Elections Fund is that just because the Fair Elections Fund was in the letter that we all agreed to it in the day we had to provide or the day we had to provide edits to the letter. I did share my reservations about adding the Fair Elections Fund and encouraged its removal. It remained in the letter that. So I just wanted to point that out. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Haines. Councilwoman Sandoval.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. So I have a question.
Speaker 3: For the mayor's office. Is anyone on the line who could answer a question?
Speaker 0: We have Skye Stewart perfect on the line from the mayor's office.
Speaker 4: Okay.
Speaker 7: All right, Councilman, can you repeat the question I just was asking?
Speaker 3: Who was on the line? I didn't ask the question yet.
Speaker 7: Okay, thanks. I thought I missed it.
Speaker 3: I just wanted to make sure you were a panelist. Thank you. So.
Speaker 4: Hey, Skye. Have in recent.
Speaker 3: Times, in recent memory. Do you ever remember there being a budget amendment that came forward that promised to pay back a fund? So I've been racking my brain.
Speaker 4: I've been going through all my.
Speaker 3: Notes since working for Councilman Monteiro starting in 2012.
Speaker 4: And I can never write.
Speaker 3: And I called a.
Speaker 7: Couple people.
Speaker 3: Who served as electeds during the Great Recession. No one can remember a proposal.
Speaker 4: Where we.
Speaker 3: Take money from a fund but didn't promise to fund it again. How would that work?
Speaker 7: So thanks for the question. In some ways, that's probably more of a legal question than it is one for me. You are correct. I don't remember a time when we have made that kind of commitment. I think, you know, typically everything has to be subject to a council approval of appropriation. And so it would have to be considered on a year by year basis based on our financial condition. So I don't remember ever being in a in a bill before. Certainly, I think there have been conversations in the past about a number of different things where there might be a priority identified, that there have been commitments to figuring out ways to get to that funding. But I think you're correct. I don't remember seeing it in a in a bill per se before.
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 3: And then one other question. Remind me just of the process. So do did.
Speaker 4: City council always.
Speaker 3: Propose to the mayor here where we should get funding for our amendments from? What funds.
Speaker 4: Does is.
Speaker 3: That historically what happens?
Speaker 7: So another good question and I would separate out the two processes, the informal process that comes with requests that come in the letter to the mayor and then the formal budget amendment process, which which starts now as part of the budget being in front of Council for Public Hearing and action. In the case of the request letter, it has been it's been something that's been talked about every year. I think we have always encouraged council members to think about what sources it might come from, but it has not been provided every year. It's it has depended on the council, I think probably depended on the economic condition. But many times it has been that requests come in and sort of say, use your judgment where these dollars would come from. Certainly when you were in the formal budget amendment process, you would have to identify that source, which means that you are addressing both the the new funding you want to create and what you think should be reduced. As part of trying to have a collaborative process. It is always helpful to have those discussions and those suggestions put forward, but it's not a requirement in that budget request letter. So it has varied over the years. Sometimes we have had sources identified or suggested and sometimes we have not. And in that same way, sometimes the mayor has taken those suggestions and sometimes he has not.
Speaker 4: Okay.
Speaker 7: Thank you, guys.
Speaker 4: For those.
Speaker 3: Questions. So I just want to say. This one, is it? It's challenging to have a discussion. I know, Councilman Quinn, that you didn't have the opportunity to.
Speaker 4: Push this through.
Speaker 3: Committee. It's challenging to have direct files come. And I don't think that you did this to hide anything. It just was the time crunch that we always find ourselves in right now. Some public comment was made that we you were attempted to do this to hide something. And I don't think that and I think your intent was to be fiscally responsible. And you saw this as a fund. So with that, I'll just continue listening to my colleagues.
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Sandoval. Councilman Flynn, we've got you back up. And then I don't think we have heard from Councilwoman Sawyer yet tonight. In this conversation. So I wanted to ask Councilwoman Flynn if it's okay if I bounce over to Councilman Sawyer. All right. Thank you. Go ahead, Councilwoman.
Speaker 3: Thank you. I really appreciate it. Sorry. I was, like, shouting to my family to turn on the TV in the background, working and working from home. Sorry about that. Thanks, Madam President. I really appreciate this conversation. With all of my council members and very much appreciate Councilman Flynn's position. I think it was thoughtful and I certainly think it came from the right place. I have said many times I did not support this. I did not support the Fair Elections Fund because I have a lot of concerns about Citizens United. And I don't I don't know that a fair elections fund without the federal government addressing Citizens United. And that decision makes sense because, frankly, until soft side spending in elections is addressed, it doesn't necessarily do any good to fix this side, to fix the hard side. That said, the voters have spoken. And I think, you know, when 71% of people in Denver say that they want something, it is not fair for us to necessarily, you know, change that, particularly in its first year. And, you know, maybe if we had more information, maybe if we had historical data to pull from, then I would be willing to support it. Maybe if it were only one or two priorities that the mayor's response letter had pulled from, then that would be different. But the letter that came, I guess, when I when I agreed to can, you know, sending this in consideration, I didn't expect the letter to come back to us from the mayor's office with almost every single one of our priorities being funded out of the Fair Elections Fund, because in a billion and a half dollar budget, every single one of council's priorities shouldn't have been funded out of the Fair Elections Fund. I think that that put on council an unfair expectation. And and. And put us in a situation where we're having to have this conversation in in the first place at all. And that is not something in a billion and a half dollars and a billion and a half dollar budget that ever should have happened in the first place. So that alone is why I won't be supporting this tonight, because I think we have a billion and a half dollars. We could shake some couch cushions and find money for council's priorities without defunding the Fair Elections Fund that 71% of Denver voters approved in 2018. And I think that it doesn't make sense for us to tap this fund to this extent without further historical data and information to pull from. So I just wanted to put that out there. And thanks so much, Madam President.
Speaker 0: And. Q Councilman Sawyer. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam President. I wasn't going to speak again, but I raised my hand only after Councilwoman Kennedy made her remarks. And I want to thank her for for that. It was because of her remarks that I approached the finance office and the mayor's office to see could we figure out a way to replenish the fund after this next budget, which is the worst year we expect? And could we possibly get up to the $2 million that I think Councilman Cashman had asked me to look at? And Councilwoman Kennish also and the 1.5 million replenishment was about the maximum that I could get a commitment from finance to do. They have actually asked for more flexibility and were and if Brendan is listening, there were a little upset when I actually put in the bill that it had to be a half a million in 2022 and 1 million in additional in 2023. And that was the most I could get. So I'm sorry to say, Councilwoman, can you. I don't think it would be possible to get to the commitment for the full 2 million. It might be possible if we have a better recovery than we are currently anticipating. But I do want to thank Madam President, all of all of my colleagues who spoke. It's a really difficult task, and I understand all of your reasons for doing it. None of our votes is is always is clearly black and white. It always requires a lot of thought and nuance. And so I appreciate the reasons everybody stated for whether they're voting yes or no. And that's all I have. Madam President, thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Flynn. And I'll go ahead and weigh in here before we do roll call. And so I appreciate how intentional all of you are. We had these same sort of conversations during our televised budget hearings as well into our four days of deliberation. It was transparent. The public knew what we were talking about. And as being the president of council, if I failed on the side of trying to get us to compromise, I'm okay with that because I represent all of you. And that letter was a combination of everybody's ideas, all the work we put together. And far be it from me as the president of council saying to one of my colleagues, Councilman Flynn, I don't think that's going to fly. I'm not for it. I don't think we should put it in the letter. We discussed it at one of our meetings. You know, there were opportunities for folks to edit it and look at it. I think the the greatest disappointment is that. We tried to be partners in this process with the administration. And unfortunately, through sitting through and listening to all of our budget hearings, there was great.
Speaker 2: Just just.
Speaker 0: Great allowances taken with utilizing the Fair Election Fund for all of our asks. I mean, we asked for 3 million for the Star Expansion Citizen Oversight Board. That should have been over 91,000. And so, you know, unfortunately, with it being such a difficult budget year, I figured we were going to be in some sort of conversation like this. I just didn't anticipate that there wasn't going to be that back and forth, especially on the items that we intentionally did not list, the Fair Elections Fund, and there was no discussion or other options given to that. We could have put no funding source in our letter, and it still could have come back with utilize the Fair Elections Fund or you're just not going to get any of these assets. And so I wanted to note kind of the history as I saw it and what we did. And and honestly, there was no nothing nefarious around us putting something in Last-Minute or Councilman Flynn trying to slide something by. I mean, we need to look at every single option out there to address what we have been hearing from our constituents since March. And that is the true intent. And for. No conversation to be had. To clarify, are you saying 3 million total for 2021 or is your ask 3 million? There was no back and forth and to be tone deaf to the public around wanting to have more investment in the community from a safety and quite frankly, from an anti-racist anti oppression lens. How we're looking at safety. We've got to look at where we're going to pull those funds and be responsive to what our constituents and community have been telling us. And I look forward to working with you all during this week to figure out how we can make that happen when we get back together at Council on the seconds to look at finalizing the 2021 proposed budget. Madam Secretary, roll call, please.
Speaker 4: See the bucket?
Speaker 3: No.
Speaker 4: Clark.
Speaker 5: I. When I.
Speaker 4: Herndon.
Speaker 5: I.
Speaker 4: Huh?
Speaker 5: No.
Speaker 4: Cashman?
Speaker 5: No. Kenny.
Speaker 4: Ask Ortega? Yes. In? Never, no. So we're. Now. Tory.
Speaker 1: No.
Speaker 4: Black.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 4: Can we? Now. Madam President?
Speaker 0: No, Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 4: Five eyes, eight made.
Speaker 0: Five Eyes, Eight Nays Council Bill 1194 has failed. That concludes the items to be called out. All other bills for introduction are or 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 Torres, would you please put the resolutions for adoption and bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor?
Speaker 1: A 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. 20 Dash 1108 20 Dash 1109 20 Dash ten 8520 Dash 1107 20. Dash 11 6320. Dash 905 20. Dash 1113. 20 209 3120 Dash ten 8020 Dash 11 1122 Dash 1058 2010 5420. Dash ten 7320. Dash 1050 and 20. Dash 1051.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and second to. Thank you, Councilman Herndon. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 4: Black. I see the bouquet.
Speaker 3: By.
Speaker 4: The car. My friend.
Speaker 5: I.
Speaker 4: Herndon.
Speaker 5: I.
Speaker 4: Hi.
Speaker 5: Hi.
Speaker 4: Cashman.
Speaker 5: Hi.
Speaker 4: Can each.
Speaker 5: I like.
Speaker 4: Ortega. I see all. I. Sawyer.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 4: Correct.
Speaker 2: I. I.
Speaker 4: Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results. 3913 Eyes. The resolutions have been adopted and the bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass the pre recess announcement. Tonight, there will be a required public hearing on Council Bill 929. Changing the zoning classification of 1290 William Street and Cheeseman Park are required public hearing on the mayor's proposed 2021 budget and a 30 minute courtesy public hearing on Council Resolution 1042 approving a proposed agreement between the city and County of Denver and Universal Protection Service LP for Security Personnel Services. Anyone wishing to speak on any of these matters must go online to sign up during the recess of council. If there are no objections from members of council, we will take a ten minute recess. Council members, please remember to turn off your cameras and meet your microphones and we will return at 7:38 p.m..
Speaker 5: I'm Russell. Hey.
Speaker 7: And I'm Michael Smith from Denver seven. Join us for Denver decides where we'll be asking the tough questions to candidates.
Speaker 3: During the 2020 election.
Speaker 5: We'll go in-depth with the contenders when we meet to debate the issues as we present the candidate forums.
Speaker 7: Denver Decides also takes a closer look.
Speaker 3: At the complex November ballot for Denver voters.
Speaker 5: 2020 has been a challenging year for everyone, but we're here to help you navigate the upcoming election.
Speaker 7: Times may be tough, but voting shouldn't be.
Speaker 3: Join us for Denver decides.
Speaker 5: Where Denver voters go to get informed.
Speaker 8: 311 is here for residents during the COVID pandemic. Currently in Denver, customer facing retail employees should always be wearing masks while on the job, and many businesses have a current maximum capacity of 50% occupancy. So if you see an unsafe situation at a business, restaurant or park related to mask wearing or social distancing, give 311a call or submit a case on pocket gov.
Speaker 5: Once you receive a report, the city will come out and educate business owners so that they can be in compliance. Our main goal is your safety.
Speaker 8: To report COVID related violations, such as a large house party, residents need to call Denver police on their non-emergency line as this situation continues to evolve. You'll always find the city's most up to date. Information on Denver gov dot org. Denver 311 and pocket go help you navigate Denver City Services.
Speaker 3: Denver's HOV crosswalk signals are helping us cross streets more safely. Just press the button to activate the flashing yellow warning lights so drivers are alerted to slow down and stop giving pedestrians a safe way to cross. Visit Denver gov dot org slash vision zero.
Speaker 6: Clearing your yard of fallen leaves is easy with Denver leaf drop a leaf collection and composting program of Denver recycles. Denver residents can drop off their leaves on these days at several convenient locations during the week. Leaves can be dropped off during business hours at the Denver Solid Waste Transfer Station or the Havana nursery through these days . Call 311 or log on to the website for details about this and other residential public works programs.
Speaker 8: This week on New York City. Now, as the nation gears up to vote in November. Learn about Denver's procedures to conduct a safe and secure election. It's a special election episode of your city now. The ability to participate in the next election begins with registration or enrollment to vote.
Speaker 6: When registering to vote, the number one key date is if you want your ballot mailed to you, you have to do that by October 26.
Speaker 9: Now, remember, if you're 17 years old and you turn 18, by the time November 3rd comes around, you're able to vote.
Speaker 6: The main thing you have to be able to prove, you have to be a citizen of the United States in order to vote. You have to be able to prove 22 days state residency. So one of the things that you always want to make sure people understand is the importance of keeping your address up to date. Voters experiencing homelessness still have the ability to vote. They just need to be able to provide a mailing address. And then we also, over the time, the great partnership with the Denver Sheriff's Department to make sure that anyone who's confined but not in active felon status, they're still able to vote. We offer same day voter registration. So you can do that through our website which is Denver votes dawgs voter info or you can also go to go vote Colorado dot gov and you're able to sign up online.
Speaker 9: So your ballots are actually going to start being mailed beginning October 9th. And that gives you all the way to the last day to vote on November 3rd, 7 p.m. to be able to cast your ballot, fill out all your information, make sure you put it in the envelope, you sign it and you can actually drop it in one of our drop boxes. There's 38 of them around the city. You can put a stamp on it and pop it in the mail or you can actually bring it up and drive up and hand it to one of our election judges at one of our vote centers around the city. What we have is a is actual system called ballot trace dot org and you can go to ballot trace dot org and you can sign up to track your ballot. We actually send you a text message or an email message of every step of the way so you know that your ballot is going through that system. After October 26, we don't recommend that you put it in the mail because it's going to take that long to be able to get to us. Post 26 We're asking you to go drop it off at one of our 24 hour drop boxes all the way up until November 3rd, 7 p.m..
Speaker 6: If you do have to come in person to cast your vote, we have all kinds of protections in place. We will have plexiglass or glass shields between the election judges and the voters. Every single pen, every single voting tablet, everything that may come into contact with a person is actually sanitized between each voter. One of the things that will happen starting Monday, October 12th, will actually be moving voting in person down to the McNichols Building at the Civic Center. But at this early stage of the game, if you need any assistance again, call 311 and hit option eight and they'll take you directly to an election specialist. The Denver elections division, in addition to being nationally recognized, is also internationally recognized for what we do. We have had visitors come to Denver to see how we serve our voters, to see the processes that we put into place.
Speaker 3: There are three key points that I would want voters to understand about our model. The first is that we conduct rigorous list maintenance to make sure that our voter registration rolls are accurate. And then we conduct rigorous review and verification of every step of the process with bipartisan teams, rigorous chain of custody logs, rigorous signature review. We have an FBI specialist who comes in and trains our judges on how to conduct signature verification. No part of our counting system has any external network connection, so there's no way somebody could hack into our tabulation system and manipulate it in any way. We conduct rigorous testing before and after the election to make sure that the system is working. Denver is at the forefront. We have the best election model in the country and it is pandemic proof cyber proof weatherproof voters can go on to our website Denver votes dot org and they'll be able to see our ballot processing rooms in real time through this election. They can watch a live video feed of them. They can also take step by step tours through our ballot process so they can see every step of that I've described and how we protect their vote and make sure the election is secure.
Speaker 8: You can catch new episodes of your city now every Friday. Thanks for watching, Denver.
Speaker 6: Denver, like cities across this nation, is facing the triple threats of a public health pandemic. An economic collapse. Any long overdue reckoning on race. But Denver is not like other cities. You see in Denver, we have a history.
Speaker 0: Telling the council their names and cities of residents and if they feel comfortable doing some so their home addresses 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 are 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 will be no yielding of time. 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 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 Torres, will you please put Council Bill 929 on the floor for passage?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance pursuant to section 15-51 of the D.R.M.C. that suspends the amount of the annual Fair Elections Fund appropriation effective for no more than one year.
Suspends the appropriation to the Fair Elections Fund for one year. Councilmember Flynn approved filing this item on 10-22-20.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_10262020_20-0929
|
Speaker 0: Please refrain from profane or obscene speech. Direct your comments to council as a whole and please refrain from individual or personal attacks. Councilmember Torres, will you please put Council Bill 929 on the floor for passage?
Speaker 1: I love that council bill 29 to 9 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 5: Back and.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded by Councilman Flynn. The required public hearing for Council Bill 20 dash 0929 is open. May we have the staff report, please?
Speaker 5: Yes. Thank you. Scott Robinson with Community Planning and Development. This is their request to rezone 1290 William Street from GMU 2003 to new DG number 23. The property is located in Council District ten in the Cheesman Park neighborhood, is at the southeast corner of William Street and 13th Avenue, just on the north side of Cheesman Park. The property is about 17,000 square feet and is the home of the tour's McFarland House. The request, as I said, is to be down from June 23, which is general urban context, multi-unit residential zoning with a 20 storey maximum height. And the Euro three is an historic structure use overlay, which allows additional nonresidential uses of an art studio, a bed and breakfast and non-medical offices and historic structures. The request is to resign, as I said, to Pdg 23, which is a form of custom zoning. So I'll go into more detail of what's in that in a minute. The applicants are requesting to lease on the property to allow for construction of a new annex building and allow for more diversity of uses. As I mentioned, the property is home to the charity MacFarland House, which is a Denver landmark built in 1899, landmarked in 1972. You can see the McFarland House is in the center of the property there. And then in the bottom right of the southeast corner of the property is the annex building. It was built around 1980 and is not landmarked. That is the building that the would like to replace. You can see the existing zoning properties to the west of the same Jim U 23 to the north, three for three story zoning. To the east is another opportunity in custom zoning. And then to the south is open space zoning park. And here you can see the existing land uses. Property is currently used as an office mostly surrounded by multi-unit, residential and single unit residential with a variety of mixed use, commercial and civic uses scattered throughout the neighborhood. Now you can see all the commercial uses along Colfax, two blocks to the north, and then, of course, the park to the south. Here you can see some photos. The bottom center photo is the subject property. And then the other photos are some of the surrounding properties. And then getting into what is entailed in the community. And also Pdg number 23 would be applied here. That is based on the free zone districts. Our you need to start with the base zone district and then modify from there. So this is based on GM three, which again is general urban, multi-unit, residential, three storey maximum house, maximum height. The it would allow construction in the urban house building form. And then it is divided into two sub areas. And a sub area a is the larger sub area where the existing series MacFarland houses, it would have a three storey maximum height. Most of the standard G suite requirements would apply and you get enough of that property as landmarks, structures, landmarks. Some Area B would be the southeast corner where the current annex is proposed. New annex would go. That's limited to one story in height, 20 feet, maximum height, maximum of 3500 square feet of building coverage and would allow one foot side and rear setback so on south and east to let it sit in that corner. A would also require keeping the existing nine parking spaces and then would allow some additional uses on top of what is allowed only three over three, which again is residential. And then. Art studios, breakfasts and non-medical offices, which would be which is what this is. And then on top of that would allow medical offices, restaurants, retail and a few other accessory or temporary uses. This went to planning board on September 2nd, received a unanimous recommendation approval with one condition that was requested by the applicant that the food truck use be removed. So that has been removed in the future. You have before you that was a condition of the good neighbor agreement that the applicant had negotiated with some of the neighbors. The at the hearing, 18 people spoke in support, six in opposition and three to withdraw. Opposition previously submitted letters opposing it and then subject or following the approval of the Good Neighbor Agreement have withdrawn their previous opposition parties. Went to Wednesday's Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on September 15, and it's now before you your packet, you had two letters of support from registered organizations and then 124 letters of support from individuals and 136 letters of opposition. In order to approve a rezoning, the city must find that these five criteria are met. Then there are additional criteria, criteria specific for parties that are going to after these five. I'll start with the regular five. The first criterion is consistency with adopted plans. There are three plans that apply to this property. The first is Comprehensive Plan 2014, as described in the staff report, satisfied the proposed rezoning consistent with multiple strategies from Plan 2040 across several different vision elements. Most of these are related to providing quality infill and a mixed use development and also promoting historic preservation. In terms of equity staff has found the proposed rezoning would be consistent with the strategy for the equitable, affordable and inclusive vision elements relating to providing additional amenities within existing neighborhoods to improve those neighborhoods. And in terms of climate change, that finds the proposed design inconsistent with these two strategies from the environmentally resilient vision element relating to ENSO and mixed use development. Reducing the need for people to travel to get to services. So staff finds the proposed rezoning consistent with Co-operative Plan 2040. The next plan is Blueprint Denver from 2019. The future neighborhood context designation for this property is General Urban, which calls for generally multi-unit residential with residents or commercial and mixed use embedded in those residential neighborhoods. Consistent with the proposal, and commercial should be in a variety of building forms, including residential building form such as this. The Future Place designation is high residential, which again calls for predominantly residential, but commercial uses should be interspersed throughout, which is appropriate in this location. 13th Avenue is designated a residential arterial street, which again calls for primarily residential, but also may include a variety of other uses, including small retail nodes. The gross strategy designation is all other areas of the city, which is intended to accommodate 10% of new jobs and 20% of new housing by 2040. And then Blueprint Denver also includes additional strategies, recommendations that apply here, including multiple strategies about historic preservation. So the community would help preserve the existing MacFarland house and help with adaptive reuse so that it can be continued to use, be used and preserved going into the future. So there are multiple strategies that the proposed beauty is consistent with along those lines. And then Blueprint Denver also includes recommendations around using custom zoning such as these, and says they generally should not be used except where there are extraordinary circumstances and there's not a standard district that would fit. And that's the situation in this case. There's no standards on districts with the existing landmark House that would allow reasonable development of the property. Without an unreasonable number of waivers or conditions. So it is appropriate to in this location and for this proposed development. So staff finds the proposed rezoning consistent with group in Denver. The third plan is the recently adopted East Central Area Plan. It has the same context and place designation as blueprint under general urban, high residential and as definitions are consistent and as I just went over, the proposal is consistent with those designations. The Essential Area plan also includes additional recommendations around historic preservation, including recommendations that to facilitate adaptive reuse, allowing a broader range of uses, including commercial use, as I can be appropriate, which is the situation in this case allowing a broader range of uses through this. That will help preserve and adapt. We use the term in the Parliament House that finds the proposed rezoning consistent with studies of area plan and finds the first criterion met. The second criterion is uniformity of district regulations. STEP finds the proposed rezoning would result in uniform application of the Custom Zone District on this location. The third criterion is to promote the public health, safety and general welfare of city staff. The first rezoning would do so by implementing the city's plans and promoting historic preservation, as I described. The fourth criterion is justifying circumstances that imposed rezoning justified by changing conditions in the area. There has been some redevelopment in the surrounding blocks increasing the population, increasing the number of people in need of services, allowing a broader range of services. Either it is appropriate and then also changes on the property within the annex building is fairly old at this point and the existing zoning wouldn't let redevelopment of that building. So a change in zoning is needed to allow for the reinvestment in the property that is needed. The fifth criterion is consistency with neighborhood context. The purpose of the proposed rezoning would allow it consistent with the general urban neighborhood context, which again is the base zone district of the duty and then for purpose of intent has its own specific criteria that will go into now. So a few criteria. Your final of the first is that the district is consistent with the intent purpose of districts that have described the zoning code that found that that is the case because the customer zoning here is necessary to promote the historic preservation of the existing historic structure of the Urban House. To do so with a standard zoned district would require several variances or waivers from a standard zoning district. So in this case, it is appropriate would allow for a specific diversification in the use of land by allowing more uses of this location, while also maintaining a development pattern that is compatible with the established neighborhood in character and design. The second criterion is that the party complies with the technical standards and criteria of the zoning code, which staff has found that it does. The third criterion is that the development is not feasible under any other zone district and would require an unreasonable number of variances or waivers and conditions which, as I just described the standards this. The fourth criterion if the district would establish permitted uses that are compatible with existing land uses as described in the plan analysis. A wider range of commercial uses are appropriate here, so staff finds that this criterion was met, and the fifth criterion that the duty would establish permitted building forms that are compatible with adjacent building forms. Again, the allowable building form under the view is Urban House, which is consistent with the general urban and GM context of the surrounding area. So that finds the beauty criteria are met and recommends approval finding all criteria have been met. I will be happy to answer any questions. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Scott, for the report. Tonight, council has received three written comments on Council Bill 929. There are two submitted comments in favor of the bill and one submitted comment 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? Seeing no hands raised. Council Secretary. Let the record reflect that all written testimony in favor and in opposition of Council Bill 929 have been read by each member of Council and all written testimony will be submitted to the official record of the hearing. Tonight, we have 22 individuals signed up to speak this evening. And I wanted to just remind folks that we also have the hearing on the mayor's proposed budget and another hearing after this one. And so if you feel like you're repeating what others have said before, if you could keep your comments to a minimum , that would be much appreciated. Our first speaker that we're going to be bringing up is Bruce O'Donnell.
Speaker 5: Hello. This is Bruce O'Donnell. Can you hear me?
Speaker 0: Mm hmm. Go ahead, Bruce.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam President. And members of Council Bruce O'Donnell, 386 Emmerson Street in Denver. And I'm the owner's rep on this rezoning application as identified in CPD staff report recommending approval and also planning board unanimously recommending approval of the resulting request. This application meets the legal criteria for the rezoning it's consistent with and supported by and implements many goals of the city's adopted plans, including Plan 2040 Blueprint, Denver in the Capitol Hill, Cheesman Park Neighborhood Plan, and more recently, the East Central Area Plan has been adopted. And this specifically is an implementation step of the East Central Area plan, which wants to facilitate compatible infill development and facilitate adaptive reuse of historic structures by allowing a broader range of uses, including compatible commercial uses and appropriate additions. Extensive community outreach over more than two years has taken place to garner support and get neighborhood input on the result of this, which is included focus groups, surveys, open houses and numerous meetings in this effort culminated in our Executing a Good Neighbor agreement with our immediate neighbors on the highways of both next door sides of us to the east and west. This good neighbor agreement has been recorded in the Denver Clerk and Recorder's office. And among other things, it limits the operations allowed in the city and addresses things like parking, management, noise and odor in that constrains the use of the site from an operating perspective much more than just the zoning would. With all this being said, I request that City Council vote to approve Council Bill 20 Dash 0929 Rezoning 1290 William Street to Pdg 23 and I'm available to answer any questions of council. Have any. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Bruce. Next up, we have Andrew Roque.
Speaker 5: All right. Well, thank you, Madam President. My name is Indrani, and I live at 1530 Detroit Street. I have been a chess board member since 2017, and I'm also a resident of the South City Park neighborhood. Professionally, I work as a senior planner for the city of Sheridan in Arapahoe County. So planning issues are very important to me. As a planner, I'm also aware of both the opportunities and challenges presented by writing a customized PDF document. So I would like to thank Scott Robinson with CPD for his time and knowledge and helping us create ours. I remember back in 2017 I attended my first board meeting and I just remember being so impressed with the Teachers McFarland mansion, but then also realizing over the past three years how much work it truly needs in order to become a community gathering hub once again. During my time on the board, Chun is engaged in extraordinary outreach efforts to both invite community feedback and then eventually to communicate our vision and really the neighborhood's vision for the towers back to the neighborhood. This evening, I would like to touch on some of the key events and milestones that Chan reached in its community engagement efforts . These include three community focus groups, which we held in fall of 2017 and where we obtained specific input on uses from over 50 participants. We also held annual updates at Chen's membership meetings over the past three years. We conducted multiple in-person meetings in open houses with our directly adjacent neighbors at both one Cheesman Place and the Highgate Townhomes. In the summer of 2019.
Speaker 2: We.
Speaker 5: Conducted surveys directly with park users and collected over 125 responses. The project has also been featured in multiple articles in life on Capitol Hill and other local publications. China's also conducted targeted Facebook posts linked to our project website, which have garnered thousands of unique impressions. We've also obtained support letters from Denver nonprofit institutions such as P Flag, which was a former tenant of the tiers and historic Denver, which holds a facade easement on our building. And finally, and something I'm most proud of, we gathered over 100 individual letters of support for the project. So to conclude, I believe that China's truly went above and beyond in communicating our plans for the future of the Tours McPherson mansion. And I enthusiastically urge that City Council approves the 1290 William Street PD. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, we have Jesse Paris.
Speaker 6: Being a member of the council watching out my name is just a pause and I hope the Denver homeless out loud black starts to limit the scope of his commitment to social change as well as the party of Colorado. And while. And I will be your next mayor in 2023. I am against this rezoning. I just wanted to know what the 136 opposition was all about. And Andrew said that John had reached out to several people in the community and of outreach, and that showed some kind of due diligence on his part. But I want to say that 136 letters opposition about and. Oh. Trying. I would really like to know that. And while. So much opposition against the speedy rezoning. So, Michael, please answer those questions. I would appreciate it. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Jesse. Next up, we have Sandra Goldhaber. Go ahead, please. Sandra.
Speaker 3: Okay. Can you hear me?
Speaker 0: Mm hmm. Go ahead.
Speaker 3: Can you hear me? Okay.
Speaker 7: I'm Sandra Tabor. Thanks for the opportunity to.
Speaker 3: Speak with you tonight. I live at.
Speaker 7: 763 Race Street on the south end of Cheesman Park. And I'm speaking to you today in support of the rezoning of the Tours House at 1290 William Street. 763 Race is my second hundred year old home. On the Cheesman parameter. And I also own two condos right near the park. I'm invested thus, both financially and emotionally, in this beautiful neighborhood. I walk the park every day. I became imprinted on the.
Speaker 3: Park.
Speaker 7: In the 1970 779 era when I actually worked in the mansion working for at the time Denver Social Services, now Denver Human Services. And my office was on the second floor and my little desk overlooks the park. So I always wanted to be able to move back and finally achieved it.
Speaker 3: So you can imagine my me when I had.
Speaker 7: The chance to tour the mansion in early 2020 and the chipping pin on the bridge and the squeaking stairs, all the deferred maintenance that a nonprofit like Chan could never afford to accomplish on their own. I think any of you who live in or around an old house know that it it can be a black hole. This, as a stakeholder of historic preservation, I support the rezoning for the following two reasons. One is historic preservation. The partnership with City Street, which you'll hear more about, will both preserve the property and protect the low profile nature of any structures on it, including the remodeled.
Speaker 3: Annex.
Speaker 7: Well, improving the interior deferred maintenance. Second, that's really important to me is safety in the park. The main modeling of the annex and the restoration of the cafe, which existed in the annex in the 1980s, will increase the eyes on the park. It will improve that community gathering space, as well as provide an attractive venue for adults to have a coffee while their kids play on the patio, maybe have an ice cream and really and offer a place for neighbors to interact and be right there in the first floor of the park.
Speaker 2: In.
Speaker 7: This work and facility has been shown by surveys of the neighbors to help read, support and enthusiasm. So I'm in favor of the rezoning and I recommend that council approve the rezoning of 1298. Williams to page 23. Thank you so much.
Speaker 0: Okay, thank you, Sandra. Next up, we have Travis Leiker.
Speaker 5: Greetings. My name is Travis Leiker and I am a Denver resident and current president of Capitol Hill United Neighborhoods. And I want to thank Denver City Council for convening tonight's meeting. I would also like to thank the scores of community leaders, especially the town board staff, volunteers and our partners who helped try and get to this point . China is committed to preserving the past, improving the present, and planning for the future of the greater Capital Hill community. Through smart planning, historic preservation, community investments and programs. China serves as the go to collective voice for Denver residents and our unique neighborhoods. Since 2005, we've owned the Tears McFarland House and Community Center, which is at 1290 Williams. And while the property is currently zoned for 20 stories of residential use, a large structure of this magnitude is something that we think would alter the quality and character of the neighborhood. Instead, we've proposed tonight a different course of consideration for you. The Tears McFarland House is iconic, and it's a historic landmark, so the house and mansion itself will not be touched. Under this rezoning proposal, with the exception of some much needed restoration and preservation. To help preserve this landmark, however, we're partnering with City Street investors to build a new single story, Neighborhood Friendly Cafe, to improve the overall property and add amenities that have been requested by the neighbors. All homes, and especially older ones like this, need much needed maintenance and updating, especially after four decades of deferred maintenance. The revenues collected from the cafe will keep the mansion updated, historic and iconic. It will also allow China to deliver its critical neighborhood services, investments and programs for decades to come. The proposed rezoning, along with the cafe, is intended for residents to immediately enjoy and use whether they walk, bike, bus run or roll from their homes or nearby workplace. And then the the mansion itself will continue to serve as a community asset where neighbors gather, discuss issues, collaborate and shape the future of the greater Capitol Hill community. For three years now, Chan has garnered feedback from residents, business owners and stakeholders, and they've overwhelmingly voiced delight just as they did when they when the cafe first opened back in the 1980s. Whether they were attending a performance of the Denver brass or joining their book club for a great conversation and thoughtful discussion, Chen understands that there is going to be opposition tonight, and we've addressed those concerns and our good neighbor agreement with many of the neighbors that are surrounding the area. More than 20 commercial businesses already exist within less than a quarter of a mile from Cheesman Park. Like the Denver Botanic Gardens. But a constant presence at the north end of the park will enhance safety for patrons and passers by. This revitalization effort and neighborhood friendly amenity are designed for the community to do what communities do best, and that's come together. So I encourage you to vote in favor of this rezoning application, and I'll be available for questions should they arise. Thank you so much for your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, we have Joel Brown.
Speaker 5: Hello. My name is Joel Brown. I live at 1801 Pennsylvania Street in County District ten. I want to thank Councilmember Hines for his leadership and his statements tonight. This year's McFarland House is a great historic asset on the north side of Cheesman Park. I visited it many times. When I go to Cheesman Park, I usually walk or bike there and I'm excited for the future of this property. It's a really cool building that has served as a meeting space for nonprofits, and I think to have a café attached to it would really be a win win for the community and the neighborhood. Just to address Jesse's concerns about the letters of opposition. From my understanding, most of the opposition was relating to parking. As I mentioned, there was nine parking spots. And I think that that those concerns were mitigated in the Good Neighbor Agreement. So I'll end my statements here by saying I hope you will approve the rezoning to a pad because that's it meets it conforms to the criteria as stated. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. We have Michelle Steed up next.
Speaker 7: Hi. My name is Michelle Steed, and I live in the Driving Park Historic District just.
Speaker 3: South of Cheesman Park. Thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. I am speaking tonight in favor of Sean's rezoning application for 1290 William Street. I have spent several hours volunteering for Capitol Hill United Neighborhoods, attending meetings, participating in special events, and being engaged in my neighborhood. I throughout the years, Sean has been an invaluable part of our community and as a model registered neighborhood organization that promotes an inclusive culture and is working every day to make Denver a fair, equitable city. For as long as I have been a supporter and member of John, I've been engaged in a number of conversations about this property for.
Speaker 7: Close to a decade. What will happen to tears?
Speaker 3: Folks will ask. It needs work and should be open to the community. Others will comment. Now Trent is coming to City Council to support a rezoning that will help to activate a beloved community asset, the historic Teres McFarland House, just north of Cheesman Park. This will bring much needed restoration and care to this architectural gem and fuel chance programing to our neighborhood for years to come. Transplant outlined in this page aligns with the recently adopted East Central Area Plan perfectly. The East Central Area Plan calls on future development.
Speaker 2: To promote.
Speaker 3: To promote preservation of historic and character defining single unit multi-unit and mixed use.
Speaker 7: Develop mixed use.
Speaker 3: Buildings and to consider individual landmarks, historic districts and other tools as appropriate trends through rezoning, application and plans aligned with this criteria.
Speaker 2: I also support.
Speaker 3: This rezoning because I live near a city street investors project the city street near Gilpin Street. I live on Gilpin Street and the on Sixth Avenue and city street investors there. Their good neighbors like through we set up. Sorry, I'm nervous. I did this call for hours thinking about how I'm going to say this. But we've set up good neighborhood agreements and they're good neighbors. Things happen in the city and we can call on them and and things are addressed. And I feel safer having these businesses around. And I want you to vote in favor of this rezoning so that I can go to the north side of the park and enjoy the tears.
Speaker 7: McFarland building being. Updated and having a café.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Michelle. Next up, we have Randall Lowe.
Speaker 5: Good evening. It's a great honor to speak to you after such a long time. I'm an advocate on homeless issues in the city and county, and I've been involved with.
Speaker 2: John.
Speaker 5: From the standpoint of the Denver Voice newspaper, when we used to have wranglings with John regarding the presence of homeless people in the community. This goes back to the 1990s. I used to work with Tom Knorr and we got to know each other on the commission and my brother Roger Armstrong, who used to be the executive director , and Andy Hanna, who used to do my job. I'm the groundskeeper, I'm the ghost, John. And I've been in that capacity for over a decade. I worked on the People's Fair back in the very beginning of the century. And I must say, this is a place which for me is hallowed ground. And when I use that word, I'm a pastor, I'm a chaplain. I mean that it is a place where people can gather together.
Speaker 2: My wild rabbits can gather together, the crows can gather together.
Speaker 5: And we can share in an environment which is holistic for us all. And I really appreciate the opportunity to at least tell you from my heart that this is everything to me. And having been on the board of Charleston, I.N.S., an executive committee of both.
Speaker 2: I have always been.
Speaker 5: Honored to be a part of this organization and to contribute my sweat and tears to making series Macfarlane operate. And even though we might be shabby, we are home. And that's all I can say. It means a great deal to me to make it possible for it to continue in perpetuity for as long as is possible.
Speaker 2: Thank you for your attention.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, we have Rachel Griffin. You might have to unmute, Rachael.
Speaker 2: David.
Speaker 0: Go ahead.
Speaker 2: I had a.
Speaker 4: Fancy.
Speaker 3: Microphone and stuff and I guess it's not fancy after all. Thank you so much for giving me the opportunity to share my support, to return the tears made.
Speaker 4: For holding us back to a vibrant.
Speaker 3: Community center gathering place. And in.
Speaker 4: It. My name is Rachel Griffin.
Speaker 3: I have lived in Denver at ten Cheesman Park.
Speaker 4: Neighborhood for 20 years.
Speaker 3: When I was in high school, I was allowed to use advisory commission of my own local community center in Lakewood. I planned events for my peers. I hosted guest lecturers, encouraged active.
Speaker 4: Youth participation in the community. And now, as a parent.
Speaker 3: I began the 600 member hotline, Capitol Hill Parents Group, to help continue that.
Speaker 4: Community.
Speaker 3: Activism and to show my own children.
Speaker 4: And example of volunteerism and building the goals of our group are bringing together.
Speaker 3: Urban dwellers who are choosing.
Speaker 4: To raise children in their urban environments.
Speaker 7: We seek to cultivate community.
Speaker 3: By connecting families with one another and the necessary resources to take advantage.
Speaker 4: Of life. To put that into play for the greater Capitol Hill area.
Speaker 7: We want to lead and partner with local and state government businesses, educational.
Speaker 3: And nonprofit organizations. And we seek to advocate for programs and causes such as strong neighborhood schools, housing and diversity, enhanced public safety.
Speaker 2: Environmental quality.
Speaker 3: And expanded cultural.
Speaker 7: And.
Speaker 4: Recreational.
Speaker 7: Opportunities. That said, Capital Hill.
Speaker 3: Environment and amenity infrastructure often.
Speaker 4: Leaves out the family demographic.
Speaker 3: It's often a cycle of limited.
Speaker 7: Family.
Speaker 3: Amenities, leaving too few true community.
Speaker 4: Spaces for them due to our.
Speaker 7: Invisibility. People often believe that Capitol Hill has fewer kids than it really does because.
Speaker 4: Honestly, there are very few places.
Speaker 7: Together.
Speaker 3: We truly appreciate the Harlem Rec Center, Park Pool, Cheesman Park, City Park, Playgrounds and more. But we are still lacking for welcoming indoor free spaces to gather and build community. If Council approves this rezoning request, our group looks forward to using the revitalized Gathering Spaces.
Speaker 4: Café and.
Speaker 3: Resurrected Community Center at the preserved landmark known as the Tears McFarland House to host Capitol Hill parents events building enjoyment with all types of families, encourage youth participation in the community and help trying to continue further to further the mission. We look forward to turning our online group into an active force in the neighborhood by taking full advantage of the introduction of a free and accessible meeting space.
Speaker 2: We look forward to further.
Speaker 3: Engaging Capitol Hill residents no matter what they do for a living.
Speaker 2: Which they are.
Speaker 3: Oh, and you're saying took away my sickness or what?
Speaker 2: Or what they look like.
Speaker 7: So we urge you to. To voice your support for this reason.
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Rachel. Bill de Mayo is next.
Speaker 5: Yes. Thank you. My name is Bill de Mayo and I live at 1880 Little Raven Streets, but have been on the board of Gen for about ten plus years. And I was involved in the repairs and maintenance of the building during that time and the. Amazing part of that. Time that I found there was that every time we undertook a project or turned it into any kind of repair, it turned into much more expensive than obviously one could deal with. So when we took the opportunity to partner ourselves with the city street investors, we found that there was a partnership that created this wonderful experience to turn this property back into the community center that it really wants to be and. I hope that you will support the rezoning to allow this property to be to continue to maintain its role in the neighborhood in the Cheesman Park neighborhood. So thank you very much for allowing me to speak.
Speaker 0: Thank you. We have Kevin Kelly next.
Speaker 5: Greetings. Denver City Council. My name is Kevin Kelly and I live in the East Cheeseman Park neighborhood at 12th and dime. I was born in Denver and my family has made Denver home for six generations. I'm a frequent volunteer for historic Denver, and I've also served on the board of Capitol Hill United Neighborhoods for more than four years and co-chair our History Matters Committee. Since I joined John, the organization has made significant strides to improve its financial health, support the community, advance critical issues at the city level, and bring the community together. Tonight, we are here to talk about John's rezoning for a 1290 Williams Street. As co-chair of one of our enduring committees, I am passionate about preserving historic properties and activating them in creative ways. The rezoning application being considered by council tonight just does just that. It will create certainty around the future uses of the property, office space, community, meeting space and added amenities like a café for the neighborhood. The Landmark mansion will be preserved for future generations of Denver ites, and it will receive the much needed maintenance it has required for decades. Joan has engaged in community outreach efforts, including neighborhood surveys and focus groups. The levels of outreach and engagement are extraordinary and we value the neighborhood feedback we have received over the past three years . Finally, preserving historic architectural assets is an essential is essential to maintaining neighborhood character and enduring legacy. Joan was an integral to the efforts to preserve Tamron Hall and recently endorsed the restoration and reuse of the former Cathedral Hill High School at 18th and Grant Street. We are excited to take our great work in these projects and apply it to our new home. Thus, the request for a rezoning is consistent with and implements recommendations and comprehensive plan. 2040 Blueprint. Denver. The Capitol Hill. Cheeseman Park. Neighborhood Plan and the 2020 East Central Area Plan. I asked Denver City Council to approve this application and thank you for your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you. We have Vicki Berkley up next.
Speaker 2: Hi.
Speaker 3: I'm Vicky Berkley. I live on Ninth and Logan in Capitol Hill. I'm involved with Chun is vice president of Community Engagement. I'm a community development professional and have worked for nearly 40 years assisting residents in enhancing their neighborhoods and small communities in Colorado, as well as other states in the U.S.. And in 2019, I joined the Chan board and now apply my community experience to my own neighborhood Capitol Hill, for example, with board support. I launched Chan's Seed Awards, which provide micro grants to encourage civic entrepreneurship and community engagement. In just the first year, Chan awarded 12 seed awards to nonprofits and individuals, providing support to projects that improve safety, promote diversity, foster environmental stewardship and provide enrichment. Urban planners know that third places have a number of important community building attributes. The Curious McFarlane House has served as a third place in Capitol Hill for decades, providing a welcoming place where everyone is treated as social equals. This third place is playing a critical role in breaking down social silos in Denver, which is so important during these times of division and fear. It tears. McFarlane House serves as a place where people can gather to discuss issues impacting our city and collaborate to shape the future of Capitol Hill. Chan has supported a range of events over the years, inviting residents to get to know their neighbors and engage in projects that enhance our community. Chan has served as a neutral ground for sensitive topics in the tours. Macfarlane House has provided the third place for these meetings. For a number of years. A cafe did operate at the Cheers MacFarland house, where people could chat over coffee and a sandwich. Capitol Hill has no doubt benefited over the decades because people could utilize the tourist Macfarlane house as a third place where they could hold fundraising events, holiday gatherings and a host of other activities. I'm excited about the partnership between John and City Street investors who have a proven track record for creating amazing third places such as the Union Station. This partnership will only improve that year's Macfarlane house as a valued neighborhood asset. And can you continue to provide a third place that is open to all? I'm in favor of rezoning and request that the Denver City Council approved the rezoning of 1290. William Street, Depew RD, June 23. Thank you so much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. We have Peggy Randall up next. Yes, thank you. Can you hear me? Mm hmm. Go ahead.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President, for this opportunity to speak to you all this evening. Again, my name is Peggy Randall. I live at 343 University Boulevard in Denver, and I live and walk the country club neighborhood. And Cheesman Park is really one of my favorite destinations.
Speaker 0: For inspiration.
Speaker 3: And a connection to our great city. I'm speaking to you in support of the Tears McFarland mansion as an icon and treasure to be preserved to maintain the character of historic Capitol Hill, to live on for future generations.
Speaker 0: I believe in.
Speaker 3: Creating something new and visionary for a Capitol Hill community. What's better.
Speaker 0: Planning.
Speaker 3: Then for our future than a cup of coffee, maybe a glass.
Speaker 7: Of wine.
Speaker 3: After a beautiful walk or bike ride around some spectacular historic Cheesman Park. That is why I urge you to vote yes on the rezoning of 1290 William Street, Pdg 23. The Future is now. Thank you very much for your time this evening.
Speaker 0: Thank you. We've got Bruce Corgi. Up next. I'm sorry, Bruce, if I mispronounced your last name.
Speaker 5: No worries. Thank you, Madam President. And members of council. My name is Bruce Coy, and I'm a resident of Denver, a lifelong resident who lives at 1394 Vine Street. I am the retired executive director of the Colorado Association of School Executives and a nonprofit leader in other ways as well. I'm also the author of The Colorado Guide and Colorado Fest and appreciate Denver's history more than you can imagine. My grandparents lived at 19, Reese. My parents lived at 12th and raised my brother lives at 14th and. Franklin And my wife and I live at 14th and Vine. And we all think of the park as a crown jewel in Denver. It needs to be preserved and also that the youth should be open and this project opens this up. I definitely support the rezoning for 1290 William Street. I do serve on the town board and I am the co-chair of the History Matters Committee with Kevin Kelly, and I think he summed up a lot of my comments. So I'm going to my bottom line so we can save you some time. This is the kind of project to create lasting a lasting community resource. In keeping with the history of the area. It also preserves a valuable asset adjacent to the park on its northern edge. I recommend approval of the zoning request with a mindset of equity, access and inclusion for all residents. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Bruce. Next up, we have Peter Wells.
Speaker 5: Hi, everybody. Thanks for taking my call. I guess we all do zooms all the time. I'm actually one of the residents that is most affected by this decision. So when you saw Scott Robinson's detail of his maps, they showed ten townhouses there, the Highgate townhouses that are immediately east of Chun. If I went outside and made a snowball but the smell is not good enough to make snowballs, I could probably throw a snowball and hit Chun. So we know all too well what it means from noise and all the other things, because we've heard they sponsored weddings and things of that nature. So the biggest concern from a practical perspective from our from neighbors and I'm not here representing the highway or any of the neighbors, I'm just representing myself. Is the noise the possible you know, we don't want a Blake Street kind of bar suddenly plopping down next to us where they're playing cornhole till midnight and playing music. But we would love a place where we could go and have a coffee, a pastry for breakfast, a late lunch, maybe get a glass of wine for for dinner. I'm a Colorado native, but I lived in New York City. You know, they they they know how to do things in parks. And you can get a glass of wine in Central Park in New York, and it's wonderful. So the idea of being able to have a neighbor immediately close by who will respect our privacy but also provide a service, is a wonderful, wonderful opportunity that I hope we don't give up. Just so you know, these ten townhouses weren't here 30 years ago. The reason they're here is because the city council agreed to close the High Street entrance into Cheesman Park, and that rezoning allowed us to have this marvelous, marvelous home where we live on the park. And I think this is going to be a nice addition to exactly what we're looking for is a great place to live. So I'm in favor of it. I can't speak for my neighbors, but I can tell you this the developers negotiated in a good faith fashion, the GNC. They really did. They came to the table, open arms, and we now have something I think we can live with again. I can't speak for my neighbors, but I think this is a wonderful idea and I hope to be able to go get a glass of wine at our new neighbors sooner rather than later. Thanks for listening.
Speaker 0: Thank you. We have Charles news from. You might have to go. Charles.
Speaker 5: Hi. Can you hear me?
Speaker 0: Mm hmm.
Speaker 5: Go ahead. I am Charles Nussbaum. Thanks so much for letting me speak in support of the zoning change. I lived in the 1400 block of Detroit. I've been in Congress for 20 years. My two teams are now East Angels. But it wasn't that long ago that we used to ride bikes over to the playground at Cheesman and also to the special CSO concerts. It would have really been nice to stop along the way to or from you get a snack. Here's my. I think this is going to be an amazing game changer for so many people that are walking, riding, rolling, biking, anything to and from the park to be able to meet with your friends, neighbors, colleagues and talk about anything or have a small community meeting. Many of you used to go to the people's fair, and that's how China derived most of his income. Well, that's gone. We've we've gone to other fundraising efforts. And this is going to be an incredible partnership with amazing placemakers that we have to be proud of here in the city that really want to make it special for everybody and minimize any controversy and minimize the noise, minimize the parking infringement on the neighbors. And I think that it's critical to transmission to be able to share in the income from such a café in order to provide these critical services that have never been more pertinent. I mean, so many people need their voices heard. I mean. Advocacy and support is critical to so many. Regarding licensing, homelessness, parking, safety, density, development, traffic, transportation, historic preservation, walkability, likability and general accessibility just to name a few of the things that we're involved in. So we don't have to take care of a historic mansion and can do that for the community while partnering with State Street. I think it's a win win for everybody and I appreciate all the different points of view. I'm a member of the board and a past president and I'm really hoping that council will join in approving this zoning change and that we can be an example for the rest of the city and the state and the nation. Many heartfelt thanks for your time and consideration.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is James LaRue.
Speaker 5: Madam President. Council Members Good evening. My name is James LaRue. I live at 1050 Sherman Street in Cap Hill. Being a chess board member since December 2019 even got up to attend one physical meeting before the pandemic hit. For five years now, I've been living without a car. I walk, bike or take mass transit everywhere, and it's really surprisingly easy. In Denver, I really enjoyed getting to know the neighborhoods and bike paths. I probably walk or bike around Cheesman Park two or three times a week, often with area friends, and I'm looking forward to biking to in-person meetings in the future and continuing my conversations with people after meetings or walks over a cup of coffee. We can't have too many warm and welcoming spaces in our community, and I'm proud to be a part of making those spaces. As a longtime practitioner of community centered planning, I was a public library director for many years. I found a vision for the future of the Tours McFarland House compelling. It contributes to a rich and engaging, pedestrian centered civic life. I've been impressed by the persistent and positive outreach of the community, both over the past 50 years and as evidenced by our work on a good neighbor agreement around this project. So I'm in favor of the rezoning and requested the city council approved the Brazilian request. Thank you so much for your time and attention today. I know the work that goes into balancing the interests of community members and I appreciate your time. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Debbie Young is our next speaker. Debbie, you might have to unmute yourself.
Speaker 3: How's that?
Speaker 0: Great.
Speaker 3: Go ahead. Okay. So good evening. And I know it's getting late, so I thank you for your continued time this evening. I live in the 600 block of Milwaukee and I am speaking in favor of the rezoning proposal this evening. When my husband and I moved here not so long ago, we chose Congress part because of this community feel with historic homes, mature trees, parks nearby, and mostly for walkability. We've lived off and on in Europe and love the charm and community feel of their walkable cities and parks and cafes for neighbors to meet. So I like many of the others, I walk around Cheesman Park most days of the week. I love its beauty, which includes the iconic architecture of the historic Piers McFarland House. I love that this proposal will continue to.
Speaker 5: Protect.
Speaker 3: That historic nature and that the partners in John and the people that are building it are committed to restoring this grand home. I love the idea of a cafe adjacent to the north end of this great park, where I will be able to sit and enjoy a coffee or tea with people in my community, maybe even. Peter Wells wants to be there and will join for a glass of wine. I also understand that it's very expensive to restore historic homes and I love that the idea of this simple cafe will help.
Speaker 2: Fund the.
Speaker 3: Much needed work to keep this beautiful house historic and iconic. So I am in favor of the rezoning and request. The Denver City Council approved the rezoning.
Speaker 2: Of.
Speaker 3: 1290 William Street. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Patricia McHenry.
Speaker 3: I. Thank you very much. I live at 653 Reyes Street, just south of Cheesman Park. I'm a principal with Citi Street Investors. And as you've heard, we're partnering with China. I and my city street partners are passionate about old buildings, but even more so.
Speaker 2: We're passionate about.
Speaker 4: Reinvigorating historic property and making.
Speaker 5: Neighborhoods better.
Speaker 3: You've already heard a lot.
Speaker 2: About the.
Speaker 4: Extensive outreach that went on.
Speaker 3: To.
Speaker 4: Identify.
Speaker 3: What was.
Speaker 2: Missing and desired in the neighborhood.
Speaker 3: And we look forward.
Speaker 5: To providing.
Speaker 2: Our.
Speaker 3: Tenant bases over 95% locally owned, and we've created over 20 different.
Speaker 2: Food and beverage operations. The casual.
Speaker 4: Café.
Speaker 3: That we will be bringing to.
Speaker 2: Tears foreign will.
Speaker 3: Be an amazing amenity to the neighbors.
Speaker 4: Including me.
Speaker 3: I would like to thank the city and the neighborhood, two.
Speaker 2: Of the four island for working with us over.
Speaker 3: Many months for this rezoning, creating the café concept.
Speaker 4: And the Good Neighbor.
Speaker 2: Agreement.
Speaker 3: I urge you.
Speaker 2: To.
Speaker 4: Approve this rezoning application.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, we have Ian Tafoya.
Speaker 6: Counsel My name is Ian Thomas Tafoya.
Speaker 5: Reside in District two, but I formerly lived in City Park West for about seven years. I am a charter member still because I work in the Capital Hill area and I am a former town board member. I am in support of this project because I believe it's reasonable and in scale to bring a much needed amenity to the community and to save this amazing historic property. Now I am an historic Denver board member and trustee. I'm not speaking on their behalf tonight, but in this role I have participated with Latinos and Heritage and Conservation, where they're doing a similar project in Houston to save the original House of Blue like a union house. So I think this is innovative. This is something that's happening around the country. And I've done myself a birthday party here on the park. It's amazing to be able to have both of this available. So I'm in support and thank you again.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Joe Foster us.
Speaker 5: It evening. Thank you, everyone. I will be extremely brief. I think so many positive things have been said already. I don't have much to add to it. I would. I guess I should say my address is 1115 Acoma Street, Denver. This has been a privilege for my my partners at City Street Investors and I to work on this special project. And this is an example of a rezoning that was done the right way. Extensive, extensive community outreach, really custom crafting, not only the zoning, but the specific uses for the property and the good neighbor agreement that we put together. It's just an example of how to do this, right. A couple of points I'd make about this and then so we can move on is just is really just to one is just want to remind everybody, this is a 5050 partnership between city street investors and Capitol Hill United Neighbors. So it's it's innovative in that respect that you have a nonprofit organization partnering with a for profit organization in order to bring this project back to life. This project was donated to the city by by the owners decades ago with the specific desire that it be a community gathering place. And we're going to make that happen. What has really hurt the property over the years is not figuring out how to be financially sustainable. So as a result it has fallen into disrepair. Trends that are a yeoman's job of really keeping it together. But it's time for a major redo. And this sort of private partnership with a nonprofit is going to allow us to to bring sustainable financial sustainability for the project so that the House can be restored to its former glory and it can really fulfill the vision of being the community gathering place that was originally envisioned when the owners donated to the city some decades ago. So with that, I just say I think the rezoning meets the criteria and respectfully request that council approve this application. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, council members. We appreciate it.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And our last speaker this evening is Megan Whalen. Thank you and I will be brief. I have.
Speaker 3: Gained quite an appreciation for the.
Speaker 2: Amount of time you folks spend.
Speaker 0: In these meetings. And I understand we're.
Speaker 2: Just the first part of what.
Speaker 0: You've got teed up here. My name is Megan Whalen. I reside at 520 Marion Street.
Speaker 3: And I'm also an owner of a small business in.
Speaker 2: South City Park.
Speaker 0: I'm speaking today.
Speaker 2: In support.
Speaker 3: Of the rezoning of the.
Speaker 0: Tour's.
Speaker 3: McFarland property. I was born here in Denver and have lived near Cheesman Park for most of my life. My dad taught us kids how to play softball.
Speaker 0: In the park. Just so.
Speaker 2: Many fond.
Speaker 3: Memories. And I've walked and run the park.
Speaker 0: Trails more times.
Speaker 2: Than I can catalog.
Speaker 3: Several years ago, I was I responded to an invitation to participate in a focus group about the future of the tiers.
Speaker 2: And the annex and Capitol.
Speaker 3: Hill United Neighborhoods role.
Speaker 0: In the future of the.
Speaker 3: Property. I was excited to learn about the opportunity to create an amenity for park users that would be leveraged to provide resources to restore and maintain the Tears House, which is.
Speaker 0: A neighborhood.
Speaker 2: Jewel, and to.
Speaker 3: Allow it to remain in the hands of children. When I when I was asked about my park use in the focus group, I and most others reported that we.
Speaker 0: Walk, bike or.
Speaker 3: Roll to the.
Speaker 2: Park. And I'm just.
Speaker 0: Delighted by the potential here to meet friends for coffee.
Speaker 2: In the park that we all love. Thank you so much for your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you. That concludes our speakers questions from members of council. Councilman Hines.
Speaker 5: I thank you, Madam President, for. Question for Mr. Robinson. There were 126 letters in support and 134 letters in opposition to the planning board. Is that correct? That includes a few that came in between planning board and last week. But that was mostly mostly when. And were those received before or after the Good Neighbor Agreement was signed? And that came in the form of. Okay, thank you. That's all I have. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman Hines. Saying No other questions from members of council. The public hearing for Council Bill 20 Dash 909 excuse me to nine is closed comments by members of Council. Councilman Hines.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam President, I. This is in district ten. I am very familiar with this property. I have been to this property many times, including both the historic building and the non historic annex behind the building. I am excited that this rezoning will preserve and revitalize the historic structure while getting rid of the dilapidated structure behind the historic building. It's really dilapidated. I recognize that there were originally concerns about this rezoning, and I'm excited that China has heard those concerns of the neighbors and reflected those concerns in a signed good neighbor agreement. The to stop simplified noise, it requires the place to close early and has so many other options that provide a tasteful balance between the development and the property owners that are incredibly close by. I see Chun as a model R.A. and I am happy that they continue to work with the community to be a good neighbor and to make our community stronger and better connected. This is definitely in line with my vision of the 20 minute neighborhood that I want so passionately for Denver's perfect ten and for all of Denver. I am elated to personally know so many of those who testified tonight. It is a roll down memory lane to see and hear from so many of you. I feel comfortable saying that virtually every neighborhood and it was perfect ten were represented in testimony tonight. Finally, I am in favor of this rezoning as I believe it means rezoning for Girard and hope my colleagues support it as well. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Hines. And seen no other hands raised. I do agree it meets all of the criteria and it was just a pleasure listening to folks connection with Cheeseman and the entire area there. Madam Secretary, roll call, please.
Speaker 4: Hi. I Cashman. I can eat.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 4: Okay. Good.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 4: Sandoval. I think Sawyer.
Speaker 5: I am.
Speaker 2: Torres. I am black.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 4: CdeBaca.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 4: Clark.
Speaker 5: I. When I.
Speaker 4: Heard it.
Speaker 5: I.
Speaker 4: Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 4: 13 nine.
Speaker 0: 13 Eyes Council Bill 929 has passed. Next up on our agenda is the mayor's proposed 2021 budget. The public hearing for the mayor's proposed 2021 budget is open. May we have the staff report, please? And we have Stephanie Adams here with us.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification of 1290 Williams Street in Cheesman Park.
Approves an official map amendment to rezone property from G-MU-20 UO-3 to PUD-G #23 (multi-unit, 20 stories to planned development), located at 1290 Williams Street in Council District 10. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 9-15-20.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_10262020_20-1042
|
Speaker 0: Then on Monday, excuse me, November 9th, Council will vote to either adopt or reject the mayor's proposed 2021 budget. Councilmember Torres, will you please put Council Resolution 1042 on the floor for adoption?
Speaker 1: I move that council resolution 20 dash 1040 to be adopted.
Speaker 0: It has been moved. Thank you, Councilwoman. It has been seconded. The 30 minute courtesy public hearing for council resolution 20 Dash 1042 is open. May we have the staff report, please?
Speaker 7: And this key image, I believe and I believe Brandon Gagne is going to provide the staff report for us. Hopefully he's been promoted.
Speaker 0: All right. We've got him promoted now, so thank you.
Speaker 2: Hello, everyone. Can you hear me? Mm hmm. Go ahead.
Speaker 5: Sorry for that. I'm sorry for that. Getting off from you and getting promoted. So. Good evening, members of council. My name is Brandon Gainey, representing the Department of General Services. I appreciate your time this evening. I will give a brief report providing a general overview of the security services contract tonight. So we have on the phone with us today, this evening, representatives from the Denver Security Office, excise and licenses, post purchasing and city attorney's office risk management and Dispo to assist with any questions and clarifications. And so I do think there is a presentation that we forwarded to City Council or actually to maybe to Zach. I don't know Zach how we get that on there. And I can keep rolling if we want to wait or not wait on it. So I understand it's late. So it was just really one slide that we were going to keep up there, which was just an informative slide, but really want to start out with sharing the purpose of this contract, which is to ensure the safety and well-being of employees, residents and visitors conducting business in our city facilities. The security guards primary scope of work entails facility entrance screening for to sorry to prevent prohibitive items from being brought into city facilities. Ensuring those that.
Speaker 2: Are entering city facilities are.
Speaker 5: Provided with positive customer service and wayfinding and performing routine facility patrols to ensure security practices and protocols are in place. They also assist with locking down and securing city facilities during emergency and responding to emergencies in city facilities using in-person and video surveillance. And lastly, we provide walk or safe walk escorts for anyone leaving a city facility, especially after hours. So the contract states the primary function of agents is to observe and report agents. They shall not use physical force against any person except for the use of reasonable force, only protect oneself or another person. And then only as a last resort. So responses to crimes in emergencies, they're coordinated with local law enforcement and public safety officials. Thank you very much for getting the slide show up there. And I also want to emphasize that these security guard positions are dedicated positions that the city would not otherwise have for the sole purpose of keeping people safe. These positions are filled by dedicated employees who are the city's advocates when it comes to maintaining safe environments for our city facilities. The contract consists of 109 different positions, employing approximately 130 individuals across.
Speaker 2: 19 city locations.
Speaker 5: Thanks to the Executive Order 136, which is the non displacement of qualified workers of city service contracts, we expect to keep the overwhelming majority of the city's existing security guards on the city contract. Currently, SEIU Local 105 represents security guards working in the city and county of Denver, and I understand they would also represent security guards under the new Allied contract. Security guard wages are governed by the higher of either the livable wage or the minimum wage, and currently minimum wage is higher set at 25 per hour. However, we know that market rate is the most important comparator and a third party analysis of the proposed contractual wages indicates that they fall within the 75th percentile the industry's market rate with contractual wages ranging from 17 to $24 per hour, depending on the responsibility experience of the position. The contract also offers a comprehensive benefit and wage package, including a $500 retention bonus to those existing employees who choose to stay on the city contract. The contract will also invest up to $4 million back into our local mwb business community through the 16% minority and women business enterprise goals associated with contract. And then I want to talk just a little bit about the request for proposals and selection process that was was taken on through through this RFP process. So the purchasing division, the selection committee, followed a fair and transparent process aligning with Executive Order eight, which establishes the policy and procedures for preparation and execution of city contracts. Selection Committee consisted of a cross-agency representation from Department of Motor Vehicles, Denver Animal Shelter Facilities Management, Denver County Courts and the Denver Security Office, all of whom are stakeholders in the city security program. Various members of the city teams work extremely hard to make improvements on the existing security contract by increasing training requirements, implementing a quarterly review scorecard and introducing punitive damages for contract noncompliance. None of those things were in the existing contract or are in the existing contract. Lastly, I want to share where we see opportunities for improvement. I believe in continuous improvement. Continuous improvement is actually included in the contract scope of work. I believe in giving people an opportunity to learn and improve from mistakes. I, along with those that are here representing the contract tonight, denounced the inexcusable crime committed against Rivera's minute. And three former allied security guards that have been sentenced to prison as a result of the crime. I believe his contract can be used as a vehicle to change the way security guard services are provided throughout Denver. I want us to lead by example, by leveraging the city's emphasis on equity in applying it to how this contract is managed. I want to thank you for your time, and I'll turn it back over to you. Madam President.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Brandon. And we have a 30 minute courtesy public hearing that we will hear from members of the community. We have 24 people signed up. But I want to give a reminder, we only have a half an hour allocated. And so if folks can keep their comments brief, we will try to get through as many individuals as we possibly can. And our first speaker is Jeremy Lee.
Speaker 5: Council president. Can you hear me?
Speaker 0: Yes, go ahead.
Speaker 5: On four questions. I'm sorry for Jeremy Lane.
Speaker 0: Okay, great. All right. Thank you. And then I'm assuming then Mike Daly is with Jeremy there.
Speaker 5: That's awesome. That's great.
Speaker 0: Very good. All right. We will go ahead and move to Dr. Nita Mosby. Tyler.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. Thanks for this opportunity. I I'd like to just share a couple of things on on this matter. I'm seeing this as a real opportunity for us to influence, of course, the security services and Denver buildings, but honestly, to really effectuate change on the industry and this opportunity to do it through Ally. I think this is an opportunity for us to influence how security systems and services are provided, and working with a company to change their own company is a good thing for us to be doing the work with their employees, their interactions with our fellow Denver residents and and our guests. I have started to work on the scope of services with with Allied, and I wanted to share just a little bit about the scope. One of the things that I have shared with them that I would think would be a mandatory thing to do is to provide an equity audit of all of their training programs with the potential to even certify or credential some of the programs that either get developed out of this or redesigned out of this. We also have recommended an equity blueprint or a roadmap that includes the strategies, goals and tactics for allied in this work as well. I think more importantly, there has to be an intentional focus on some direct outreach to communities, especially the ones that have experienced harm from the Union Station event involving Mr. in that. And I would absolutely take the lead and leverage other community members in helping with that. The last thing that I would want to share with you in this opportunity, which I think would be a an important one for us to do as we think about the advancement of systems of equity is to talk about the timing of this. I've heard comments that, you know, was this timing of reaching out to me at the equity project reactive or was this something the company was thinking about doing? And I have to just be frank with all of you as council members, there's rarely a client that I have ever worked with that didn't do both. They were reaching out on something that was reactive while having a commitment to undertake work intentionally. And I think that that would be the case here to undertaking intentional actions to provide restorative justice in the communities. Thank you so much for allowing me the opportunity to share my really vulnerable thoughts about this manner. I do think it is a big opportunity for us to model what we mean when we say create a system of equity. What an opportunity for us to work through another organization just to do that. Thanks for the time.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is on the leave, the Victoria Lobo. And I'm sorry for any mispronunciations.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 2: Good evening. My name is Angelica, Victoria Lobo.
Speaker 3: And I'm the national campaign director.
Speaker 2: For janitorial and security.
Speaker 1: Services for the.
Speaker 0: Service Employees.
Speaker 2: International Union with headquarters in Washington, DC. SEIU represents nearly 2 million.
Speaker 3: Members throughout the United.
Speaker 0: States, Canada and Puerto Rico.
Speaker 3: In the health care.
Speaker 2: Public and property services sectors, including approximately 70,000 security offices. I thank you for letting me speak.
Speaker 7: To you today.
Speaker 2: About the relationship the SEIU has had with Allied Universal Security Services.
Speaker 7: Over the past decade and spanning.
Speaker 2: Multiple markets from coast to coast through our many locals.
Speaker 7: We have a strong collective bargaining agreements.
Speaker 2: With Allied that cover.
Speaker 7: Contracted out security.
Speaker 2: Services at public accounts, commercial real estate, universities.
Speaker 3: Hospitals and tech.
Speaker 0: Campuses. These CBAs.
Speaker 2: Over.
Speaker 3: 20 in fact, allow for all local such as local one, two, five and allied.
Speaker 2: To have very.
Speaker 7: Productive labor management.
Speaker 2: Partnerships which.
Speaker 3: Have one, provided.
Speaker 2: Good union jobs with health care and a living wage to over thousands of security officers from New York to Boston to Chicago to Seattle, Portland and throughout.
Speaker 7: California to have created responsible contracting.
Speaker 2: Relationships with ensure essential, excellent service and lower turnover.
Speaker 7: To clients.
Speaker 2: And have raised security industry standards across the country. We believe that in Denver, a labor management partnership will also be particularly valuable for purposes of allied training, curriculum. SEIU and in particular our standard for Stand for Security Campaign is committed to racial justice work. We believe de-escalation and implicit bias trainings with feedback from security officers are crucial to reducing.
Speaker 7: Turnover.
Speaker 2: And ensuring the delivery of quality security services to communities. SEIU and our security locals look forward to continuing to work with responsible contractors like Allied to ensure that security officers have a voice on the job. That we are working to provide the best opportunities for these hardworking men and women, and that we continue to keep the security industry moving with its best foot forward. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Mary Catherine Fleming. You might need to meet yourself.
Speaker 3: Hi there. I'm so sorry you won't be able to look at me because I am live streaming this on all my other platforms right now. So I'm not specifically for or against this contract, but all I really want to know is what the are you people thinking this company be reversed in it within an inch of its life and it's given all of your opposition fodder for months. It's one of the things we talk about. It's not the only thing we talk about that in the middle of a movement for Black Lives, what in the world makes you think this is a good idea? Who is advising you? All of you need help. This is terrible. Not only the optics, terrible, but the fact that you have to come in and explain. Well, at 10:00 at night, waiting everybody else out, why we're going to be leaders and set the example. If it you screwed up that bad, I promise we would not let you set the example of how to fix it. Why in the world are you going to pay $25 million to this gigantic corporation to do better? Which one of them I would like to know is putting money in your pockets or helping you find your next campaign. Either way, you are failing all of your people. You have failed. Reverse connect. You are failing me and you're failing my kid who came in earlier asking me, Mom, I'm scared of dying. He has autism and he knows he's likely to die at the hands of the police while you sit there and do nothing. Absolutely nothing. Meanwhile, and nutjob on the internets been posting pictures of my family and my home while the police say they can't do anything. And he continues to do this to elected officials. The police are useless, defund them. This company ally, it is terrible. Who is advising you? And why do you need me.
Speaker 2: To stay on TV? Staying up late past my bedtime.
Speaker 3: To tell you what the right thing to do.
Speaker 2: Is? How in the world is.
Speaker 3: There a question left in your mind? Clearly, the education system here.
Speaker 2: Failed you as well.
Speaker 3: That's all. Have a good night, y'all.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, we have Shannon Hoffman.
Speaker 3: Good evening, Michigan and Hoffman. I am a member of District ten. Thank you so much for staying up late with us for this discussion. I'm tired. I will also be tired tomorrow when I administer the S.A.T. to my students at Northeast Early College and mom below. And I hope that you will remember the black and brown students I support and their families and loved ones who are disproportionately targeted by a police state. When you cast your vote on this contract in a recent production about Rivera, Jeanette Rivera, an actor who plays him, says, What will you do with your hands? And that's what we're asking you tonight. We as a city, both RTD and the city of Denver, are about to give $65 million to a company that has a history of violence. And we have not given a single dime to Rivera's. Jeanette And thank you to the folks from SEIU who are on here. I am not against workers. This is all about all of us fighting together against a corrupt system. I'm scared because of how you have voted earlier tonight to use this CARES funding for Allied. But I hope that perhaps on this three year contract one of you might have it within your heart to change your mind. One of you might look outside and see that there's snow on the ground and there are people sleeping outside because they're afraid to go to shelters and they will be more scared with a violent security company there. We will all be scared and be afraid in our public spaces with this company terrorizing our city. And I sat in the Finance and Governance Committee meeting where Cami Joly presented this and made it seem like there's just no other company that can do what Allied can do. And then in the Denver Post says, But of course, a large company would have so many lawsuits against it. And I just don't think that's true. We don't have to live like this. We don't have to live in a constant police state. And I really encourage you to read Parable of the Sower by Octavia Butler to see what happens when when we allow this to happen. And, you know. To what Councilwoman Candace CdeBaca mentioned in that committee meeting. Where is community voice in this process? Why do folks get to make a presentation before this? And none of our community members get to have a voice in this process and who you hire. Thank you for this opportunity to to give voice this evening.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is James Ginsburg.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I'm James.
Speaker 5: Ginsberg. I'm the deputy director of Housing, Stability and Homelessness, the resolution for the Department of Housing Stability. And I'm really here to just verify that as oversee multiple contracts with our nonprofit shelter providers. And over the past six months, Allied has been a a very positive partner in providing security at the shelter at National Western and at the Coliseum, as well as more recently across shelter. And the report is, while I don't have firsthand experience, the report from our partners is they have been very engaged, very good communicators. They're certainly working with a very vulnerable population. They've adhered to our are calls for trauma informed engagement and principles. And they continue to adjust to any feedback from our partners and to communicate clearly. And I certainly want to verify that they've been a positive partner.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, James. Up next, we have Rebecca Henderson.
Speaker 3: Oh, I'm back again. This is my comment.
Speaker 2: From last week that I didn't get to do so. My name is Rebecca Henderson. I am a resident of Denver Central Park.
Speaker 3: Neighborhood tonight vote to give $25 million to Allied Universal in light of.
Speaker 2: Their reprehensible treatment of Rivera tonight, as well as other violent.
Speaker 3: And murderous incidents across the country is a travesty. And I do ask you to vote.
Speaker 2: Now and become truly transformative leaders.
Speaker 3: I realize I've asked you to do this before I sent you these comments in an email. I do not believe.
Speaker 2: I have heard back. Sometimes I know the emails and we get lost. And there are things.
Speaker 3: That I did send you.
Speaker 2: A podcast that I thought would be helpful for you to listen to. I'm thinking as we're starting to.
Speaker 3: Really think about what it means to.
Speaker 2: Defund the.
Speaker 3: Police. And I also.
Speaker 2: Wanted to bring up the killing of weed killer.
Speaker 3: This week. And I was actually last weekend at the Denver Art Museum, and the man who killed him was a private security guard. And again, this is why we're asking you to be the most thoughtful about you that you've ever.
Speaker 2: Written and to really listen.
Speaker 3: And as we're watching, like, fascism, like for real, because I even.
Speaker 2: Think fascism is not a thing you can like. I mean, I'm just saying.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 2: I do wonder, you know. What would I have done in Nazi Germany? And I want you guys to also think about when you're looking at like, what about your legacy? What are your children going to say if you have any children, you know?
Speaker 3: I know I don't want it so late, but at the same time, I just. I just want you memory. Nothing.
Speaker 2: Well, they.
Speaker 3: Will. They will. Will people look back and say.
Speaker 2: I'm so proud of you and you fought on the side of the people and made the world a better place?
Speaker 3: You feeling much like the descendants of slave owners, white supremacists and racists ashamed of their ancestors of crimes against humanity that they committed? Will your descendants and families look back on you with pride.
Speaker 2: Or shame.
Speaker 3: If future legacy does not move you to do what's right? And I do hope you can be moved by the testimony of your constituents. And I know it's really scary to be part of transformation and to be brave, but. And it makes sense. But what are we going to do? We can't do anything. I am confident that you.
Speaker 2: Will come up with solutions. Okay. And I think that.
Speaker 3: If by voting no tonight, you are going to demonstrate.
Speaker 2: That.
Speaker 3: You do you do care. The value, you know, was brought up. We put our money where our values are.
Speaker 2: And I mean, it's I would love.
Speaker 3: To see you vote now on this country. Thank you. And I know it's been long.
Speaker 2: And I was here the whole time. Ooh, ooh. I cut.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Next up, we have Mary Buckley. I'm sorry. Lisa Buckley. I'm sorry about that, Lisa.
Speaker 2: Good evening.
Speaker 7: Madam.
Speaker 2: President. You do that for the long day that you had. So thank you so much for the opportunity.
Speaker 3: I am not only a 20 year veteran, if you will, of.
Speaker 2: Owning my own business along with my husband.
Speaker 3: I also am a mother of two beautiful kids.
Speaker 2: My son, who is.
Speaker 3: 18 and my daughter who is 13. And so many of the things that we.
Speaker 2: Go through today as a community, as a citizenry.
Speaker 3: I go to bed at night.
Speaker 2: With those same thoughts. When my son be okay, will he be safe? Will my daughter be safe?
Speaker 3: And more than that, what am I doing as a part of this.
Speaker 2: Community to help that.
Speaker 3: To be a reality?
Speaker 2: It is just a.
Speaker 3: Honor to.
Speaker 2: Be here tonight. This for my company as an opportunity to be at the table. With companies like like Ally.
Speaker 3: Like the great doctor that spoke earlier.
Speaker 2: To be a part of.
Speaker 3: A process in our community that will.
Speaker 2: Take us all forward. 2020 is unique to all of us in so many different ways. My heart breaks for the.
Speaker 3: Various companies and families and people that have not only suffered from this terrible.
Speaker 2: Pandemic, but have also had to lose businesses, lose livelihoods, lose jobs.
Speaker 3: I am proud within my company that we are approximately 40% female and approximately 80% people of color. Ah, my husband and I. Perfect.
Speaker 2: No, not. Not by a long shot.
Speaker 3: But every day we grow to learn and to improve.
Speaker 2: But the other.
Speaker 3: Thing, too, is to be.
Speaker 2: That voice at the table. To be able to understand what our community not only deserves. But demands and should have of us.
Speaker 3: And that is any person that we come into contact with in our industry, as we would call it.
Speaker 2: Civilians. To be treated with respect.
Speaker 3: To be treated with dignity, to be treated in such a way that I would like my son to be treated. In this regard. Again, this is a opportunity for us to be at the table on this contract, basically 20 years in the making.
Speaker 2: But we've we've worked hard. We've learned our craft, and we understand and we won't be silent. We will be.
Speaker 3: There to do the right thing. Madam President.
Speaker 2: Council community leaders, thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, we have Luis Ponce.
Speaker 6: Is a thank you, Madam President. Good evening. My name is Response and I'm the research director for ACA will go one on five. I'll going to speak first on behalf of Earn.
Speaker 5: And as Hicks is an actress as.
Speaker 6: Employee and member of SEIU Local 105.
Speaker 5: And he's actually the lead unions.
Speaker 6: To work for the agencies, the US contracts. Then I will make some brief.
Speaker 5: Remarks as a.
Speaker 6: Representative of SEIU. Look, a lot of members of City Council as an employer for the current contract holder, HHS, me and my fellow SEIU Local one on five union members realize that.
Speaker 5: Tonight many factors are being done.
Speaker 3: For Robin.
Speaker 5: As you move forward, what sort of I'd like to hear some more about some of the guidelines or protocol. 94% yes vote in March 2018. Since then, as a union, we have made significant strides to.
Speaker 6: Improve working conditions, gain higher pay, increase PTO and possibly most important, fair and equal treatment among all employees at a higher level than my own. SEIU has had dialog with other universal.
Speaker 5: Mainly because of the relationship between the two working within our contracts around the country. From these conversations, it is understood that Universal intends to assume and honor.
Speaker 6: The current union contract held between SEIU Local one and five.
Speaker 5: And it says if awarded in the US contract. Therefore, it is my humble opinion that all you in the original will be a safe choice to retain for the biggest contract. Because we know they are going to respect the contract union.
Speaker 6: And hire all current employees as long as they.
Speaker 5: Pass the background checks. Again, ladies and gentlemen of the Denver City Council, thank you for hearing me out on this matter in unity. Ernest Hicks.
Speaker 6: Now I'm going to make remarks us on the SEIU one on five Representative. We as SEIU Local 125. We are a union representing the 100 security officers working grandly in the city and county of Denver. We support all universal getting this contract.
Speaker 5: SEIU has had a long and constructive national relationship with ALID across.
Speaker 6: The country and in many other SEIU markets, where they have shown to be a responsible contractor in Denver and it has committed to continue being a.
Speaker 5: Responsible contractor and keep this work. Union respecting the wages, benefits and rights this local, one of five security officers have already won.
Speaker 6: Hourly, it has also committed to retaining the security officers.
Speaker 5: Who have protected.
Speaker 6: And security buildings for years, which means that the hardworking.
Speaker 5: Dedicated security officers who you know and trust will continue to keep our buildings, public spaces and communities safe.
Speaker 6: We will also be consulting with and providing.
Speaker 5: Feedback throughout training for this union's security officers.
Speaker 6: With our members and the Denver community's.
Speaker 5: Best interests in mind.
Speaker 6: We look forward to working with Allied.
Speaker 5: And ensure good jobs and high quality services for the city.
Speaker 0: And that's your time tonight. Thank you. Next up, we have Ian Tafoya.
Speaker 5: Hello. Of City Council interview. You know, I had a chance to meet Ramiro right after this happened, and he was literally coloring in a book, and he wasn't sure if he was ever going to read again. I'm very happy to see that we move forward. But beginning at that point, we began these conversations about the privatization of security of of islands, of merchant guards and oversight. But I want to go back one step and say to whomever is saying that the shelter experience is so damn great, then why aren't people going to them? Right. This is just one entry point in a system that is so flawed and so broken. And I don't think we need that much security over the people who are going there. I work with these people on a on a weekly basis. I'm out in the fields again. I want to say privatization. Who is that serving? And why can't they? Why can't the city sheriffs? And this is a solution I want to put in front of you. 19 locations, 109 positions. The sheriffs have $150 million budget. We have a record low jail population. Why wouldn't we want them policing their own buildings where they have the most oversight? Listening to a private firm call people, civilians get real. You are civilians. You are not military or police, but you act like you are policemen sometimes. We all know that privatized security has crossed the line far too many times to continue. It's also a place where people go to to seek power, to abuse power, where we might see people go once they're kicked out of the police department. This is a three year three contract with two extensions, five years. If we had sheriffs, we had a oh, I am. Is there oversight or more public accountability on public property and to the union people? They would be a union with the higher standards and being included in with the Fraternal Order of Police here in the city . And in the time where only 11 of these officers have weapons and were escalating, wouldn't you feel safer with the sheriff anyways? I will say, though, that a merchant guard system does need to have overhaul, that we need to be looking at this. We've seen mistakes happening along the way and we're authorizing this private security. And I really think it's a fundamental part in restructuring the justice system. And the last thing I want to say is I have not heard a single community member, and I want you to be careful if any community member comes here to testify in favor that doesn't have skin in the game, because what I'm hearing are people who stand to gain from this and people are in the community who are frustrated and want something different. I think you can extend whoever is serving now in the interim, but I really want you to think about the sheriff, 150 million and the smallest population . It would build goodwill to the public to interact with these people. Oversight is better. We should serve our own citizens with our own safety. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, we have Warner Smith.
Speaker 5: Hello.
Speaker 6: My name is Warren Smith.
Speaker 5: I've been with Allied for seven years. Retired military spent 22 years in the military and part of that was with the Colorado National Guard. I am a licensed security guard officer. They had my background check and everything before I could become a security guard with Allied. I've been lucky in my seven years with Allied to work with different avenues. I was on the original 16th Street Mall project as an armed security, working with the homeless folks and stuff down there. I also lived in Samaritan House. I was homeless, so I was able to talk to homeless folks and let them understand that I do get what they've gone through. I've been there. I also have been to a lot of training, which I really like with Allied. We have training monthly, quarterly and yearly. One of the trainings is about safety, our safety program, where I, as security personnel can talk to my employer. The place I'm stationed at and let them know I see situations that are wrong. I also report a bad officer. Now, security.
Speaker 6: Work is not easy.
Speaker 5: We are supposed to deal with our clients, take care of people answering questions, keep the peace. And a lot of times Reagan abuse. In fact, some officers have been killed just trying to help people out on the street. This company is really good. I enjoy living here in Denver. I love the interaction that we have. And again, I am not a police officer. I know my role and in our training we learn that. We learn the laws. We learn the things that we are supposed to do and can not do.
Speaker 6: De-escalation is one of the biggest things.
Speaker 5: We try not to put ourself in danger because that is not my role. My biggest role is use my eyes and use a pen that is more effective, and that's what we try to do. Do we have some bad people and we find them? But this is a great company and I'm proud to be with them. Thank you for your time. I appreciate it.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And we're rounding out the half hour that we had allotted for the courtesy public hearing. And so our last speaker will be Morrow Zacharias.
Speaker 3: Yes. Thank you. My name is Mara Zacarias.
Speaker 7: I'm from Fort Collins, Colorado. I have a daughter and a future.
Speaker 3: Son in law who live in Capitol Hill in downtown Denver. I watch the.
Speaker 1: Play.
Speaker 7: I am Rivero.
Speaker 1: It is so upsetting.
Speaker 3: That it's I'm actually welling up right now to think about the egregious abuse of this man. To think about how his life is altered forever, to think about how there.
Speaker 1: Is still no.
Speaker 3: Settlement. And this company that we think is going to be good and is changing their ways. There is still no settlement. There is still no restitution. To Rivera obstinate. I think about the phone call that we just started. And, you know, I've been here for four and a half hours. I heard about the diabetic person and the little boy who was on the call earlier. The diabetic. And keeping him safe. And you agreed to that resolution. But you know, even a diabetic child, they can become incoherent, they can become aggressive, they can become anxious keeping if their blood sugar levels aren't out of whack. I wonder how an allied security guard would handle that diabetic child. In light of what we've seen. You know, Ribeiro did nothing. He was an artist. He did nothing. And he has a traumatic brain injury at this point. It's been difficult for me to be on this call this whole time, listening to people from unions. People have an interest in doing this work. I appreciate that. But I am just here as a citizen who has an interest in keeping people safe. This is a company with a plethora of podcasts, CPR and PR information on sexual harassment, racial biases. They're talking about coming back and doing some trainings in punitive damages for noncompliance. Allow me to mention what we know about organizations, because I am an organizational development expert. Organizations really learn from the top down what the values are from the CEO. It's not a matter of training. It's a matter of knowing the values of the CEO on down. I really hope that you keep us all safe. I really hope that this issue gets returned to providing for the safety of our citizens. In the Denver area. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And thank you to all of our speakers who stayed with us through what we know is a very long evening and I'm sorry to the speakers that we weren't able to get to tonight, but we wanted to maintain the half an hour courtesy public hearing. And so we will have questions from members of council. Councilman Haines.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam President. Allied security. You all have a credibility problem. I just want to start with General Services. So if I could chat with someone from General Services, I think that you're the stewards of the contract. There were the question I got. Just start with the questions. There were three bidders for this contract, correct?
Speaker 7: Yes. Councilman Hines, this is Kim.
Speaker 5: Okay, great. And what were the other two companies?
Speaker 7: The current contractor, HCA, and then Securitas.
Speaker 5: Okay. Um, were there any local vendors who placed bids on the contract?
Speaker 7: I know those were the only three. There were two other companies that did bid. However, they did not meet the dispo criteria.
Speaker 5: Hmm. Okay. So you said Securitas?
Speaker 7: Yes, sir.
Speaker 5: And are. Are those? Is Securitas also engaged in the very visible discussion about the shooting near the art museum? I know that Pinkerton was definitely identified. I don't know if security was also identified. Do you know?
Speaker 7: I believe Securitas and purchased Pinkerton sometime ago. So they are both in nature.
Speaker 5: Okay, so.
Speaker 7: So I can't comment on whether or not. If there's any sort of direct correlation there and how that that relationship works. I don't know those details.
Speaker 5: Okay. But I think it's fair to say that they also have a credibility problem here in Denver. So are there any local vendors who could perform this contract? Like why? Why did no local vendors apply.
Speaker 7: Sought so yet? Great question, Councilman Himes. And I think that the issue that the city runs into is that it's the size of the contracts. So, you know, we're a fairly large contract. Several of our facilities are 24 seven with multiple positions. And so it is definitely the size of our contract that is a bit more difficult to staff and to be responsive to the RFP. It has been mentioned on a few occasions during some of our committee meetings and then some of our individual discussions that, you know, why? Why can't we unbundle or split this contract into multiple contracts? We could do that. I think that there are some definite, pretty significant risks whenever you look at doing something like that for a security contract. And, you know, our chief security officer who is on the call, George Hunt, as well as our contacts here locally with the Department of Homeland Security, have definitely advised against doing that and for a few different reasons. And, you know, this could lead to significant risks, such as force on force incidents, communication protocol differences, some inefficiency of management, as well as difficulties in just managing any of our emergency or crisis response when we have to have a coordinated response around a particular issue, possibly in the downtown core area, which a lot of our buildings are.
Speaker 5: So. So someone just mentioned that each SS is a local vendor. Is that.
Speaker 7: True? You're a Colorado vendor. That's that's yes, that is correct.
Speaker 5: Okay.
Speaker 7: And they have held the contract for 13 plus years. That's correct.
Speaker 5: And they did apply. They met the the maybe threshold, but they were not selected. Is that right?
Speaker 3: That's correct.
Speaker 5: Okay. And then Mr. Tafoya suggested that our sheriffs might could take the contract. Why? Why is that not a viable option or is it a viable option?
Speaker 7: Sure. So we do work very, very closely with the Denver Sheriff's Department in several of our buildings where there are court functions. And because they do obviously operate very closely with with the courts. And so, you know, if we did the cost analysis on that, I would imagine that we would probably triple the dollar amount of what this contract is, double to triple what it is. And if you can just imagine the the salary of a sheriff versus a security guard, and you're really looking at apples and oranges there as far as how much that would be. So and so it would be cost prohibitive to this prohibitive to the city as well.
Speaker 5: And so layered security was had the contract in Union Station on behalf of our duty is our right.
Speaker 7: I believe so. There are allies Mike Daly and Jeremy Lee are on the line. If you have specific questions about that contract, I'm not well versed in it.
Speaker 5: Sarah Okay. So I guess the last question I have, Madam President, is and I don't know if it's general services, that is the best answer. RG Considered getting rid of allied security and replacing them with social workers that I think didn't pass. Is that is that right?
Speaker 7: I think it was a 14 to 1 vote against doing that is at least what I saw in the media. And I don't know if perhaps Mike wants to unmute and just confirm that for Councilman Hines.
Speaker 5: Yeah. Councilman, can you hear us? Yes, sir. Yes, sir. That is true. McKamey said it was, I believe it was either 14 or 15 to 1 vote by our board of directors to not do that, sir. Okay. Thank you. That's all for now. Madam President.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman Hines. Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 3: Thanks, Madam President. Several speakers mentioned a settlement. With Mr. Synnott. It can. Jeremy. Jeremy and Jeremy Leigh, can you please. Provide some information about that.
Speaker 5: Yes. Councilwoman Black, thank you.
Speaker 2: So we have I do have a joint statement from Allied Universal, as well as.
Speaker 5: Counsel for Mr. Stein, that they have reached an agreement in principle to resolve the claims arising from the 2018.
Speaker 4: Incident.
Speaker 5: April The agreement is subject to.
Speaker 2: Finalization of formal documentation.
Speaker 5: Both parties were able to work cooperatively to address this unfortunate incident. So we do have an agreement in principle currently with that interested in.
Speaker 3: All right. Thank you. That's all I have, Madam President.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Black. Councilman Torres.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. Also, for Mr. Lee and Mr. Daley, were your Denver staff or your Denver contracts unionized prior to working recently with SEIU?
Speaker 5: Oh, not currently. Nope, not at all. So this is our first opportunity to work with the local SEIU.
Speaker 1: But you've got union. Is it true that you've got union contracts in other states or other cities?
Speaker 5: Yeah, that's correct.
Speaker 1: Is that accurate? Okay. Thank you so much. Cami, just a question for you. Was the did the decision come down to a bottom line bid between the three vendors who bid it and made it to kind of the final round?
Speaker 7: Yes. And thank you. Councilwoman Turismo and the evaluation committee looked at a lot of different criteria. So it wasn't just the cost of the contracts. And because all of the bids came in relatively around the same dollar amount and which kind of shows that they all fit the contract very, very well from a pricing perspective. Really, what the evaluation committee looked at was the hiring and how the how the companies went about their hiring and background checks included as well as retaining because it's very important for us first as a city to maintain as many staff as possible from the current contract as well as the training. And I've spoken at length with many of the councilmembers and leading up to this meeting about our expectations as far as training with the city. We went from 24 hours of a mandatory training before going on to post to 40, 40 hours, and that's for an unarmed guard at the most basic sort of level. And then the training increases from there as guards go to different levels as well. As, you know, I believe Warner Smith mentioned as well, the The Monthly, The Quarterly, the annual training on top of that. And also it was the transition plan, again, really focusing on how the this contract, because it is such a major contract for the city would transition very seamlessly and successfully from the current vendor to the new vendor. So having a well thought out transition plan as well as, you know, the focus on customer service and then of course the overall overall proposal, how that was proposed. And because we get both the written and the written proposal as well as the the virtual interview since we're in a time of COVID. So it was a lot more in addition to the pricing of the contract itself.
Speaker 1: Is there any criteria or judgment on on unionization of those employees?
Speaker 7: No. And and our buyer supervisor, unfortunately, with purchasing is is no longer with us. And she did retire. Lance J is on the line. However, I can I can just say that the city remains agnostic whenever it comes to and comes to the the union question. I don't know if Lance J. Wants to unmute, maybe add further add to that, but that is my understanding of that.
Speaker 5: That's correct, Kimmy.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Lance. And then final question for you, Cami. Did agencies also have a minority owned business subcontractor or did they subcontract?
Speaker 7: Yes. So they it was also a 16% goal for assistance contract. And that was achieved through a national.
Speaker 1: And actually one more question for you. I worked in the Web building for over ten years. I worked in the Memorial City building before that. I don't recall major safety or security issues. Were there issues in the 13 years that each of us held that contract?
Speaker 7: So when you say issues, do you mean as far as just kind of incidents? We do experience incidents less frequently now just because we have fewer people in our buildings. But I would say just about every day we would have some type of incidents. You know, occasionally it would just be, you know, different types of prohibited items that are being brought in. We do have people that have medical emergencies that our security staff do do respond to and engage with both our security operations center as well as 911 to get assistance on that. But we we are quite busy, I would say. And also George Hunt is on the line. He's our chief security officer. He is he manages the day to day operations of the security contract. He can probably comment a little bit better as far as the incidents that occur in in our facilities.
Speaker 1: And I'm thinking much may be more egregious. Sorry, Brandon, go ahead.
Speaker 5: No, I was just going to say, I just want everyone to understand the city's procurement process. It doesn't really base it on historical data. You know, it's about the a fair and transparent process based on a request for proposals and what's submitted and then what makes it through as a response proposal. Once our Department of Small Business Opportunity looks at it. And then it's a very specific criteria that that can be mentioned in terms of scoring that each selection committee member made up of, you know, diverse groups and city agencies works through. So it's a very deliberative process. And so it's not really those other pieces kind of extraneous peripheral pieces typically aren't brought into that process. And so it is customer service is performance based, it's data and metrics. So I just wanted to make sure that that that piece is kind of understood as, as the city moves through any procurement of any contract.
Speaker 1: Thank you for that. Mr. Hunt, is there any information that you have on perhaps lawsuits filed against each assets in one of our buildings? I understand their daily conflicts, issues and coming through security, things like that. But I'm talking about things that would be really concerning.
Speaker 5: So assuming I'm unmuted, I'm a little confused by the question. Councilwoman, are you. You're asking about my awareness of lawsuits for agencies or incidents on their own?
Speaker 1: Both.
Speaker 5: Okay. So sure to answer the first part there. As Candy pointed out, incidents daily, whether that's in support of someone needing medical assistance. In the downtown core or at DMV's or at the animal shelter. Escalating all the way up to. Unfortunately, incidents that would be much more violent and would be a direct threat or an attack on a. City employee at the animal shelter. They've had several incidents. We've had people typically about once or twice a week attempt to bring firearms into city buildings, whether that's the city county building or the Wellington Webb Building or the Empire Building. We've had bicycle thefts out of some buildings. We've had assaults occur outside buildings and sometimes inside buildings. So we to answer your question, we yes, we do have incidents that run the gamut of medical assistance for someone who's having some issue all the way up to violence. And then the second part of the question, I am unaware of any lawsuit related to HFCS and an incident that would have occurred on city property. The only thing that comes to my mind with HFCS that I'm aware of in any detail at all would be a employment h.r issue internally with with HFCS as a company. And that was something to do if my memory serves me right was back in March and it had something to do with the sheriff's department and an NHS agent on duty. Some type of. Interpersonal drama there.
Speaker 1: Oh, okay. Thank you, Mr. Hunt. And by definitely my last question, Cami, are these three year contracts each time? That have come before this one in particular.
Speaker 7: So do we build them out for three years? Yes. So typically they would be bid out for three years plus the two one year extensions? That is correct. So typically, you would look at probably about five years if the performance is there. That's correct.
Speaker 1: Got it. Thank you. Thank you. Madam President, you.
Speaker 0: Right. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 5: Oh, thank you, Madam President. Tammy, could you talk a little bit about as I understand it, there is a quarterly review of performance and monetary penalties. I guess what I'm what.
Speaker 2: I'm looking for.
Speaker 5: If you could please, as I said, talk about that a bit. But what is what do they have to do for us to say, take a hike?
Speaker 7: Thank you for the question, Councilman Cashman. I'm actually going to ask and George, once again to add, I'll defer to him on that question. And he wrote those pieces within the RFP and can comment better than I can. George, can you move again, please?
Speaker 5: Sure.
Speaker 7: Thank you.
Speaker 5: So, Councilman Cashman's, excellent question. The Court You are correct. There is a score quarterly scorecard review. And that's. Seven pages, eight pages of very specific questions that deal with the operational status of the security vendor. I'll be very frank. It's not it wasn't it's not allied centric. It's it's security vendor. Whoever the security vendor partner is or ends up being for the city will also be subject to the the quarterly scorecard review process and that that from the city side would be staffed by a stakeholder committee that would include more than likely the same advisory committee that was on the evaluation. So EFM partners, dmv d0f partners, animal shelter partners, etc.. Those those of us that are intimate users of the security services. And the idea is to to rate the security vendor with how they're doing operationally and then also back office management invoicing. Are they listening to what the city needs? And that results in a score line, line item score and an overall score per site. So each patient in the city would receive a score. And if there were items that were that fell below a three rating or below on a scale of 1 to 10, that would instantly invoke a performance improvement plan by the security vendor. Who would need to address why the deficiency and what their plan is to improve it and an associate a timeline to achieve the the improvement. Does that answer.
Speaker 7: Your question, George? If you can talk about the punitive tour item that was.
Speaker 5: Sure. So in the punitive language, it's in the contract. That's something that that is not in the current contract with IHS as. We felt in in the general services group that that contract compliance that that was very crucial to have some teeth to the contract. That just to your point, you know, some at some point you need to get someone's attention about trying to accomplish what the city needs, whether that's short staffing or continued short staffing, whether it's intentional or not intentional by the security vendor or refusal to do something that they're contractually bound to. Is the idea behind the punitive language? And to give you an idea of the the den security contract for their security vendor also has punitive language in it similar to the to what we have. And that's, you know, a familiar path that the industry is going towards as far as the client is concerned. And it's not something that Allied or other security vendors are not familiar with. It's a normal and normal thing. Okay. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Hines.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam President. And thank everyone who's still with us. Still a lot of people with us. It is late at night, so I apologize that I'm asking more questions, but I am surprised to hear that the bids about the bids were about the same for the various vendors and that the incumbent applied but was not selected . So when you you mentioned that there was a scoring process in the selection committee. Does the incumbent have any sort of an advantage? I, I guess I'll go ahead and ask the next question. Change management is hard and it has to be carefully planned. And so, you know, is is there some value placed on that cost of change management?
Speaker 7: Absolutely. That's an excellent question, Councilman Hines. And so I would say that the evaluation committee throughout the process was very mindful of that. However, I think that that there is something to be said for changing things up, to sort of improve upon things like transparency within data collection, our ability to review records on a daily, if not , you know, real time sort of situation with incidents and you know, post who's who's posted where, what those hours look like. And the data collection I think was extremely challenging with with the current contract. And and I also think that some of the folks that were on the evaluation committee were also looking for more support out in these remote type of locations, which normally have maybe only one person on that post. And so what Allied was able to do through the proposal process was really put in a solid supervisor structure that allowed for a lot of oversight and support and training of those remote sites that we we did not necessarily have in the current contract or was not necessarily proposed on the current contract or with the new contract. So I think to answer your question there, there was a lot of discussion with the evaluation committee on that. And because it is such a major shift and change, however, I do go back to the fact that it's 136 does apply. And so really we are trying, you know, if if we can get a contract executed and, you know, and we're successful there, we can start that transition a.S.A.P and and start to get people information. You know, the current agent assessed folks information about the benefits package and what this looks like of coming over to the contract. So that's the intent is to get as many people on the contract as possible. So perhaps that transition won't be as as difficult as it would be if someone was coming in and just replacing 100% with new staff.
Speaker 5: Well. So thank you for your candor. I mean, if we did not have transparency on data collection reporting, who's posted where support and remote location and supervisory structures, I mean that. That concerns me.
Speaker 7: So we do have some of that. So that's and I don't want to misspeak there or I don't want to give the impression that we don't have some of those things in place. I think the evaluation committee was looking for improvements, looking for more of a greater sort of electronic transparency with some of those items.
Speaker 5: Okay. And then one other I guess one of very lot questions I'd like to hear maybe both from Allied and SEIU. Local 105i don't know, Allied Security. And frankly, based on the information I've heard so far and the responses from committee, you know, I'm I don't trust Allied. However, I do trust SEIU and the leadership team at SEIU Local 105. If this contract contract were approved, how can you ensure that SEIU will be a partner in making sure that security workers are represented? And how can you ensure that SEIU and its members will have a proactive role to ensure that we don't recreate situations like we've heard too often from Allied in Denver and and around the U.S.?
Speaker 7: Mike and Jeremy. Can you.
Speaker 5: Yeah. It's Jeremy. I'll answer that. So the answer to that is, it's just there's a real.
Speaker 2: Appetite to.
Speaker 5: Partner with our local SEIU. We wouldn't want to jeopardize.
Speaker 3: Any.
Speaker 5: National relationship that we have. We've done some great work nationally.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 5: We have not had the opportunity locally to work with these folks. We've had several meetings with them. They've been very positive. There's a real willingness to enter into a relationship to include training audits from their from their folks. And so there's no reason for us not to partner with them and to make this a successful relationship with those folks. So we're all in agreeance. It's going to be better for the program and it's certainly better for the security professionals involved. So it's it's again, there's no reason not to do it. Every reason for us to continue to work on that relationship. And the SEIU brings another community voice to the table, which we think is critical, especially with everything that we've been talking about it, because contracts are.
Speaker 7: Is the local SEIU, Luis Ponce. Is he.
Speaker 0: He's he's.
Speaker 6: Here? Yes. Council members, council member Hines, thanks for your question. We take this with the highest responsibility to partner with earlier in order to better serve our community and to serve the working people that already in majority. You know, people of color, we we believe that by our universal respecting the union contract, keeping the hard fought benefits , enhancing some of them what they have told us as well, us collaborating on training specifically our members on the only training that we already give to our members that we have given throughout the years here in Denver is going to be critical in in moving forward these this contract and really maintaining what the community has been asking . Right. Which is responsibility and and and a mindfulness of of what the community really needs.
Speaker 5: And I think the the silver lining in all of this is that by having the union.
Speaker 6: There is an accountability piece that probably, you know, wasn't there before. And now, you know, it will be.
Speaker 5: There. And I think that that's very important for for the community and for city council members, too.
Speaker 6: To know that that by our members being local 105 sorry, by the workers being local one or five members, there's going to be an accountability.
Speaker 5: And an oversight.
Speaker 6: By by the workers on their job and on their duties.
Speaker 5: All right. Thank you. And, Madam President, one last question for general services. What if what if, what if this what if you don't say yes? What if this contract dies tonight? What's the next step?
Speaker 7: Sure. So I can I can answer that and Brandon and please assist if I, if I get anything wrong here. But we will, in essence, look at all of our options. Our our focus has been on doing everything that we can to support this contract going forward. So I don't know that we've spent a great deal of time thinking about the the alternatives with with any and with a lot of focus. You know, we we do know that we have options like potentially going to the other the other proposers for this RFP process or going out to RFP again. And so I know that those are at least a couple of the options that that are available to us. And that would mean that we would have to negotiate for some type of extension with our current provider. And because those processes, as you know, and tend to take some time, obviously a new RFP would take much more time than negotiating with one of the other proposers.
Speaker 5: And if we add on our current providers one of the other options, right? And so that's why you would theoretically continue the relationship with the current provider if if we ended up selecting the current provider.
Speaker 7: Yes. So business does have that agreement with the local 105 Okay.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. The public hearing for council resolution 20 Dash 1042 is closed. Comments by members of Council. Councilwoman CdeBaca.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Madam President, this debate has taken a very disappointing turn. We cheapen the lives of black people and unhoused people in a way I couldn't have imagined to have a conversation tonight that even elevates a union contract or diversity training above the real and undeniable deaths of people at the hands of this company right here in our city, on our own taxpayer dollars makes my stomach turn. I wish that the workers we all heard from tonight could start an employee owned company to compete against this narrative that only these companies, these global companies, are capable of competing or implementing these contracts. It's almost as if we're taking a step back in what we're even expecting of police. We've said repeatedly that police are ill equipped to deal with the challenges our city is facing, yet we're employing a company to observe and report and then call the police. Why exactly are we employing people to observe and report when we need, especially in the places that we're employing them, when we need experts to guide, to support, to connect, to de-escalate, to comfort, to assure the people in those spaces. Why are we paying for them to observe and report when we are actually all aware of incidents where they've gotten fatally physical? Why would we not recognize the financial interest of those who were supporting this contract tonight? We're not telling our citizens we want to protect them. We're telling them we're willing to give them money whenever they want it, no matter what. We have no standards. We have no expectations of protection of life. We have no intent to do the hard work to find out what really makes people safe. If the job is observing and reporting, then it makes no sense to me that we're only contracting with one company to do this work. If we can unbundle. If we're nearly 50% reduced in our in-person venues, if we're insistent on civilizing this role, why aren't we taking the moment to do it now? Explore creative options. The sheriffs could have a civilian nice branch of their department. We could do this in a way that creates more accountability and opens us up to less liability and vulnerability with predatory companies. The same issue raised by Ms.. Jolly for not wanting to unbundle the issues of communication protocols, use of force, a lack of a coordinated response among multiple contractors if we were to have them. Those are the exact same real life challenges that led to a loss of life on this agency's watch in our facilities just a few months ago. A settlement after three years and an attempted gag order on this victim doesn't show that ally is changing its ways. It shows us that they know that paying off this case and paying for trainings is needed in order to to silence the opposition to this contract. That's the only leverage they have in this moment. And it was cheap for them to use it. While this company should be doing these things because it's good business, Denver should be doing our own good business and denying this contract we can revisit after they're better trained. When the local cases are settled and paid and they're doing a better job at being humans. We'll come back to it. A simple Google search shows us that in other city councils across the country, they are standing strong and finding this company to be out of alignment with their values and refusing to enter into contracts with them . Why is Denver not taking the lead knowing that they have a history of wage theft, sexism, racism, harassment, intimidation, abuse of force, etc., etc.? Those are all red flags proof a track record that we need to take into consideration. We weren't even told they were in the top running or even in the RFP process for this contract when we had these same issues on their $4 million emergency contract. Until they build a better track record. We need to take human lives as serious as some of us take derogatory comments from national chains. We decide to boycott them in the name of justice for comments. But right now, we're giving $25 million to a company that has stolen lives from people in our very own city. We need a boycott on any entity perpetuating racism, classism, and facilitating murder with taxpayer dollars. That's all I have to say tonight. Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore or President Gilmore. And thank you, everybody who stayed to testify. And I apologize on behalf of our body for those of you who stayed and were unable to testify.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman CdeBaca. I don't see any other hands raised. And so I will go ahead and share my comments. I have looked at this closely and. It's a little bit too late. It's a lot of learning, a lot of shuffling. But it wasn't going to be done unless we asked the questions, unless we held it up in committee, unless we had this courtesy public hearing. But it still seems a bit hollow because. It feels like it's a house of cards a little bit. It feels like there's a lot of change management going on now. When I didn't see it in committee, I didn't hear it on the phone. And so I have regretted and I don't regret any of my votes. I do not. That's not an issue that I have. The one vote that I regret is the vote on this contract at the beginning of the pandemic when we were hiring them for our shelter care. That is the one vote that I regret and I won't regret it again and put that to fate. And so I will not be supporting this tonight either. Madam Secretary, roll call, please.
Speaker 4: CDEBACA No. Clark.
Speaker 5: I.
Speaker 4: When?
Speaker 5: I.
Speaker 4: Brendan.
Speaker 5: I.
Speaker 4: Hi.
Speaker 5: No.
Speaker 4: Cashman?
Speaker 5: No.
Speaker 4: Can I? Ortega.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 4: Sandoval. No. Sawyer.
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 4: Taurus.
Speaker 1: No.
Speaker 3: Black. I.
Speaker 4: Madam President.
Speaker 0: No. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. 65786 I's seven nays. Council Resolution 1042 has failed. The pre adjournment announcement on Monday, November 23rd, Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 1086, changing the zoning classification for 1010 West Colfax Avenue, 1050 West Colfax Avenue and 1443 Kalama Street in Lincoln Park are required public hearing on Council Bill one 1 to 7 changing the zoning classification for 2655 and 2659 Downing Street in five points and a required public hearing on Council Bill 1128 Changing the zoning classification for 4820 West Hayward Place in West Highland. Any protests against council bills? 1080 61127 or 1128 must be filed with council officers no later than noon on Monday, November 16th. There be no further business before this body. This meeting is adjourned.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Universal Protection Service, L.P. for security personnel services.
Approves a contract with Universal Protection Services, LP, doing business as Allied Universal Security Services, for $25,000,000 and for three years, with two one-year options to renew, to provide security personnel services in City facilities (GENRL-202055482). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 11-16-20. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 10-6-20.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_10122020_20-1131
|
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Secretary. The communication has been received and filed. We have one proclamation being read this evening. Councilmember Torres, will you please read proclamation one one, three, one.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Council President in observance of the fifth annual Indigenous Peoples Day in the city and county of Denver. Whereas the city, the Council of the City and County of Denver recognizes that the indigenous peoples have lived and flourished on the lands known as the Americas since time immemorial, and that Denver and the surrounding communities are built upon the ancestral homelands of numerous indigenous tribes, including the southern ute and Ute mountain ute tribes of Colorado. And. Whereas, the tribal homelands and seasonal encampments of the Arapaho and Cheyenne peoples along the banks of the Cherry Creek and the South Platte River confluence gave bearing to future settlements that would become the birthplace of the Mile High City. And. Whereas, Colorado encompasses ancestral home lands of 48 tribes, and the city and county of Denver and surrounding communities are home to descendants of approximately 100 tribal nations. And. WHEREAS, on October 3rd, 2016, the Council of the City and County of Denver unanimously passed Council Bill 16, Dash 801, officially designating the second Monday of October of each year as Indigenous Peoples Day in Denver, Colorado. And. Whereas, the Council of the City and County of Denver continues to recognize and value the vast contributions made to the community through indigenous peoples knowledge of science, philosophy, arts and culture. And through these contributions, the City of Denver has developed and thrived. And. WHEREAS, the city and county of Denver all acknowledges that the role of women within the indigenous community is a sacred role and all encompassing and central role to the aspects of indigenous culture, life and knowledge, and is vital to the health, wellness and safety of indigenous communities. And. Whereas, many outstanding Indigenous women have organized, led, local and national proactive efforts addressing COVID 19 health and education, preparedness and response, missing and murdered Indigenous people, awareness and native specific homelessness advocacy. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Council of the City and County of Denver that the Council celebrates and honors the cultural and foundational contributions of indigenous people to our history, past, present and future, and continues to promote the education of the Denver community in these historical and contemporary contributions of indigenous people of the city and county of Denver does hereby observe October 12th, 2020 as Indigenous Peoples Day, and that the Clerk in the city and county of Denver shall a test and affix a seal to this proclamation, and that a copy be transmitted to the Denver American Indian Commission and the Colorado Commission of Indian Affairs.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Torres your motion to adopt.
Speaker 4: I move that proclamation 20 dash 1131 be adopted.
Speaker 3: Second, second.
Speaker 0: It has been moved. And second term I think we got. Councilman Hines and then Councilwoman Ortega in comments by members of council. Councilmember Torres.
Speaker 4: Thank you so much. Declaring the second Monday in October Indigenous Peoples Day was championed by my predecessor, now Clark Lopez, when he was on council. It is both about recognition and visibility, not just here in Denver, but nationally. Two years ago, this country elected the first indigenous women ever to Congress, and today an indigenous woman is running for office in Arizona. And she's shared something that I'd like to share with you. In her words, quote, My late grandmother, Katherine Jose Maria, was born here in Arizona in 1918. Although our people were here first, my grandma was not considered a U.S. citizen at her birth because she was awesome. She was not born with the right to vote in 1924, when my grandma was six years old. Congress passed legislation that granted Native Americans US citizenship but did not necessarily give them the right to vote. Voting laws were controlled by states and Arizona law explicitly denied natives that right. In 1939, she turned 21 the legal voting age, but was not allowed to cast a ballot in 1948 when she was 30 years old. To Fort McDowell. Yavapai tribal members and World War Two veterans attempted to register to vote in Maricopa County. After returning home from the war when they were denied, they sued the state for violating their constitutional rights. The Arizona Supreme Court agreed. In 1948, the decision in Harrison V Living finally guaranteed Native Americans the right to vote in Arizona. However, being given the right to vote did not mean that Native Americans were able to vote. State government workers, still US natives and other people of color to take literacy tests. Subjected them to intimidation tactics. Or simply denied them entry when they tried to cast a ballot. It wasn't until the rise of the civil rights movement and the resulting Voting Rights Act of 1965, that federal law finally protected my grandmother's ability to vote. It is my honor to present this proclamation this year and remind everyone in Denver that our ability to vote was and is hard fought for. Thank you so much, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Torres. And seen no other hands raised for comments by my colleagues. I want to acknowledge and thank you for bringing this forward and the many women families who have suffered for. Centuries. And us acknowledging what has transpired and setting the intention to do differently. I appreciate that. And we can just continue that work together and moving this forward. Thank you for the work on this and especially the land acknowledgment that I hope that we can start to incorporate into our meeting because words matter and the way in which we use those words matter and the consistency and the intent also matters . And so thank you for for that and the initiative. Councilwoman. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 4: Torres. I.
Speaker 1: Black. I see tobacco.
Speaker 2: I. Clark.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 4: Flynn.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 4: Herndon.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 4: Hands.
Speaker 3: Hi.
Speaker 1: Cashman.
Speaker 2: I can reach.
Speaker 1: I. Ortega. I. Sandoval. I. Sawyer. I.
Speaker 4: Madam President.
Speaker 0: Hi, Madam Secretary. Please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 2: 13 Eyes.
Speaker 0: 13 Eyes. Proclamation 113. One has been adopted. We have 5 minutes for the proclamation. Acceptance Council member Torres will start the five minute timer. Would you please introduce who you'd like to bring up to accept this proclamation?
Speaker 4: Thank you. Council President I would like to introduce Dr. Christy Nelson. Dr. Nelson was recently organized an indigenous collective of community members via Zoom, social networking, focusing on education, community building and support, physical and mental wellbeing and response to the COVID 19 pandemic. She is an assistant professor at the Madrid College of Education at the University of Denver. Dr. Nelson blends critical theory and indigenous perspectives and methods to explore long term impacts of pre-college access programs. She strives to challenge the status quo of higher education for native students and their communities. I also welcome Danielle C Walker, who is a multitalented writer and artist who lives in the Green Valley Ranch community. She's an active member of the Denver American Indian Commission since 2019. This past July, she published her book Still Here A Past and A Past Present Insight of Native American People and Culture. And she was a featured artist at the Denver Mesa Art Museum Web page. Danielle is also the co-creator of the Red Road Project, an art and media project documenting words and visuals of inspiring and resilient stories of Native America. And they are both here. I see. They want to unmute. Hello. You have the floor for about 5 minutes.
Speaker 1: I will go first, Daniel, if you don't mind.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Ghazi. I am honored to be given the space to address the council and the audience in attendance today. I wanted to start by just doing a little bit of recognition in terms of the history of indigenous communities here in Denver. So in 1956, through the Indian Relocation Act, Denver was identified as one of those relocation sites through the Relocation Act. Young native folks were given the opportunity to seek education and job opportunities. However, this was a very systematized approach to dislocating and removing indigenous people from their traditional homelands as they gathered here in the now Denver area . 60 years later, I'm very honored to know that Colorado Rises, which stands for Reclaiming Indigenous Spaces. Educational Sovereignty is really the epitome and the lived experiences of all of our past generations. I'm very honored to be able to have the space to honor the family that I have, the people that have taught me how to engage with our communities. And I'm so honored to be able to work with so many great folks across the state of New Mexico. I'm sorry, Colorado. Sorry. I'm from New Mexico. Again, I really do appreciate the space and time and again, I just passed this on to Danielle. And Chris wash day and Apache is a pro Honda and you'll see Walker immediately. Denver wanted my papa Lakota a Taha Standing Rock Sioux tribe. I greet you all from the bottom of my heart. My name is Daniel C Walker and I live here in Denver. I am from the Standing Rock Sioux tribe and am identify as Papa Lakota. I'm honored and humbled to be here with you all today. Our on to Indigenous Peoples Day as we acknowledge all of our indigenous communities in the nation. But I specifically wanted to address and acknowledge our missing and murdered indigenous women, girls and to spirited people. While violence plays, plagues many communities across the country and the world, I wanted to specifically recognize the missing and murdered indigenous women, girls, and to spirit people on these lands. Indigenous women are ten times more likely to be killed than the national average in the United States. And of the several, several thousands of documented, we know there's more than this, but documented cases of missing and murdered indigenous women and girls and two spirit people in this country. There's only been about 100 cases that were included in the US Department of Justice missing persons lists. Four out of five indigenous women experience violence in their life, while one out of two half of us experience sexual violence in our lifetime. It's not even a matter of of of us thinking, how could this happen to us? It's a matter of kind of thinking, when is it going to happen to us? And so we need more awareness on this epidemic that not only plagues us here in the United States, but many indigenous communities around the world. And we just need more resources. And any time I have a platform to speak about this and bring awareness, I do feel a major. Thank you very much. Gratitude to be here. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much, Christine and Danielle, and the important perspective and words that you brought and Councilwoman Torres for sponsoring this proclamation. Any any final words, Councilwoman?
Speaker 4: No, thank you.
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation in observance of the Fifth Annual Indigenous Peoples’ Day in the City and County of Denver.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_10052020_20-1088
|
Speaker 0: Councilman Ortega. Up next, we have no presentations. We have no communications. We have two proclamations on the agenda tonight. One is on consent and the other is being postponed. Councilman Hines, will you please put Proclamation 108 on the floor for adoption?
Speaker 1: No, Madam President. Just kidding. I move that proclamation 20 dash 1088 be adopted.
Speaker 0: I can thank you. It has been moved and seconded by Councilman Flynn. Councilmember Cashman. Your motion to postpone, please.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. I move that adoption of Proclamation 20 dash 1088 be postponed until Tuesday, October 23.
Speaker 0: All right. It has been moved and seconded by Councilmember Herndon. Comments by members of Council. Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Thank you, Madam President. Due to a clerical error, this proclamation was put on tonight's agenda. I would like to move this proclamation to Tuesday, October 20, which was the original intended date.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman. Madam Secretary, roll call, please. Cashman.
Speaker 2: I can teach I Ortega.
Speaker 0: I of all. Sawyer.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 0: Torres.
Speaker 2: I. Black I. CdeBaca, I. Clark.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 0: Flynn.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 0: Herndon.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Hines.
Speaker 1: All right.
Speaker 0: Madam President. Hi, Madam Secretary. Close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 2: 12 hours.
Speaker 0: 12 I's Adoption Adoption Proclamation 1088 has been postponed to Tuesday, October 20th. And you know what? Okay. That's right. Tuesday, October 20th. Madam Secretary, please read the bills for introduction.
Speaker 2: From land use, transportation and infrastructure. 2965 A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 4714 North Bryant Street in sunny side 2979 A bill for an ordinance approving a proposed assignment agreement between the city and county of Denver and School District Number one for the Northfield Sports Complex in the Harvey Park parking lot. 2983 A Bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 1790 South Humboldt Street and University 2984. A Bill for an ordinance changing the Zoning Classification for 2520 South Marion Street and University.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Secretary. Council Members This is your last opportunity to call out an item. Council Member Cashman, will you? Oh, you know, I think I've got a typo here. Council member Hines, will you please make the motions for us this evening?
Speaker 1: If Council Member Cashman would prefer, I'm happy to defer, but yes, I'll make a statement.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Council Member Hines. Now we'll do a recap under resolutions. Council member CdeBaca has called out Resolution 923 for questions and a vote, as well as Resolutions 924, 941 and 976 for questions. Councilmember Herndon has called out Resolution 925 for a vote. Council member Ken Each has called out Resolution 980 for a comment and I have called out Resolution 921 for a comment. Under bills for introduction, there are no items that have been called out under bills for final consideration. No items have been called out and under pending. No items have been called out. The first item up is resolution 923. Councilmember Hines, will you please put Council Resolution 923 on the floor for adoption?
Speaker 1: Madam President, I move the council bill 20 dash 0923 be adopted.
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation celebrating Denver afterschool programs and the 2020 Annual National Lights on Afterschool Day.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_10052020_20-0923
|
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. Is there anybody on the call who can speak to this contract?
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 2: Yes. Councilwoman CdeBaca, we have myself, Christina Ulrich and Cami Joly available. Awesome. So my first question here is what what exactly where exactly are we placing the Securitas contract that or their security guards? Thank you for the question. We've currently got security officers located at La Quinta, Ramada Inn, Western Motor in Hampton Inn, Quality Inn and Roadway in. Awesome. And what do we use as metrics of success for the security companies that we're using in these locations? I'll go ahead and kick that question on over to Cammy. Thank you. Thanks for the question. Caswell and CdeBaca. So we work in very close contact with our DHS and host partners, as well as the providers checking in with them verbally, really. And I wouldn't say it was a formal process, although we're certainly open to making that a more formal process. We weren't intending that this was going to be a long term engagement. However, since it is expanding to the end of January, we can certainly look at a more formalized process process. But for now it is a verbal discussion with them about the performance of the provider. We have quite a few discussions with them because there have been changes with the number of security professionals per shift and so that is constantly moving depending on the needs. So we're having that conversation on a frequent basis. So I asked this question because one of our other security contracts for 4 million, there was a murder on their watch. And so I'm wondering, when we talk about or when we hire security, how do we gauge their success and what are the consequences if they don't meet whatever that bar is? Sure. Absolutely. And so, again, I would say right now, it's it's not a formalized process, just verbal in nature, checking in with them, checking in with the provider, because they really are on each of these are at each of these site locations on an ongoing basis. And so they have a very close relationship with the security professionals that are there providing the service. So we really look to them to provide us that feedback. And each each location operates a little bit differently, and there could be different providers at each of the locations. So it really is about that one on one contact with them to ensure that they are delivering the services that we've agreed to. And what are those services? Sure. So the scope of work really is a a monitor and report, I would say or not monitor and report my my that it's a observe and report. So our security professionals are not to engage physically in any sort of way. They really are to patrol the area, whether that's internal or external to the building and to report on anything that they've seen. And then also to engage in a customer service level, answering questions, directing people similar to what our city contract is. They're really ambassadors, I would say, on those sites. But again, it's very much an observer and report type of security engagement. We we don't ever encourage and that was specific in the scope of work whenever we submitted this out that this was a monitor and report and absolutely no physical site sort of interaction with any of the guest. Got it. And how was this contractor selected? Tell me a little bit about the bid process. Absolutely. So all of this very, very quickly. And so what we what we did in general services was that we put out a a sort of call for call for rates, call for a professional professionals, sort of response what services or what they could actually provide. And so we put that out. I want to say, because there was such a quick turnaround on this, we put it out, I believe, to 11 different and Christina may be able to correct me here but I believe we put that out to 11 different providers and care within the kind of Denver area to see what their rates were. Just see, you know, their professional sort of certifications and things like that. And we can actually get you a list or the scope that we that we put out. And Christina, I'm sorry, I was trying to find this in my notes earlier, but can you tell me how many people we actually had respond that could stand up and do the work at the sites? Yes. I'm pulling that up now. Oh. Just one moment, please. So we did not. Oh, go ahead. As Christina pulls that up. Is this a minority owned company? I know. It's just is now. And is there. Of those 11 companies that you all reached out to, were there any minority owned security companies, J.C. J. National and who were actually the maybe with your partner to the contract currently? They did reach out and provide some rights and they provided the security at the Pepsi Center site. So we did look for opportunities to engage multiple security contractors across the city for these congregate non congregate shelters, as well as the Pepsi Center site. And so. Go ahead. Oh, excuse me. I was just going to say and I was able to locate the procurement information. So we actually had 27 local security contractors. Of those, 27 of ten proposals were received. Awesome and I would love to see which companies those are when you get a chance if you could send those over . That concludes my questions on this one. Thank you. All right. We'll get those sent over to you. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman CdeBaca, we've got Councilman Hines up for a question.
Speaker 1: Excuse me. Thank you, Madam President. If we were to vote against this, what would the next step be?
Speaker 0: Are you? Would you like.
Speaker 2: A bit of a precarious situation? Because we have to fill those vacancies. So you're looking at across six different locations, it's about 1900 hours. And that equates to, I think, roughly about 34 positions. So we would have to reach out to some security partner and fill those positions. So there is definitely a need at those sites, which is been communicated to us from our DHS and host partners. Actually, we do have Rebecca martinez on the line from DHS, who is onsite to actually provide an overview. That would be helpful.
Speaker 1: Yes, please.
Speaker 2: Good evening, Rebecca. To to speak to some of your initial kind of questions. I really just wanted to dove into the level of partnership that we've built historically with the securities company. So as it stands currently, we do have a weekly reoccurring meeting with them to address kind of high level concerns. And then again, how do we remedy those across all of our locations? So we have built a very good standing partnership with them. They are equipped to address any of our concerns as well as continue to work in that partnership. So it's been very successful thus far. I think reestablishing that with another company could be a disservice. Safeguards are very familiar at this point with our residents and our guests and our adhere to a strict kind of protocol that they must follow. So they have post orders that are identified by their supervisors, and that includes making rounds every hour of the entirety of the properties, engaging with guests, being in communication consistently with their staff, as well as any other members that are kind of on the ground. So they have already established, again, those relationships thus far and really makes them the best service provider and a good fit for this operation.
Speaker 1: So I guess one other question. If we were to vote against this contract, would service abruptly end to night or would is it a week from now?
Speaker 2: Thank you for the question. And this is Christina. So the contract is through mutual extension, actually through January 31st of 2021. That was written into the original agreement. And so per the executive director of General Services and the Vice President of security, they mutually agreed to that. However, the piece that's really pending here is the increase in compensation. So although we might be able to, you know, still have that term that's available through that mutual extension from a monetary standpoint, it's just a matter of when we would hit back at that that contract, Max.
Speaker 0: Councilman, if I may join. This is Lisa Plumlee with real estate. We would. Hi there. Also, at least on a couple of the hotels being default of the lease if we cannot provide these services.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman CdeBaca.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. Just two quick questions. One, are all of these security officers armed or post certified and to with the compensation change, why is that happening? And what is the compensation rate for security guards? I can answer the the armed questions. This is Cami. None of the of the officers at these locations are armed. And that was a decision that we made as a group and determined if there was a need that we would revisit that and and determine if it was an actual need or come up with some more concrete sort of path forward on that rather than just arming if somebody thought that we needed to arm. Christina, can you answer the second part of that question on the funding? Thank you, Councilman. So your question you had asked. The change in pay, are you talking about prevailing wage, living wage or something within the union? How about you break it all down? Do you do you pay them as union members or do you. Why are we increasing their cost and how do we dole it out? Oh, I see the question. Why are we increasing the maximum contract amount that we have? We pay them at, you know, what they proposed for their rates, for their guards. That is, they are responsible to pay minimum wage as well as, I believe, living wages on this contract. So they are responsible to pay for those agents. At a minimum, what the city pays to them is going to be a little bit higher rate to cover their overhead profit costs, management, etc.. The reason for the increase in the maximum contract amount. We originally thought that this was going to be a three month engagement with the possibility of an additional six months. However, we did not fully understand the scope of services that would be needed. We went from originally three facilities to now, you know, more than six. So originally the and was a very small scope not intended to be across as many facilities as this is really morphed into, which has really caused kind of that increase to that maximum contract amount can. And you said that we pay it's slightly over. So we require them to pay minimum wage or livable wage because those are two very different numbers. So I can pull up exact in the contract for you. What they pay their officers? We do not know. I know what the city pays to secure. However, how much Securitas is paying their officers is an unknown. Other than they do have to meet those minimum thresholds. We can certainly reach out and ask that question, however. That would be helpful. Thank you. That's it from my question.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman. See no other questions. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 2: See tobacco. I. Clark.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 0: Flynn.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Herndon.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Hines.
Speaker 0: I Cashman.
Speaker 2: I can h. I.
Speaker 0: Ortega. I.
Speaker 2: Sandoval. Sawyer, I. Torres. I am black. I. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results to arise. 12 Eyes Council Resolution 923 has been adopted. The next item up is Resolution 924. Council members say to Barca, Please go ahead with your questions on Resolution 924, please.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. I'm curious about what kind of pest control this is and how it fits for changing the language for it to be cares, act reimbursable. So explain that to me. That's just my overall question here. Thank you, Rebecca. This is Kirsty with General Services. So this is for pest control citywide. So this could be anything from small mites and bugs to mice and rats and so on and so forth. So far, there's actually only been one use of this contract related to cures. And that was just specific to excuse me, one of the sheltering locations. So adding that cures language just allows us to seek reimbursement. And as I mentioned, it's only been one instance in which this contract has been used to date for pest control at a sheltering site. However, we do anticipate that one other location may require some pest control at a sheltering site as well. What are those sites? What past where we were moving and how much did it cost? I would have to get that specific information for you. I do not have that on off the top of my head. That would be helpful. Thank you very much. That's it from my questions there.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Moving on. The next item up is resolution 925. Councilmember Hines, would you please put council resolution 925 on the floor for adoption?
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Amendatory Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Securitas Security Services USA, Inc. to add fund requirements, increase the maximum contract amount and extend the term for security personnel at various homeless shelters and facilities during the COVID-19 health crisis.
Amends a contract with Securitas Security Services USA, Inc. by adding $1,150,000 for a new total of $1,500,000, extending the contract through 1-31-21 and adding required CARES language to the contract to allow the City to seek reimbursement for service related costs associated with the COVID-19 pandemic for security personnel services at congregate and non-congregate shelter locations (GENRL-202054849-01). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 10-26-20. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 9-22-20.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_10052020_20-0925
|
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Moving on. The next item up is resolution 925. Councilmember Hines, would you please put council resolution 925 on the floor for adoption?
Speaker 1: I move that council resolution 25 zero 925 be adopted.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded by Councilmember Herndon. Questions or comments by members of Council. Councilmember Herndon.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. This is the contract that Parks and Recreation has for the Summer Scholars. At the advice of the attorneys, there is a this bill needs to be refiled. So Parks and rec has asked that we will vote it down in a corrected resolution to me will be filed at a later date. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Herndon. And as a reminder, council members are asked to vote no. Madam Secretary, roll call. Herndon?
Speaker 1: No. HYNES No. Cashman No.
Speaker 2: Kimmich No.
Speaker 0: Ortega No. Sawyer?
Speaker 2: No.
Speaker 0: Torres. No. Black.
Speaker 2: No. CDEBACA No. Clark.
Speaker 1: No. Flynn may.
Speaker 0: Madam President? No. Madam Secretary. Closed the voting and announced results. 12 nays, 12 nays. Council Resolution 925 has failed. The next item up is Resolution 941. Councilmember CdeBaca, please go ahead with your questions on 941.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. This one I am curious about what asset collections were performing and how this tool is used. This is church spunk. You hear me? I can hear. All right. Sorry, I was received short notice, but I'm very happy to be here tonight. But I'm driving literally home from New Mexico, so I made a car. I apologize for this. And it's this. So I don't have the for me, the the the third take. Can you hear me? Not very well. I'm asking if I can get pull over. Can you hear me now? Yes. Okay, good. So I'm going. I know that our court executive is available as well, and she might be able to communicate better. I'm just going to touch on a few points and have her.
Speaker 0: So I apologize for my dress and for the fact that I'm crying from the car. So basically, this is when when fines and costs are imposed by the court.
Speaker 2: You know, people can work out a payment plan.
Speaker 0: For their fines and costs, but.
Speaker 2: People who fail to.
Speaker 0: Engage with the court or not do not work out a payment plan. There are a certain amount of cases get referred to collections.
Speaker 2: This company is doing.
Speaker 0: Collections for the court for I think like 20 years. They do the collections for all the state courts in the state of Colorado and actually work with the state, the state court administrator's office.
Speaker 2: And what they do is when people have failed and just to.
Speaker 0: Because we have a whole collections department in seventh place who works with people, sometimes they can work out payment plans for like $5 a month, but it's for people who completely walk away.
Speaker 2: And don't engage. The what they do is they first.
Speaker 0: Collect restitution.
Speaker 2: For victims, which is really important.
Speaker 0: They also collect.
Speaker 2: Victims comp fees.
Speaker 0: That go to support victim comp.
Speaker 2: Funds here in the city and county of Denver. All of our fines and costs are. Most of them really are state.
Speaker 0: Statutory mandated, and they're set by the.
Speaker 2: State. We don't refer anything under $300.
Speaker 0: To the collections.
Speaker 2: Department. It's important to know that anything that's collected, as I said, goes to victims. It goes to victims comp funds and it goes to the general fund for the city of Denver.
Speaker 0: The court does not. Collect any of the money that goes directly to the general fund to support other city programs throughout the city.
Speaker 2: I'm just trying to look at my notes here. We also. This this contract really isn't any different.
Speaker 0: Except for because of the budget crisis. We're trying to find places where we can the city can have access to more funds. So before there's a charge and before this, we would pay up front, which I think by court executive could expand a little bit better. And now this is just shifting the same costs. And the historically this integral has collected about $3 million a year, which is going to pay back to victims in the general fund. And Kristen, if you're on.
Speaker 2: Here and you could give me a hand, I'd really appreciate that. Hi. Can you hear me? We can hear you. Okay, so really, the amendment with this contract is just to change the process by which our collection efforts are done. So previously the practice in the city was to restrict third parties from holding on to city funds for any period of time. We thought a waiver from the Department of Finance that would allow Integra recovery recoveries to actually collect the fees and costs directly, hold them in a trust account and deposit them to the general fund on a biweekly basis. Doing this frees up approximately $650,000 at the beginning of a calendar year back to the general fund, rather than us using that money to pay integral their collection fee per month. Okay. And so are any of are we levying fees on people right now who cannot afford them? And do we have a waiver process for any kind of COVID relief related to fees that we're leaving against people right now? And if I could step in and Christian, feel free to jump.
Speaker 0: In as well.
Speaker 2: So are all of our judges who are in criminal criminal court, state court in general sessions on a regular basis waive fees and costs.
Speaker 0: And I just had short notice.
Speaker 2: I'm happy to try to share that information. So anybody represented who's indigent always has a right.
Speaker 0: To ask the court to waive fines and costs, or are most.
Speaker 2: Of our judges on a regular basis.
Speaker 0: Do waive fines and costs, or at least give people a break?
Speaker 2: Also, they can work out a payment plan that is can be very, very minimal for a.
Speaker 0: Very long period of time.
Speaker 2: And they always talk, even if they're working with the.
Speaker 0: The collections department in our courts and it's not referred to collections.
Speaker 2: If something happens in their life that they.
Speaker 0: Want the court to reconsider, that they can always file a motion to reconsider. And certainly during COVID, the court has been very.
Speaker 2: Sensitive to code of we've done a number of things and added a number of orders to try to keep people safe and to try to understand that people.
Speaker 0: Are in dire.
Speaker 2: Financial situations.
Speaker 0: And so our judges are very tolerant of motions to reconsider.
Speaker 2: And Kristen, if you can have anything, I'd appreciate that. Now. I think you covered it really well. I will tell you, motions have been entertained to waive fees and costs, usually outstanding fees and costs due to COVID and some extenuating circumstances. We also ceased any new referrals during this COVID time and ceased active collections only until recently and as principal recoveries do any direct reporting to credit bureaus when there are delinquent payments. The court does not report to credit bureaus. No, ma'am. Awesome. Awesome. That's it for my questions, Madam President. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilwoman CdeBaca. And safe travels home, judge. Fun. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Next up is Resolution 976. Council members say to Barker, please go ahead with your questions on that one.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. I wanted just a list of what motels this covers. Under this contract.
Speaker 0: All right. And I believe we have Angela Nelson. Joining us to answer this question or if there's another agency individual. All right. Look in here for our other agency. Individual here. I'm not sure we have anybody on the line unless Skye Stewart might be able to answer this question.
Speaker 2: Sky, if you can hear. Hi. So sorry. This is Angie Nelson. Oh, good. It wasn't giving me an option to do anything but raise my hand. So I've got it now. So. 0976. Is that the one for us? Motels, Denver North? Yes. Okay. Yeah. So that is an amendment to add funds primarily for the Super eight motel. So us motels Denver North is the the operating name for that particular location in this amendment. Is that the 100% occupancy? Do we wrap all of their rooms or only a portion of them? We only run out of caution. So this has been a motel used first by Denver Human Services. And then when the motel program switched over to host for 2020, it was one that we continued operating with, but we just rent rooms on a per night basis with established rates in this contract. And is this one reserved for people who have COVID or are vulnerable, or who is this one for? Yeah. So this property is for families specifically. So it's it operated pre-COVID and May will operate post-COVID. It is not specific for any population other than families experiencing homelessness. It serves as a safety net shelter for families when other shelters are full. And how how are we defining family? The family is defined as a. An adult and a minor under the age of 18 in their custody. There's some more language in some of the oral information that helps to broaden that so that families can be defined. So just check in to see if I happened to have those notes pulled up. As far as the exact definition that the the motel voucher program uses, but most typically just an adult with a child in their custody. Do caregivers are caregivers if they're both over the age of 18, count under that family definition? So I would need to look into that. I know sometimes there have been some exceptions around that, but I think in general it is meant for families with minor children. That info would be helpful. And who is releasing these vouchers? Is it still the sheriff? No. So these are administered through a different partner contract with hosts of the Volunteers of America, runs a voucher rider position, and families are able to seek vouchers during the daytime or in the evening at three different community based locations so they can get them from the gathering place, from the VOA mission and from the Samaritan House. So those are the three current locations. While Denver Human Services remains largely closed to outside visitors. Got it. And I will just look forward to the rest of that definition by email if you have a chance. And that concludes my questions, Madam President. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman. Next up, we have Councilwoman Torres.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. Angie probably. Same question or question line for you. Just knowing motels and hotels often have just a small number of ADA accessible rooms. How do how do we manage those needs? Do we hold some in case they're needed that are accessible?
Speaker 0: Has that come.
Speaker 2: Up as an issue or a barrier at all? So this motel with the Super eight this contract for us motels Denver north runs it sort of in tandem with a hotel that's owned and operated by the Volunteers of America called the Family Motel. If a family were to show up and have mobility needs, we would first seek to get them into the family motel. We have a lot more operational flexibility with Volunteers of America as our partner there to say, hey, you know, we've got a family with some accessibility needs. Can we try and get them into one of the certain rooms at that motel? And they're often able to help shift around occupancy to make those arrangements. I am not familiar with what all the operational assets would be with the Super eight. I know that they've been a a really responsive and flexible partner to us and I think would work to make those accommodations. But to my knowledge, we don't hold out any particular rooms, you know, set aside just for this. The amount of rooms we we use per night at Super eight can vary, you know, as little as five rooms a night up to at its peak this summer, we saw 60 rooms per night being used. So it was really, you know, has a lot to do with demand and capacity. Thank you. And thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman. All right. Looks like we got the questions answered on that one. The next item up is resolution 1980. Councilmember Canete, please go ahead with your comments on Resolution 1980.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Madam President, we get asked a lot like how are you making an impact and what is our city doing on certain challenges? And it is always difficult to get good news out and make sure that people are aware. So this resolution is a contract and it's a contract with a fund that provides assistance to workers who are left behind from other sources of assistance, unemployment funds. They were not receiving the CARES Act checks given by the federal government. These are folks who can prove they were working, prove that they are out of work due to the crisis that we're experiencing in our country. And they were left without any safety net to help them or their families. So our council came together with the mayor's office and the Office of Immigrant Affairs and invested in a Left Behind Worker fund. And we are now going to be continuing that investment with these dollars. But I just want to share for anyone who just didn't catch some of the outcomes what these funds have done. These funds, the first funds that we released and the private funds that matched them helped more than 2200 workers in our city from every single council district, including reaching those districts with more immigrants and more folks who are left behind. Secondly, those workers supported more than 3000 children. So the funds directly went to help households with very vulnerable kids. These funds were primarily used to support housing expenses. We have a really robust rental assistance program, but we know it doesn't work for everyone. Some people rent a room from someone else or don't have a written lease. They have a hard time using those formal programs. The first and foremost use was to keep families housed. Second, most common use was for food, and the third was for bills. I keep reminding folks there's no assistance program for cell phones and you can't get a call back to work without a cell phone. You can't get a COVID test result in some cases without a cell phone. You can't stay in touch with your elderly relatives who are vulnerable without a cell phone. And these are lifelines. And so helping folks pay those bills. So the workers that were helped came from the very essential worker forces that were affected in the hospitality industry, restaurant workers, janitorial workers who used to clean those downtown buildings that were empty for so long. And hotel workers were among the biggest groups. But you saw landscapers and others affected by this pandemic. These are the folks who keep our city running and it's good times. And I am just so proud that these funds were there to help them in these tough times. And so I know this is on our consent agenda, and I know our colleagues have been very united in supporting it. But I just wanted to share some of the impacts we don't get to see sometimes, especially when we're isolated right now some of the impacts of our work here on the council. But these dollars have made a difference. I want to thank the folks at Impact Charitable and the folks at all of the sponsoring organizations who have been helping to get the word out and vet these these dollars and these families and bring them together. And so thank you to the community partners and thank you to our community for really being willing to partner with the city on this initiative. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Well, thank you, Councilwoman Canete, and for your leadership on this topic. And I believe the last report that we got, District 11 residents had taken advantage of this greatly. They were ranked second for this fund. And so it is so important. So thank you and thank you to our colleagues for supporting this on the consent agenda tonight. The last item we have called out is resolution 921, and I have called it out only for a comment. And my comment will be very brief. I would like to just remind Roth Property Maintenance and the other contractors who are working on janitorial services in our city that on Friday I had a call with some employees of this and other janitorial services. And I think there needs to be a lot better communication and a lot better, I think just education for our folks who are working in the janitorial services because they're worried about their health, they're worried about having access to enough PPE, enough gloves, enough time during their day to actually wash their hands and follow all those protocols that we know are so important right now in the middle of a pandemic. And so I don't have a specific question on this one, but I think as we look at establishing a new end date, especially on this one, it's two 2821 and we'll be coming back around. Those are some of the questions that myself, personally and I know others on council are wanting to have answered how you're supporting our essential workers and those who are really at most risk as well, because they are immigrants and they are people of color. And we know that communities of color have been disproportionately affected and that people of color, especially Latino folks and black folks, are affected negatively much more than other groups due to COVID 19. And so that that wraps up my comment on that one. And that concludes the items to be called out. And so any 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 Hines, would you please put the proclamations and resolutions for adoption and bills on final consideration for passage on the floor?
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed First Amendatory Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Summer Scholars for after school recreation programs and swim lessons, citywide.
Amends a contract with Summer Scholars by adding $117,416 for a new total of $744,916 for after school recreation programs and swim lessons, citywide. No change to contract duration (201522227). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 10-26-20. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 9-15-20.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_10052020_20-0930
|
Speaker 3: So the east central area, for those of you who are not familiar or as a reminder are the six neighborhood statistical areas adjacent to Colfax Avenue and between Broadway and Colorado Boulevard. Four of the six neighborhood statistical areas are on Council District ten. And two of the neighborhoods are in Council District nine. And that culminates in about 83% of the population in District ten and 17% in District nine. So the plan is organized around topics and also some areas or the neighborhoods within the east central area. So it includes land use and built form that makes recommendations related to zoning and urban design, economy and housing, which has recommendations related to small businesses, jobs, training and affordable housing mobility, which makes recommendations related to infrastructure. For bicyclists, pedestrians, transit riders and quality of life infrastructure that covers landscaping, green infrastructure, the tree canopy and parks. There's also sections within the plan for each neighborhood statistical area in East Central that gives customized recommendations for the unique attributes of each neighborhood, as well as the Colfax corridor. And finally, an implementation section that outlines a work program for short term and long term implementation of recommendations. The planning process, as well as the plan content itself was prepared through an equity lens, and that includes the three equity concepts that are in Comprehensive Plan 2040 and Blueprint Denver. That's access to opportunity, vulnerability to displacement, jobs and housing diversity. And while the plan has a number of recommendations across those comprehensive topics, I'm going to highlight the six priority recommendations that consistently rose to the top throughout our planning process. The first is to strengthen the local economy by providing training for jobs and local industries, improving access to employment and supporting locally owned independent businesses. And that includes partnerships with East Central hospitals. East Central has a number of hospitals, both within the area, as well as right adjacent to the area along the boundaries. And leveraging this asset of the hospitals to provide more training for residents and affordable housing, particularly for health care employees. Secondly, to preserve the independent culture of Colfax by proactively helping small, independent businesses survive and thrive during and after. Colfax Bus Rapid Transit Construction by providing financial and technical assistance. We have also a number of other recommendations to help small, locally owned businesses throughout the East Central area, especially during this time of COVID. That can help make sure that we are doing what we can to prevent displacement of those businesses. Second, to make housing more affordable and make more options available to a wide range of families and individuals. And this includes providing a more diverse range of housing options in our neighborhoods, as well as using every tool in the toolbox , including zoning, to address the housing shortage by adding more affordable housing, especially affordable housing that's close to convenient public transit. Third to improve services for residents experiencing homelessness and to take steps to prevent more people from losing their homes. And this includes a key emphasis on reducing involuntary displacement by preserving existing affordable housing in the east central area, as well as enhancing social services to residents experiencing homelessness. A key aspect of this is to preserve the existing income restricted housing, which over the plan horizon, more than half are scheduled to go back online as market rate housing and losing the income restriction that have been put in place. So a key aspect of making East Central more affordable is to permanently preserve the existing affordable housing that we're going to lose. Fourth is to make our streets safer and more comfortable for everyone by improving walking, bicycling and public transit infrastructure. This includes building high quality sidewalks and safer crossings along Colfax and the streets immediately adjacent and parallel to Colfax. That includes 13th, 14th, 16th and 17th. Making sure that those streets are much safer to travel along and to cross. The East Central area contains some of our most historic neighborhoods and landmark structures in Denver, and this has been a key priority throughout the process to expand historic preservation by making it easier to reuse existing buildings, creating more historic districts, and ensuring that new buildings, when they are built, are fit in better with our surrounding neighborhoods through contextual design standards. This includes a recommendation to create what's called an adaptive reuse ordinance that helps reduce regulatory barriers for small businesses looking to expand or move into existing buildings, incentivizing preservation of historically significant and and character, providing buildings and adopting new standards for quality design and compatibility with adjacent homes. And then sixth, which is the last priority recommendation, is to reduce our carbon pollution and create more climate resilient neighborhoods by providing more opportunities for people to live and work near transit, adding shade trees and taking a green approach to stormwater management. These this includes directing growth near high quality transit and protecting mature trees and focusing and prioritizing tree planting efforts in strategic areas where the tree canopy is deficient. Each neighborhood section that I mentioned earlier also includes what we call a transformative project, where we visualize how some of these recommendations can come together through physical changes in the environment. And so some of them include the District six police station redevelopment, key intersections such as Park Avenue 11th and Ogden, Colfax and Colorado 17th and Garfield 13th and Vine and a new community garden and neighborhood park in the Converse Park neighborhood. The implementation section categorizes our recommendations into three buckets. One, the regulatory topic public infrastructure and partnerships and programs. And again, this will set up our implementation program that will start once the plan is adopted. So now we'll get into the three review criteria that are used to evaluate approval of area plans. The first is that it is an inclusive committee process. Second, that it's consistent with the vision, goals and strategies of comprehensive plan 2040. And third, that the plan demonstrates a long term view. So first I'll talk about the inclusive community process. As Laura mentioned, this was a three year process which is longer than we usually take for area plans, quite a bit longer. We extended the process by a full year because stakeholders and other community residents asked for additional time to do outreach, asked for additional time to review materials throughout the process. And we we agreed with that and we granted those extensions. The process was robust. Over 3500 participants weighed in at our workshops and online, and we received over 10,000 comments throughout this period. This included six community wide workshops, 14 focus group meetings where we met with topic based experts in priority topics such as affordable housing, small businesses , walking and bicycling, and 11 online survey surveys and activities. All of our community workshops had an online equivalent, so if you couldn't make the workshop, you could always take the same exact activities on on our website. Using online tools, we had 30 steering committee meetings. We met 24 times with Arnaud's and other community groups. We had six office hours sessions where we allowed anyone who wanted to ask any questions or provide additional feedback and more of a one on one environment. The opportunity to do so. And we met with community members out in their neighborhoods to do field surveys of important locations within the east central area. Our outreach included 23 CPD newsletters, three Denver Planning Board meetings that were on television. We fired and put pop up events at 81 locations where printed materials were provided and people were able to answer questions and provide comments. And we had at least eight stories in the local media that included the Denver Post, Denver 79 News and Fox 31. Can me outreach also included language access services, as Laura mentioned. We had Spanish language interpretation, food and child care at every community workshop. We also hired two additional planners just for this project who were completely fluent and bilingual that were made available at the workshops for anyone who needed that assistance. So not only professional interpretation, but bilingual planners that could help people who needed those services do the activities. Multiple staff members from our consultant team, we're also bilingual as well. All of our fliers that we distributed throughout the East Central area, which included libraries, rec center schools, apartment buildings, businesses, all of those fliers were printed both in English and Spanish. All of our electronic communication web materials online activities are compatible with smartphones. They're all ADA accessible and they're all available for auto translation. And in some instances, people mentioned that they had difficulty accessing the plan, document or other materials online. And so by request, we did create print copies and delivered print copies of materials to those individuals that needed that. One of the things that I think our team is proud of that we did in this community outreach process was we set up a demographic tracking system from the very beginning of the process, and we did that not just to be able to report out at the end of the process who we reached. But we looked at that data throughout the process at each milestone, and in order to identify the demographic gaps and who, we were not hearing from any central area. So we would look at the demographic forms that were submitted both in our in-person meetings and online, and we would compare that data to the census demographics of the East Central area. And consistently throughout the process, the most underrepresented group were younger, lower income renters, particularly in the Capitol Hill neighborhood. So with that, we we did targeted outreach to help fill some of those gaps. We we did a number of meetings at apartment buildings, such as the residences that Franklin Park, resident Renaissance, Uptown Lofts. As Laura mentioned, for the first time in our department's history that we're aware of anyway, we partnered with service providers Price in the city, and we did direct outreach to residents in East Central Area who are experiencing homelessness. That that input we received from those residents were, was directly and directly inform our social services recommendations in the plan. We did target outreach of schools and we had a partnership with Councilman Hines office, who used his own resources and his own staff to hold a series of over a dozen additional meetings focused on younger, lower income renters and capital. So the draft plan itself. So after the multiple years of engagement that I just summarized, we put out a draft plan document. And just on the draft plan document, we had over 300 residents weigh in and placed comments within that document for suggestions. So we got over 3000 comments on our different drafts of the plan and we produced three of them. Most of those comments were smaller changes, but we did make over 100 substantive policy changes in response to that participation on the draft plan document. We're also very keen on transparency. We put every single comment that we received online and they're all on our website and we went to the length of responding to every single comment. And those responses are on his web or on our website as well. The Planning Board unanimously approved the central plan at their September 2nd meeting with two clarity and correctness conditions. Seven members of the public spoke in support of the plan, and three spoke in opposition to the plan at the planning board hearing. So with that, we we staff find that the East Central Area plan meets the first criteria that it was developed through an inclusive public process. The second criteria of plan consistency with comprehensive plan 2040. This is in your staff report but the the six vision elements of comprehensive plan 2040 that provide the organizing framework for that plan are included as an organizing principle in the East Central Plan. We expanded on the vision statements in each of these each of these domains, each of these topic areas, and found consistency with numerous goals and strategies where we expanded upon those goals and vision statements and strategies or clarified or customized those vision goals, visions, goals and strategies within each central area. Likewise, Blueprint Denver has an organizing framework of three major topic areas land use and built form, mobility and quality of life infrastructure. The central plan has all three of these topics in the plan and we've expanded upon and are consistent with many of those policies within those three topic areas. There's a number of maps that are in Blueprint Denver The Future Places, which is the land use designations, the growth strategy, the equity concepts, the mobile priority maps. All of these maps were created within the East Central Plan and will update blueprint Denver's Comprehensive Maps upon adoption. So with that, we do find that the plan is the central plan is consistent with both comprehensive plan 2040 and Blueprint Denver. And then the last criteria is that the plan has a long term view. So the essential plan has a 2040 planning horizon and establishes that longer term view to maintain the look and feel of established residential neighborhoods while accommodating growth and strategically directing that growth to centers and corridors that are well-served by high quality transit. The vision will take many years to achieve. It is ambitious and so we do find that the East Central Area Plan has the appropriate long term perspective. So with that, our staff recommendation is that the East Central Plan is recommended for approving, recommended for approval, having met the review criteria. And that concludes my presentation.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you very much. We have 32 speakers and we have a one hour time slot scheduled to hear from the public. And so we will go ahead and dove right in. I want to remind speakers that they have 3 minutes each. And if you could maybe limit your comments or if folks have already spoke on a certain portion of the plan, maybe you let that stand in the record and allow that would help us get more speakers into the queue. And so our first speaker that we have is Molly McKinley.
Speaker 2: Evening Council. My name's Molly McKinlay. I live in the Cheesman Park neighborhood and I serve as the vice chair of the Denver Streets Partnership, a coalition of community organizations advocating for people friendly. Denver The best is ensuring our city is healthy, safe and accessible to everyone, regardless of how they get around. Our support for the adoption of the Central Area Plan. Are pleased to see that many aspects of the area wide mobility recommendations in the East Central Area Plan will support the creation of more people friendly streets consistent with the Comprehensive Plan 2040 and blueprint number. You strongly endorse the mode share and traffic safety goals and focus on creating bold changes to the mobility system by repurposing street space along key corridors, prioritized safe and accessible walking, biking, rolling and transit on unaffected streets in the East Central area, which were implemented earlier this spring in response to the pandemic. The philosophy of if you build it, they will come, finally come to life in all kinds of folks from roller blading, people walking and running. And my favorite, which is then kids learning to ride bikes, take to these newly arranged public spaces. But we've seen on a few streets. Imagine if we expand spaces and opportunities for walking, biking, rolling and transit as outlined throughout the East Central Area Plan. That will be a huge part of how we meet our city wide mode share and traffic safety goals. Oh. Friendly speech. Well, not only from street designs that support walking, biking, rolling and transit, but also land use and development patterns that make these transportation modes accessible and practical ways people reach their daily destinations. Diversity Partnership therefore strongly endorses the recommendations in the plan for increased density along Colfax, other transit corridors allowing density near transit. And that maximizes the number of people who can access the service and use it on a regular basis, which expands the benefit of existing and future transit investments further. Two of the most significant household expenses are housing and transportation. Building affordable housing units near transit ensures people who need it the most have access and can significantly reduce transportation costs or cost burden. Households, which make up 36% of households in the east central area and city that allows people to live close to their daily destinations. Also makes walking and biking a realistic option getting from place to place rather than forcing people to live far away. Driving is the only practical option to get where they need to go. The Denver Streets Partnership urges you to adopt this plan. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, we have Jesse Morales.
Speaker 1: Okay. Hi. Can you hear me?
Speaker 0: Mm hmm. Go ahead, Jesse.
Speaker 1: My name is Jesse Morelli, and I am the president of the Seventh Avenue Neighborhood Association. And I'm here tonight to represent the interests and desires of our members and board. I apologize. My presentation leaves something to be desired. That's a little disconcerting. Is this format. I would like to start by saying I would be remiss not to voice the frustration of our Renaud in our neighboring Arnaud's about the east central area plan. And the fact that we're at this point already, despite immense opposition that CPD's been informed of and concern that we've voiced. Well, we're glad to have the opportunity to make our voices heard. We do have serious concerns that the city's adoption of this plan. It's been a predetermined outcome and in the process it's been put in place that Mr. Upton just described. To develop, it was more window dressing than actually gathering neighborhoods, input and support, and that the content of the plan has always been determined and no input from us has really been considered. What I'm here to say specifically is that I have been authorized by a unanimous vote of our members to oppose the adoption of the East Central Area plan for a variety of reasons, but mainly because we believe that the plan represents the city putting into place directions to other city agencies. It would one compromise at best, but in our view most likely threaten public safety in and around our neighborhoods. It also proposes to increase residential density without considering or resolving in advance the impact this increased density would have on our infrastructure, with specific concerns in our group regarding the negative impact on our schools. Finally, we believe the plan prioritizes the interests of developers and other business at the cost of residents and residential property owners. So in addition to those things, we like to say that we also had some serious concerns and real complaints about the process that's been followed. But to understand our opposition, I think that some background in support. Is is warranted. First of all, Sandy was Santa, which is the Seventh Avenue Neighborhood Association, was never notified of this plane. I think we represent a significant part of the area outlined in the plan, but we were never asked to participate in the process. We were never notified of the process and our input was never asked for. Despite never being notified of the planning process or included in any way until we found out about it independently. The Santa Board and all of our members have been actively engaged on these issues, and we've done our best to represent ourselves.
Speaker 0: Q That's the time we have allotted. Thank you for speaking on this tonight. Next up, we have just Sela Camacho.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 2: He went as much as a door behind a colonial city power in the Medici Domino movie in El Inglés, or a social contract or an interpreter. So you analyze what is personal in his final journals and hat on what other plan? The recent rallies they meant the real plan for many of the unconventional. They will never mother companero Nino a. Cooper Gallagher them. They were one of the many local control amphibian pest control centers. We got us on the air for that eagle as company minister and whereas I see no local star in terms of purchasing as como your. Less information getting in and this final lane and Patel is moving Walker yellow featuring nothing with the other look if he still planned it alive yet Gill said partner this.
Speaker 0: Dispersal and.
Speaker 2: This you're sure there will only be a loss plan if that is the last two that Israel cruise contest open in the driver's bracket participant is you look at not the interpret this near your participative Israel cruise maybe hook us Estrella Romney on this in September the columnist had a plan if Cassian your young male reunion you got it on Amiga. Yeah my Paralympic fumble and then the. They look at this map is how do they not have it in this year? You cannot say, look, this whole plan is recommending not putting them there now that Mubarak will still participate in any company that. You could get pregnant or kill you that not the initial plan dishonorably and not proceed en masse for you. That must complete complicate. A person must commit. You'll get more than one participant. Talk to me was no less important. I was there. This is what people are still in this environment. They're being. What I see is the little they are. They're all good. Yes. What are they? Incluyen Abelson, is that his? That's when the person has come. We joke they must participate. Considering make when the what them and the other or you consider considering postpone is what affected the plan through? Yep. As soon as.
Speaker 0: Your grass has what is picture? Thank you, Miss Camacho. We unfortunately did not have the request for an interpreter tonight. And so asking any of my colleagues on the meeting if they would be willing to. Do a quick summary of Miss Camacho's points for us. Or we'll have to end up and just let it stand. Oh, Councilman CdeBaca.
Speaker 2: Happy to do a quick overview. Miss, come on. Look at that. She found out about the plan from a parent of her student. She has tried to engage and at multiple junctures has been unable to engage because of a lack of interpretation. She feels very reluctant about or hesitant about this plan because of the fears of displacement. And she hopes that you all will listen to her and people like her and make these meetings more conducive to people like her. If I left anything else, jump in.
Speaker 0: Miss Camacho, thank you so much for being here tonight. And and I think we we got the interpretation. Thank you, Councilwoman CdeBaca. And we apologize about that. We usually have a heads up regarding the interpretation. So thank you, Ms.. Camacho. Next up, we have Kristen Ferguson.
Speaker 2: Hi. Thank you. My name's Kristen Ferguson. I live in Congress Park. It's hard to think about how to summarize what you think about a 300 page document and three months or less. But I guess I'll try. I am personally excited about the guidance and the plan in the plan that is being presented. I think it is forward thinking. It's anticipating the growth in our city. It's trying to support some of the city goals to be less car dependent. And that is really the thing that I'm the most excited about. I live at the intersection of 11th and Steele and Steel Street is suggested to be a neighborhood bikeway, which I think would be really great. I'm hoping that by making it that there will be some traffic calming adjustments. I live at an intersection that's a little bit offset and there's a lot of confusion about what happens when people get to that intersection because it's two stop signs, it's only two a stop sign. And so I'm hoping that through this plan that there are opportunities to make our intersection safer. Steele is a cut through because it goes all the way from 17th, all the way down to Cherry Creek. And so I'm excited to continue to be able to walk, ride my bike, push the stroller with my kids and see the city densify in a way that is safe and inclusive for our families. So, yeah, so I, I, I've been happy to see some of the changes or clarifications made as people have expressed concerns. But as a Denver resident, I am excited about some of the vision that's been cast and appreciate the work that many of the people in this hall have been doing to to make it safer and more inclusive. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Miss Ferguson. Up next, we have Mark Spear.
Speaker 1: Hi, my name is Mark Speer, and I'm an elected volunteer board member of the Seventh Avenue Neighborhood Association, and I've been authorized by our board to speak on Sonny's behalf. I have lived within the boundaries for the past 15 years. The process was woefully inadequate for even the most privileged residents. It was not an inclusive community process in any way. We just heard from Curt Upton that the outreach was targeted to younger, lower income renters and Capitol Hill, not to homeowners, not to older or longer term renters, and not to the other five neighborhoods that the plan covers. For example, Savannah was completely overlooked during the notification process. Individual residents in the Congress Park neighborhood of our R.A. were not notified. Santa was not asked to engage our members, nor was it given any budget to do so. If the plan had not been extended, as was described earlier this evening, Santa would not have even heard of it until after it had passed. That said, time for public review and comment is worthless without a process for incorporating that feedback. Last fall, after Congress Park neighborhood alerted Santa to the plan, Santa did engage CPD during the planning process, and CPD was present for one of the largest meetings in the history of our R.A.. In October of last year, CPD presented a recap, answered questions, heard our concerns, and then promptly disregarded them all. And subsequent plan revisions, with the exception of the correction of what they said at the time, was a typo that had Seventh Avenue labeled as a transit priority Street. Later, CPD mischaracterized that as a, quote, concession to Santa. Their change currently labels the Seventh Avenue Avenue Parkway as a collector street defined as, quote, streets, whose main function is to collect movement from local streets and convey it to arterial streets and, quote, Anyone who knows the Seventh Avenue Parkway knows that this is not an actor. Accurate characterization of what is likely these streets most used for recreation in the entire city. Although Santa is comprised of two pieces of census neighborhoods, the southern, the two southernmost blocks of Congress Park and the two northernmost blocks of country club. Our neighborhood is truly defined by the Seventh Avenue Parkway, not those census designations. The Parkway is such a significant feature that CPD included all of the parkway in each gap, even the section from York to Williams, which lies outside of the cop boundaries. Residents who live near E camp are now being told that they are not affected by the cap and there are misinformed with the implication that their concerns are not relevant. I urge City Council to understand that residents both within and near e copper most definitely affected by the plan, especially when the city discusses increasing density in areas that already have overcrowded schools.
Speaker 0: Thank you, sir. That's the time we have allotted. Next up, we have Frank Locke, a Tory.
Speaker 1: I thank you, Madam President. My name is Frank Loconte. I am a resident of City Park West, and within Council District nine, I'm also the steering committee chair for the East Central Area Plan. I'm speaking to you wearing those hats. But as many of you know, I'm also the executive director of the Colfax AV Business Improvement District. As a city council, you've recently adopted the Citywide Comprehensive Plan, and there's nothing in this plan that runs counter to that. For that reason and.
Speaker 3: More, I encourage you to vote.
Speaker 1: To adopt the East Central Area plan there. One example is that these plans are conducted because it's a way that we can help identify where there are projects and ideas that intersect and understand those synergies. I'll give two examples. One. There's a recommendation around change of use or adaptive reuse. For instance, many locally owned small businesses are inhibited and in some cases intimidated to even start new businesses on existing properties. If they're going to change the use from, let's say, selling tires to selling tacos, because it will require hundreds of thousands of dollars of improvements. By revising these change of use regulations, it'll make it easier for local small businesses, but it also protect the potentially historic buildings from demolition and thereby prevent the demolished concrete and rebar from going to landfills. Therefore, it's a win for small businesses, for preservation and for sustainability. A triple win. Another example is the District six police station. It's been identified in this.
Speaker 3: Plan as a transformational site that's ripe for.
Speaker 1: Infill development, which could provide housing, it can provide community centers, perhaps even outposts for the store program. And retail and small businesses.
Speaker 3: Might even be able to have space.
Speaker 1: For themselves or incubator space. That's a quadruple win. And if we layer in there that it will enhance transit success by directing growth to the corridors and also reduce pressure to build within the neighboring communities. That's win number.
Speaker 3: Five and.
Speaker 1: Six. These are just a couple of examples from the plan. In the end, the steering committee voted 7 to 2.
Speaker 3: In.
Speaker 1: Support. Five of those voting in support came from residents. All of the members of the steering committee are property owners. The community also clearly spoke in support, as evidenced by the thousands of comments and thousands of people that provided 170 substantive recommendation adjustment adjustments, all of which enjoyed at least a majority support and in most cases, overwhelming support. So I encourage you I'll be here all night. If you want to ask clarifying questions, I encourage you to vote to support this plan. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, we have Joel to untied it. Untied? I'm sorry, Joel. I probably misspoke. Okay, it's.
Speaker 2: Fine. Thank you for your time. I'm Joe Untied, reside at 1915 East 22nd Avenue and have for 35 years. I am very am also the president of City Park West R.A. but tonight I speak to you as a resident. I'm very concerned for our community.
Speaker 0: And I want to ask everyone.
Speaker 2: What are we doing? We have all heard the city explanation that this process has been going on for three years.
Speaker 0: There has been outreach and more than enough.
Speaker 2: Time for comment. But I'm here to tell you. Long term minority residents have been totally left out of this process. In February, a civil rights violation was suggested by City Park West. The city postponed the comment period and developed an outreach plan with our R.A.. Then COVID hit. They could not complete their efforts. Yet when questioned about this at Denver planning meeting, staff read a list of outreach efforts, including schools, churches, service providers. This outreach was not done in our neighborhood.
Speaker 0: In fact, we asked.
Speaker 2: CPD.
Speaker 0: As advised by a city council person to provide the list.
Speaker 2: Of outreach and the dates. We received a list of restaurants and local businesses where fliers were dropped off. Few of whom are visited by minority populations. Individual neighborhoods were not involved in the creation of these plans. There was no outreach to black owned businesses, churches, residents to gain their perspective or input. Rather, the planning document was developed by a paid consulting firm who then sought public input. Most individual neighborhood plans were discarded. Our neighborhood has a rich Afro-American history. Families have owned their properties for over 100 years. The words of an 80 year old black woman who is my neighbor said, I remember when no one in the city gave a damn about this neighborhood. Now the land is worth something. There is a politically appointed, quite honestly, very white steering committee with no.
Speaker 1: Public.
Speaker 2: Involvement. No way for anyone to get involved who is new. Do not take comments and they take the vote to decide on which public comments are made to the plan. Numerous people, myself included, have made comments that fell on deaf ears. We have an affordable housing and homeless crisis occurring right now in Denver. DPW and City Park West convened a group of nonprofit, affordable housing helpers, the true affordable housing developers. There was an overwhelming consensus that up zoning does not create affordable housing. Quite the contrary, it increases property values and for stories are too cost prohibitive to build affordable housing. We are experiencing a pandemic and civil unrest not seen since the 1960s. Our area in northeast Denver has one of the highest COVID rates in the city. Households might not have computers and have no interest in civics at this horrible time. So I ask you, is this a plan of the people? Is it fair to all?
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, we have Elizabeth Chester.
Speaker 2: Hi. Good evening. My name is Lisa Chester and I am a Congress Park resident and also the chair of the Park AC Streets Committee. I do on a preponderance of a toddler in the background really into banging pots. So if it's loud, let me know. This is kind of dinnertime, but I just wanted to show my support for the East Central Area plan tonight. I guess there's I didn't have as many comments prepared as everyone else, but there's three main points. I kind of wanted to hit one by talking about the process. And I know there's mixed reviews on this, but from my perspective, I thought that the process was incredibly inclusive. And Kurt and Scott, thank you for responding 100% of the time to any questions showing up to 100% of the time, to all of our meetings, answering any questions. I also wanted to show my support specifically as it relates to the safety and mobility section. I feel like this aligns really well with Vision Zero. And not only did you listen to us, but you actually took a plan that our committee had worked on throughout a year, a public process on our park group. And you took that plan, reviewed it, and incorporated it throughout the plan. So that's really exciting for me to see some of our work that we did at the neighborhood level to be incorporated into an adopted plan. So thank you for that. And I think some of our members on our committee had actually mentioned this, and I think this is just a really telling example. I'm super passionate about making crossings safer. I have a child and a dog and just the simple things in life of be able to cross the street and not be fearful of crossing six, eight , 13th, 14th, which have been mentioned when use the example, try to hold my hand out and walk across Sixth Avenue and make it in time. And you can't. And this plan really starts looking at some of those issues and how to make those simple things safer, which will add so much to our lives. And I think also many of the other sections I'm very supportive of as well, but did just kind of want to speak to the mobility and safety issue this evening, because this plan is as much about for me, but more for my child and future generations to come. So thank you for all of your hard work and thoughtfulness. And again, I'm sorry it's a little out here, but I support the central area.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 0: No worries. Thank you, Elizabeth. And thanks for the work that you're doing at home. And the youngest participant we've had in there.
Speaker 2: So lucky mom is a little tricky to attend these things. So thank you guys so much for understanding.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. All right. Well, next up, we have Myles Conklin.
Speaker 1: Yes. Thank you, everyone. I hope you can hear me. So my name is Miles Tanglin and I'm a 20 year resident of Congress Park Live on Clark Street. And I was appointed to the steering committee by Councilman Wayne New District ten, and I participated with the committee for the last three years. I have past committee experience serving on Denver, Wright, Parks and Rec, Dr. COG as well as I continue to serve on the Colfax Connect Task Force. The steering committee began in July 2017, and during that subsequent and during that and subsequent meetings, I continually asked about our community engagement plan, how we would reach out, what we would term success, and how we would measure it. I also made CPD aware that a lot of the are in those week bi monthly, so organizing would take some time. There was never any response to those comments or questions. It was only until CPD rolled out the completed community engagement plan in early 2019 that was to be completed and adopted ten or 11 months later. This timeline did not allow for organized meetings as draft plans were released later that summer. The plan timeline was extended in small additions, which also did not help with effective community organization. There are some other topics that basically this plan did not look into or information was not released to the committee or the public. The committee had requested BRT traffic studies to understand the impacts of BRT on this corridor as well as the neighborhoods and adjacent arterials. This would be needed to understand how design, parking and incentivize high density locations would be impacting each other. Also, Colfax Connex was expecting the BRT alternate station locations they had discussed to be brought up to the public. This planning process decided not to touch on those topics. And so again, Colfax connects with their cities, was hoping to get direction from this plan. We also had requested parking studies and it was only at the last meeting of the planning or the steering committee that CPD said, we will release the parking studies. We were hoping to understand how all of this fit together. There were some protected bikeways being proposed on 14th Avenue and then there would be traffic diverted on either arterials as BRT is implemented. So we were concerned about that. There was also questions about Sun Shadows studies and we were basically told. We give you an example and we basically satisfy that. But actually there was extensive study and these buildings existed, but they were never presented to the public. So a few of my comments. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Miles. Next up, I believe we have Dimitri. So Bronski. Drew wrote to me. I'll let you correct me, Dimitri. We're going to go ahead and get you promoted into the panelists.
Speaker 1: All right. Hi. My name features Eva. Rodney and I live in Council District ten. And the North Capitol Hill neighborhood. I'm speaking to you tonight as a resident of Denver for close to 15 years. And I'm also a delegate of the TNR now, which is officially endorsed. The plan and a board member are going to be Denver, which also supports the plan. However, I'm speaking on my own behalf. I'm here to urge you to vote to support the East Essential Area Plan. I have followed a plan for over three years by going to the numerous public workshops, open steering committee meetings, Councilman Heinz's sessions and meetings that I've helped organize via my role as a delegate of the DNR. No more. The plan doesn't go far enough to meet our housing needs and transportation environmental goals. I believe that it does move the needle in the right direction by allowing more density along transit corridors, closer to offices and commercial centers. We allow people to live more sustainably, reduce reliance on carbon spewing and street space hogging automobiles, make the city more fiscally sustainable, and provide for more housing where housing is greatly needed. COVID 19 is of great concern today. This plans goal is to make the east central area one of the most walkable places in the city by 2040. Meeting and exceeding the goals of Blueprint Denver and Comprehensive Plan 2040. One point of concern is that the most affluent communities such as the Congress Park neighborhood were essentially able to make themselves exempt from any change and keep the majority of their neighborhoods largely unchanged. This creates undue redevelopment pressure on the rest of the city, especially the communities most affected by gentrification. We can't allow the one percenters of Denver to bend neighborhood planning initiative to their wells at the expense of everyone else. While this plan overall is still redeemable and should be passed with future tweaks to make it more fair. Thank you for your time and please vote in support of the Central Area Plan. Thank you.
Speaker 0: In queue. Up next, we have Mary Harrington.
Speaker 2: Hi. My name is Mary Coddington, and I'm here today on behalf of the Neighborhood Development Collaborative, a group of 17 affordable housing providers and service providers that coordinate efforts to address the entire spectrum of housing needs across our community. The Neighborhood Development, the Neighborhood Development Collaborative supports the East Central Area Plan and encourages City Council to approve it. We support the plan for the following reasons. Community input on this plan was compared with the demographics of the plan area and planners targeted further outreach to get a more representative voice, including those of renters and people experiencing homelessness. This type of engagement is crucial to break away from patterns that entrench inequities, including planning only for those who are already economically secure. Building on this style of engagement, one of the plan recommendations is to empower underrepresented residents to be more involved in collaborative in city government. This recommendation specifically calls out the need to eliminate structural racism in the planning process and increase the involvement of Black, Brown and Indigenous residents. As we work to improve inclusivity, City Council at times may need to push back on voices that have traditionally held power in the city. Community feedback indicated that the East Central area currently benefits young professionals and to a lesser extent, families. But far fewer people indicated the area was supportive for senior or low income residents. The plan remedies that through multiple recommendations that address housing affordability in ways that are responsive to neighborhood contexts. Some of these include the allowance of accessory dwelling units, offering resources to support rehab for small multi-unit properties in exchange for affordability commitments and leveraging heightened incentives as a way to encourage the development of more affordable housing at transit stops. That last piece is an important tool to increase overall housing stock, as well as encourage the development of more affordable housing options in places with access to employment centers. This is key for neighborhood stability. More than one third of east central area residents are housing cost burdened, and the only way to get out of that housing cost burden is to have access to higher paying jobs. Additional recommendations that address this issue include the preservation of local businesses and connecting residents to job training. The plan includes several other recommendations to stabilize existing residents at risk of involuntary displacement, including exploring options for residents to age and place, options to increase home ownership and alternative tenure. Options such as housing, land trusts. There's an overwhelming need for more affordable housing options in the city. And. The equity focused recommendations in this plan offer important tools to meet that challenge. Again, the Neighborhood Development Collaborative urges City Council to adopt the East Central Area Plan. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, we have Pam Packer.
Speaker 2: Hi. My name is Pam Parker, and I'm a resident of Congress Park. I live at the corner.
Speaker 0: Of Ninth and Steele.
Speaker 2: And although I don't agree with all aspects.
Speaker 0: Of the plan, one piece of the plan that I'm really happy about is the potential designation of Steele and potentially Ninth Avenue being designated as high comfort bikeways. I think this is.
Speaker 2: A move in the right direction for the livability of our neighborhood.
Speaker 0: In our community. And I.
Speaker 2: Just feel like, as.
Speaker 0: Another person.
Speaker 2: Mentioned earlier.
Speaker 0: How steel seems to be a corridor for a lot of traffic. And we do feel like creating this high comfort bike way will encourage more people to ride their bikes and be safe on the roads when they're doing so.
Speaker 2: So I do.
Speaker 0: Support that aspect of the plan and.
Speaker 2: I look forward to the final vote at the end of.
Speaker 0: This of this hearing. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Pam. Next up, we have Emily Clarke. And we're going to go ahead. And you might have to unmute yourself, Emily.
Speaker 2: Okay. All right. Thank you. My name is Emily Clarke. I live in Denver in Council District nine and in the South City Park neighborhood. I'm speaking to you tonight as a resident of South City Park in Denver and not as a representative of any other affiliation that I have. I urge you to vote in support of the East Central Area Plan. I have followed this plan fairly well because I'm involved in my R.A. and have attended many meetings over the past couple of years. The central plan is in the urban core. And there have been. There are many benefits to the increased density that the plan proposes. The proposed height increase is appropriate and intermittently along Colfax is the best place for it. I think this plan provides a good balance of housing options, including low income, without losing the heart of our current neighborhoods. The plan continues to thoughtfully make our neighborhoods even more walkable and bikeable, which is what many of us living in this area seek. Lastly, I'd just like to thank the city for everything it's done over the last few years to inform all levels of community and solicit feedback about this important plan. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Up next, we have Jesse Paris. You might need to unmute yourself, Jesse.
Speaker 1: Hello.
Speaker 0: Hi. Go ahead, Jesse.
Speaker 1: Um. Want to know what this. I'm. I'm needed for guests. I'm glad to see that you are supporting various forms of housing. That people can actually afford. So I'm definitely in favor of that. So yeah, that's the only thing I want to say that I'm in favor of on this. But like I said, I'm either for or against this. I'm just glad to see that the city has taken the initiative to detail what affordable housing looks like, because that term was going around a lot and we know firsthand that the city is not affordable anymore and the house in the city is not affordable anymore. So see that in this East Central Area plan, after three years of surveys and research, the city has finally admitted that. Affordable housing needs to be a priority and it really should be attainable housing because this is not affordable, but it's a start. So that's all I have to say. Well, so I'm leaning for against this. Thank you for allowing me to speak tonight.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Jesse. Next up, we have Shawn Mandel.
Speaker 1: Hi. My name is Shawn Mandel, and I'm sorry my video isn't working, but I'm speaking on behalf of the Bluebird Business Improvement District. I would like to recommend that City Council approved the plan. The Bluebird Business Improvement District sent a letter on September 28th in support of the plan. We specifically like that the main street zoning and the changes to the Mainstreet zoning will allow smaller lots to be redeveloped, will allow a little more flexibility for the type of new development that we can do along Colfax. And I think that it goes a long way to support economic development along the corridor. So again, we recommend support of the plan.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Brad SIEGEL is up next.
Speaker 1: Good evening, Denver City Council. My name is Brad Segal. I reside on the 1200 block of Detroit Street in the Congress Park neighborhood. I'm wearing three hats tonight. The first hat is I am president of Progressive Urban Management Associates, the lead consulting firm that's been assisting the city help develop the plan. Our firm has managed 13 subcontractors for this project, all experts in their field, and 12 of the 13 firms are based in Denver. Many of the consultants like myself live in the neighborhoods that are affected by these plans. Number two, hat is I am a Denver native and a 29 year homeowner in Congress Park. My wife and I have raised two boys here. They attended schools, including Teller, Moray and East, all located within the plan area. And my third hat is I'm a small business owner. I employ seven persons located at Colfax and Marion in the North Capitol Hill neighborhood. I'll just make two quick comments that haven't been mentioned. One is I do want to highlight that the East Central Area Plan is the first neighborhood plan in Denver to offer strong recommendations for encouraging affordable housing and ways to protect and preserve small community serving businesses. The economy section of the plan, which really focuses on preventing displacement, is a strong precedent for the rest of the city. And the second comment I'll make is that COVID 19 and the pandemic create urgency to approve and start implementing the plan. Many of its recommendations could assist in economic recovery and also improve the quality of life in all of these neighborhoods. Thank you for your consideration. I'll remain available throughout your deliberations tonight. I can provide any additional information.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Brad. Next up, we have Kevin MATTHEWS.
Speaker 1: Hi. My name is Kevin MATTHEWS. I'm a Congress Park resident. I live at ten, 10th and Madison. I've been following the plan for the last three years. Overall, the plan is okay, but I wish there were some things that were stronger. I recognize that plans like these are compromises, but we're often compromising on things that we can no longer afford to compromise on. So my biggest concern is the what kind of world my son is going to inherit and the growing climate crisis. We have to cut carbon emissions in half this decade, and you do it again the following decade and again after that. The current recommendations in this plan. So Denver's own mobility goals are to call for a 30% of commuters walking, biking or taking transit by 2030 and 50% by 2050. I don't think these goals are strong enough for Denver. Overall, the east central area goal is 50% of commuters using noncore options by 2040. Considering our close adjacency to downtown, I wish these were a little bit stronger, closer to 70 to 80%. But I do agree with a couple together Congress Park residents who spoken up tonight appreciating the some of the traffic calming and and the neighborhood bikeways. The other thing I wanted to mention is that. You know, I think one of the real missed opportunities.
Speaker 2: When you.
Speaker 1: Look at carbon emissions capital of the Capitol Hill neighborhood has the the second lowest emissions per household in Denver. And we're going to need neighborhoods that look a lot more like it. One of the things I see in Congress Park right now is, you know, the only development that's really going on is kind of the pop top where you have your old bungalows that are having that are basically doubling in size as a single family home. Some of them are 3000, 3500 square feet. And as soon as you do that, that's $1,000,000 home. And that is a really that's a large missed opportunity from both a climate standpoint and an affordability standpoint. I have friends now who rents who would love to to buy a home in Commerce Park but can't afford it. One of my friends is a vice president of I.T. at a bank. He's not. He's a person of means. I had some young neighbors of mine who just went down the neighborhood and bought a house in Cole because it was it was more affordable. And so when we talk about Denver's growth, which we're going to see a lot of in the next couple decades, we got to figure out where it's going to go. Are we only going to point at the invert it out or the rich neighborhoods are going to do their share? So I hope you adopt this. Thanks.
Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. We've got 12 speakers left and about 15 minutes left of our one hour courtesy public hearing. And so just wanted to remind folks if comments have already been made. If you could limit your comment so we can hopefully get through all the speakers who have signed up tonight. And so next up, we've got Anna DeWitt.
Speaker 2: I everyone. I'm on a two. I'm a Denver teacher and I live in D10. I'm also a dues paying member of the Santa seventh Avenue Parkway, Orono and the CPA in Congress Park. I know these are nos. Do not speak for me, nor did I was. I asked to vote.
Speaker 1: On.
Speaker 2: This matter for my R.A.. I'm here because I support the E cap and I encourage council to do the same. I followed the essential area plan very closely, and I've attended several public meetings as a Denver teacher and a mother of a toddler. I was impressed by the effort to include more bike paths in central Denver. I want my students and my daughter to be able to travel safely to and from school. I was also impressed that though Congress Park has been given the designation of historical significance. Under the plan, it would still be easier for homeowners to build an 82 or a granny flat. I want more diversity for Central Denver, and adding cheaper and more affordable housing options is a great way to start allowing more Denver, more neighbors and our neighborhood. Now as an active union member involved in the teaching community, I try to look at these.
Speaker 0: Plans with the eyes of how this affect my fellow.
Speaker 2: Teachers and my students, especially those most marginalized. I remember quite vividly that a man shouted out at a public meeting that our schools cannot contain our students. So let's talk about that. I wish I could show you charts, but bear with me when I start talking numbers. Overall, the city of Denver and the schools of Denver are experiencing segregation. 75% of central Denver's elementary students are white. And of course, they are. 75% of central Denver residents are white. If we want our schools to equalize or in other words, integrate 55.5% of the Denver population, we'd have to relocate to different neighborhoods. Don't we want to send our children to schools that are diverse? The East and the east sorry east central area plan could help integrate our neighborhoods and therefore our schools because it allow for more affordable housing options. Also, almost every single school in central Denver has a projected 5% decrease in enrollments, and that was before COVID. Central Denver needs more families with children living here. And yes, though class sizes are too large, that does not have to do with enrollment. It has to do with how DPS allocates money to their schools. At a time when DPS is experiencing massive budget cuts, more students in our schools equal more funding to our schools. And it happened just as that. I urge you all to vote in favor. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, we have Ellen Adelson. And you make up, you might have to meet yourself.
Speaker 2: Good evening. I'm Ellen Adelson. I'm a resident of Denver and I'm representing historic Denver. Historic Denver supports that central area plan, which includes many of Denver's oldest neighborhoods and a rich collection of historic buildings and places. The plan reflects the.
Speaker 0: Value the community gives to historic.
Speaker 2: Buildings and places and the importance of preserving them, which is essential to a vibrant, inclusive and authentic Denver. Prior priority priorities to preserve and reuse significant buildings. Encourage preservation within neighborhoods and along corridors. Adopt adaptive reuse ordinance and support. Small local businesses are all consistent with historic Denver's values. Historic Denver appreciates that the Discover Denver data has been used to document the rich collection of historic structures throughout the planned area. The land use and built form tool. Use of both historic and existing buildings. The transportation recommendations must protect the historic parkways that are an essential part of the area and provide much needed green space and encourage neighborhood gathering and informal recreation. Of course, no plan is successful without thoughtful, coordinated and consistent implementation. Historic Denver stands ready to assist in developing criteria.
Speaker 0: To establish eligibility.
Speaker 2: For incentives such as a housing unit bonus.
Speaker 0: Again, historic. Denver is pleased to support the East.
Speaker 2: Central Area Plan and its thoughtful.
Speaker 0: Preservation and.
Speaker 2: Building review strategies. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, we have Travis Liquor.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much. My name is Travis Leiker and I'm president of the board of directors for Capitol Hill United Neighborhoods Shrine, as it's affectionately known, as is Denver's largest and oldest registered neighborhood organization that has a footprint in both District nine and District ten for city council. And we're here tonight, and I'm authorized to speak on behalf of our organization to express our support for the East Central Area Plan. And we say just a number, a few reasons for our support. First, community engagement is paramount to successfully planning neighborhoods for future generations. And after nearly 10,000 online comments, 54 community meetings and myriad focus groups, we feel that the city plan planners have done an adequate job, if not more than an adequate job, of engaging the community. Secondly, preserving historic architectural assets is essential to maintaining neighborhood character, and we're thrilled to see that this plan incorporates exciting and new, innovative uses for many of our city's oldest treasured structures. Third, bringing Denver ites together at the local level makes our community stronger. The plan is comprehensive and provides a framework by which creating new neighborhood gathering spots will be central to the future of the city and for this neighborhood. In 2019, China reaffirmed its commitment to environmental sustainability. We are thrilled to see that trees, climate appropriate landscaping and preserving Denver's tree canopy will be a part of this future plan. And then join and join partners like the Denver Streets Partnership in a shared mission to ensure safe streets for everyone, no matter their zip code, their financial means, or how they get from one point to the next. And so we're pleased to see streets like 23rd Avenue, Gaylord, Mont View and Colorado Boulevard and as well as Sherman Street as part of this greater neighborhood planning effort. And then access to affordable housing is also chief among our priorities to an end, certainly to achieving economic self-sufficiency. And so we're hopeful that integrating mission, missing middle sorry, housing, as well as other residential areas, coupled with discouraging demolitions and encouraging affordability, will promote greater access to homeownership. And then finally, a diverse, thriving workforce is bolstered through locally owned businesses and collaborative work culture and is at the heart of Denver's evolving economy. So recruiting new small to midsize businesses provides opportunities for workforce development and economic opportunity. And we agree that diversity of housing and jobs captures our shared vision for neighborhoods with equitable access to quality employment options, as well as housing choices that accommodate households of different ages, sizes and incomes. Thank you again for your time. And Capitol Hill United Neighborhoods, Denver's largest R.A. expressed expresses support.
Speaker 3: For the East Central Area plan.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, we have Jonathan Capelli.
Speaker 1: Well everyone.
Speaker 3: My name is Jonathan Capelli and.
Speaker 1: I'm speaking today on.
Speaker 3: Behalf of All in Denver, which is a nonprofit advocacy.
Speaker 1: Organization with over 300 members.
Speaker 3: That believes in working together to create a more equitable city.
Speaker 1: For all where everyone prospers.
Speaker 3: And as such, we strongly support the E cap, one of the six pillars of Blueprint Denver.
Speaker 1: Which we also supported.
Speaker 3: Was equity. This plan is one of the first plans to come out after Blueprint. Denver manifest this pillar by incorporating equity throughout and therefore it's in line with something that we've already adopted as a city after four.
Speaker 1: Years of deliberation.
Speaker 3: And the input of thousands. The disparate impacts of COVID exposes even starker terms. The ongoing.
Speaker 1: Need with equity into the very fabric of our planning, documents and policy.
Speaker 3: Taking action on.
Speaker 1: These principles.
Speaker 3: Can't wait and in fact reflect the priorities of the community also generated. In addition.
Speaker 1: To we condemn Denver.
Speaker 3: By more than 10,000 comments then form decaf over the course of the.
Speaker 1: Last three years. When it comes to mobility.
Speaker 3: The auto dependent infrastructure disconnected pedestrian.
Speaker 1: And bicycle infrastructure of Colfax.
Speaker 3: Belies the residential neighborhood of the blocks immediately north and south of corridor. This plan seeks to remedy that by laying the groundwork for bus, rapid transit and other improvements that will result in a corridor that's less noisy, less polluted, more friendly to families, bicyclists and those from mobility impaired. Earlier touted the fact that equity is an important part of this plan. One way that that shows up in the plan is in how it ensures the absorption of growth and distribution of housing is not just concentrated in low income communities where gentrification is already happening. To be an inclusive neighborhood, it means providing inclusive housing opportunities for all. Anything else amounts to an exclusive community, which is antithetical to the stated goals of the city. Gentle density. A key transit hubs with high incentives for affordable housing. The sensible way to make sure that this part of the corridor is pulling its weight and helping bolster our woefully low supply of affordable housing. It's not a carte blanche for developers. It lays the foundation for an incentive based approach to shaping development in a way that helps the community. Gentrification is happening and growth is a part of it and is in some ways inevitable. But a plan like this that shapes the growth in a way that increases affordability while growing is the best and perhaps the only approach. There's also an environmental argument to this. We know from recent incentives or initiative the city to improve sustainability that nearly 50% of carbon emissions in the city come from building emissions alone. The smoke, shroud and ash punctuated nature over the last few months illustrate this time for Denver to start pulling its weight on this to proactively reduce emissions of global warming, which in turn leads to an.
Speaker 1: Air fire prone environment.
Speaker 3: Building sensibly, dense, efficient buildings where appropriate helps to combat air pollution from energy cost savings and transportation based emissions from folks who would otherwise have to commute from far away to work in and.
Speaker 1: Support our economy.
Speaker 3: For this and other reasons, we.
Speaker 1: Support the plan.
Speaker 0: That's the time that we have. Next up, we have Alison Torbett. Hi. I'm going to cut my comments very short. About 99% of them were just covered by the man from all in Denver. Another 20% were covered by the teacher from Congress Park. I just think.
Speaker 2: When I first bought.
Speaker 0: My house in my old house in 1997 at 14th and Downing, I was really worried. They were saying that, you know, the prices were going to burst and I was going to be able to keep the value of it. It cost $95,000 for a 1200 square foot duplex. We need to have more $95,000 houses. People need to be able to come up with a down payment by that house to live in that house and also work as a teacher or work, you know, have a roommate, something. That house has quintupled in 20 years. It sold last year for $450,000, more or less. It's ridiculous. The prices are going like that. We need to have more density. We need to have more options. We need to not just have housing for very, very poor people or housing for very, very rich people. Those of us who are making, you know, a civilized living need to be able to afford a house. I literally can't afford to downsize my house cost more.
Speaker 1: But.
Speaker 0: Thanks very much. Please support this program. Thank you, Alison. Next up, we have Stephen Chester.
Speaker 1: Hello. Members of the council. My name is Steven Chester. I'm a resident of Congress Park. Like Alyson, I'll keep my comments very short. I know we're up against the time, but I'm just here to voice my full support for the essential neighborhood plan. I want to talk about two things really quickly, the process. I think the process is incredibly inclusive and equitable. There's a real difference between electoral process and an equal process. And some of the comments you heard earlier about certain folks that felt like their voice wasn't heard or not enough money was given to their neighborhood organization to do extra outreach. That's equality. I think this process was truly equitable in the sense that extra resources and time were given to. Those are often left out of the planning process, like renters and in younger folks that often don't even know what planning is or how to get engaged. And I just want to applaud CPD at Scott and for especially for all the work that they've done to to make sure that people like me walk into the neighborhood and I'm walking my dog asking people, you know, about this neighborhood plan. And I'm shocked the amount of people that said, Oh, yeah, I heard about that and I really support it, but unfortunately I don't see those those faces here today. So I just wanted to kind of be the voice of a lot of the folks in my neighborhood that really support this plan and are really excited about it . And then lastly, I think some of the mobility recommendations as we talked to earlier, are really spot on. And with a small child being able to safely walk and bike in my own neighborhood is really paramount to why I chose to live in the neighborhood that I like, that I know I can. I'm lucky enough to choose a neighborhood to live in, and I want to make sure that other residents of Denver have the same opportunity to live in a safe place and not be worry about a a Carmona McDonald's or trying to cross a busy street that cuts through our neighborhood. So with that, again, I urge your full support of the plan.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Steven. We have Mark Marshall up next.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Yes.
Speaker 3: My name is Mark.
Speaker 1: Marshall, the vice president of real estate at Urban Land Conservancy. We support the east.
Speaker 3: Area.
Speaker 1: East central area plan. We are located at the corner of 16th and down in specific areas of the plan that we support are bolstering the health care and wellness sector as a foundation for economic growth. We will work with partners like hospitals, DPS, non-profits and housing developers.
Speaker 3: To address the issues around workforce housing.
Speaker 1: And training needs.
Speaker 3: We also recognize that.
Speaker 1: Stable housing is a pretty tremendous predictor of successful.
Speaker 3: Health outcomes.
Speaker 1: As well as educational.
Speaker 3: Outcomes.
Speaker 1: Second area we support is preserving affordable housing and stabilize.
Speaker 3: And residents at risk of displacement.
Speaker 1: Some of the programs that are in place that are existing.
Speaker 3: In our in the city I think can be better.
Speaker 1: Marketed. These include rental assistance, utility assistance, property tax abatements. We also like to support extending covenants for income restricted properties. The third area we support is creating new housing near transit and and amenities along the corridor. We'd like to see density increased along the Cold Facts corridor in exchange for affordability.
Speaker 3: And community benefiting spaces.
Speaker 1: The fourth area we support of the plan is expanding the diversity.
Speaker 3: Of housing types and.
Speaker 1: Affordability in all the neighborhoods.
Speaker 3: Throughout.
Speaker 1: The planned area. We'd like to see more 80 youths present here addressing this missing.
Speaker 3: Middle housing.
Speaker 1: Increase in the types of duplex, triplex and four place practices, as well as townhomes that are compatible with the neighborhood and affordable as well. We support increasing the access to supportive housing and social services for vulnerable communities and residents. We encourage the repurposing of and redevelopment of.
Speaker 3: Motels.
Speaker 1: Along core along Colfax for permanent supportive or transitional.
Speaker 3: Housing and developing more.
Speaker 1: Permanent.
Speaker 3: Supportive housing.
Speaker 1: Wraps in services such as health care, child care and workforce housing. As a property owner, we're seeing and landlord and you'll see we are seeing the effects of COVID with many residents on the street. And we really support the services.
Speaker 3: That will get these get the residents housed and the.
Speaker 1: Services that they need. Thank you once.
Speaker 3: Again, Marc Marshall with Urban Land Conservancy.
Speaker 1: And we support the East Central Area Plan.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mark. Next up, we have the ball dagger.
Speaker 1: Yes. Hello, Council. Good evening. My name is Anibal Bordiga. I've been a resident, an architect in the area for over 15 years. I'd keep this pretty quick. I go to the highlights. These areas are these neighborhoods that are studied in the plan are fantastic, in large part to their age. At the same time, they've been successful for for all these decades because they've been flexible. These neighborhoods have historic homes next to mansions. We have mature trees and infrastructure that's aging, but at the same time is part of the charm that everybody loves. But by being flexible, it's been these neighborhoods have been able to accommodate future growth. For decades. This plan builds on that history and provides new ideas and concepts that will help the neighborhoods grow into the future. One of those interesting points in the plan is the use of transfer development rights. There's a graphic in the plan that shows unused zoning or unused development rate on certain properties and supports the fact that just because it's zoned, it won't and doesn't necessarily mean that it will get built to that maximum zoning density that doesn't need to be a lost concept or that zoning doesn't need to go to waste necessarily in the use of transfer development. Right. That would allow contentious issues like Times Diner to be resolved without coming to council for a resolution. It would allow longtime property owners to remain in place and not have to contemplate demolition. Another good concept that's in this plan is the adaptive reuse concepts, which will just allow many of the historic or just older buildings that people value to remain in place and be modernized without exceedingly overly burdensome request of bringing everything up to today's standards. In closing, I urge you to support this and wanted to just point out that these neighborhoods have grown into fabulous neighborhoods over decades despite all sorts of external forces. This plan provides the guidance and flexibility to support future change in these neighborhoods, and it will build on the historic success. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Andy. Next up, we've got two speakers left. Rob Connaughton. I probably mispronounced it, Rob, but you can correct me. And you might need to unmute yourself, Rob.
Speaker 1: Can you hear me now?
Speaker 0: Mm hmm. Go ahead.
Speaker 1: Thank you. I'm a resident of Congress Park, the 800 block of Steel Street. I've participated in the process. The process over the last probably couple of years. I didn't get it at the very start. But I want to encourage the adoption of the plan by the council. I'm very supportive of particularly the the mobility component of the plan, trying to reduce the reliance on vehicles and expand such things as bikeways. There's a bikeway proposed along steel that would pass in front of my house and I think that's fantastic, as well as Detroit and Ninth, I believe I am generally supportive of higher densities along Colfax because of the BRT, the Bus Rapid Transit Project. Absent that, I don't think I would be, I think increases in density over current density levels. And this is a reminder, this is still a very dense neighborhood, even though parts of it are single family. They really need to be tied to transit. And Denver does not have very good transit, at least that that that is high quality and is accessible to multiple neighborhoods. For me, it's a seven block walk to Colfax just to get to the BRT when that eventually comes online. And Cherry Creek doesn't really have any good transit access. So these are issues that that if we're going to increase density, it needs to be tied to high quality transit. And I think that this plan is very good in that it does not automatically or recommend up zoning of single family portions of the district, which are fairly small in comparison to the entire district covered by the plan. These are old 100 year old single family neighborhoods that are as they are right now. They're already relatively dense, certainly compared to what you'd find in Castle Pines or places like that. And we need to remember that these are already pretty green neighborhoods.
Speaker 3: Because they not auto.
Speaker 1: Dependent. So I wanted to just compliment the city and the planners who've worked on this for recognizing and and recognizing the diversity within the neighborhood and also keeping an eye out toward sort of preserving these older neighborhoods. So thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our last speaker is michelle reichmuth.
Speaker 2: Hi. My name is Michelle. Reichmuth and I live in Council District nine and the South City Park neighborhood and I was born in this neighborhood, so City Park at Mercy Hospital and I've lived in the neighborhood for 22 of my 53 years on the planet. I have two boys and they're both students at East High Denver Public School boys. And my father and grandparents have lived in the East Central planning area. I bring up these personal elements because I feel that I've always been engaged in my community. I love community stuff and I feel confident that the East Central plan is going to improve these neighborhoods. I feel that there was a lot of heart put into this and I'm proud of how the process went. I followed the East Central Area plan fairly well because I was on the East Central Plan Steering Committee for roughly the last three years, and I was I've been involved with the South or the City Park Neighborhood Advisory Committee. There's been a lot of topics that have been covered today that I agree with the importance of increasing density and low income housing, as well as improving mobility, all in the spirit of improving climates and lives, life's experience . And so what I'm going to focus on is just the one thing that I want to see a. This thing I want to say about the plot. The plan is that I'm impressed with the plan for many reasons, but the main reason for me was the overall process. I've worked in environmental consulting and now I'm a civil servant at EPA and I feel like the process is so important for pulling in people's opinions. And this process was organized, well-thought out, educational, detailed and visionary. And most important to me is it allowed thousands of people to become involved and provide input. Was it perfect? No, and nothing ever is. But I can stand here and say that I was impressed and and my expectations were extremely exceeded. I'm proud of my city's inclusiveness and tenacity and technology and resources. For example, they used a program online that collected concerns and big ideas from anyone, and they tie it to the location on a map so there can be informed decisions made on what's going on throughout the area. Anyway, please support the East Central Plan.
Speaker 0: That's the time. Thank you. Well, that concludes our speakers. And thank you all for for staying with us. We're going to go ahead and move to questions of city council. And first up, we have Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. I have a few questions on the East Central Area plan, of course, and NPI in general. So for for the planning, anyone who's got the answer, how many homes are in the cap area. And I'd love if, you know, owner owned as opposed to rentals. Kurt.
Speaker 3: Yeah. So I think there is about 50,000 residents in in the East Central area. I think that translates to this off the top of my head. I can I can double check these, but about 30 to 40000 housing units. A big majority of those are renter households. And I'll Scott, if you have that that number accessible.
Speaker 1: I can get it in just 2 seconds. But 32,000 households in Central and I don't have. Did you say 32,000? Scott Yes, 32,000. Thank you. What I'm wondering, while Scott's looking that up, did you do a mass mailing to every address in the district in the study area?
Speaker 3: We did not know. We decided that our outreach resources were better used on more targeted fly ring pop up events and those kind of other activities rather than a mailer.
Speaker 1: Okay. Can you talk about the diversity or lack of it, of the steering committee?
Speaker 3: So that's been a challenge in really many of our planning processes. And E Central is no different. When those committee members were appointed by the council members, the previous two council members, I think they tried in earnest to appoint a diverse committee. So there are a number of different points of view on the committee. There's people who represent small businesses such as the business improvement districts are and those are represented. There were development interests represented on the steering committee and then from different walks of life. You know, we have we had social services workers who are that that's what they did for their day job all the way to, you know, you know, executive director in the case of so and yeah.
Speaker 1: How large was the committee? Remind me again, please.
Speaker 3: So it shrank by a couple of members, but by the end of the process, there were 12.
Speaker 1: And so were there any representatives from communities of color?
Speaker 3: There was one steering committee representative who was nonwhite at the end of the process. There was another one at the beginning of the process, but she had to drop out because of other commitments.
Speaker 1: Thank you for that. Another question. I have two more. Madam President, if you don't mind, I'm wondering, how are height incentives working around town? Are they successful? Have they met expectations?
Speaker 3: Yes, it's a good question. I think. I think our point of view in CPD is that there were lessons learned from the recent pilot at the 30th in Blake Station where that was. That project moved forward and we are underway now. There is a the affordable housing zoning incentive projects that's looking at that pilot. Lessons learned ways we can improve upon that. And also looking at all the other cities that are using zoning as a tool for more affordable housing to try to maximize those community benefits.
Speaker 1: So does this plan allow for implementation of those lessons learned down the road?
Speaker 3: Yes. It recommends that we look at all of those lessons and we we improve upon that zoning based affordable housing incentive program in a way that sort of informs the regulatory process that's just been kicked off.
Speaker 1: Okay. And I guess the last question I have and it's I trying to reach for the right word and I don't mean to be too cynical, but have have have we been successful or where have we been successful in halting displacement?
Speaker 3: Well, I mean, that's a it's a big topic and a big priority. I mean, I think what we can do in a plan is articulate the goal of reducing and using all of the tools we have at our disposal to prevent involuntary displacement, including new and innovative tools that we aren't yet existing, and that include zoning, which oftentimes creates, you know, very intense opinions on how to use zoning for some of these goals. And so what we have said is that we need sort of this all hands on deck approach to try to address this problem of not only residential displacement, which is a huge concern, but also small businesses, small business displacement, which is also a huge concern, especially in the east central area, where almost 80% of the businesses are small, locally owned, mom and pops. And so we've had to think outside the box and create some creative strategies to try to address that issue as well. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Okay. And Scott, I had asked about rental as opposed to ownership, if you have that. Yeah. About 70% of households in East Central are renter occupied. So do you have do you have quantity of businesses in the in the study area? Yes, we do have that somewhere. I can find that number for you as well. All right. Well, I'll I'll say thank you, Madam President. And Scott, if you can get a stat whenever you find it.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 2: Thanks Madam President, and thanks for the presentation, CPD. Just a couple of questions. In your beginning remarks, Kurt, I think you said there were 3500 participants in 10,000 comments. But on slide, I think it was 23, it said there were only 300 commenters.
Speaker 3: Right. So the larger number at the beginning, the 3500 participants, those were people who participated throughout the three years. So at all of our workshops and events and community meetings, the 300 number was just a few months at the end of the process when all of the information was compiled into the draft plan document and people weighed in on those specifics wording and the details of the plan document where we received several thousand comments from 300 participants in that process.
Speaker 2: And of the 3500 participants over three years were those 3500 unique participants.
Speaker 3: Yeah, so we call that touch points. So we did. I mean, it's we did our best to try to weed out duplicate duplicative participants, but so that's an estimate. But yeah, it's about 3500 unique participants.
Speaker 2: Do you know the demographics of those people and what neighborhoods they came from?
Speaker 3: And yeah, so we did track those demographics racially. The, the, the participants in our plan are generally consistent with the census demographics within a few percentage points of the east central area. As I mentioned before, the largest underrepresented group throughout the process were younger, lower income renters, which is why we disproportionally adjusted our resources again through that equity lens to try to target more participation from that from underrepresented groups where we saw the largest disparity.
Speaker 2: Okay. And we heard from, I think, one R.A. tonight who does not support it. Do you have. Supportive other Arnaud's.
Speaker 3: Yeah. So you also heard from China, Capitol Hill, United Neighbors. That's an R.A. They they support the plan. There are others that other RINO's that didn't take an official vote on the plan because I don't know why, but I don't know if they got to a complete consensus, especially when you're you're talking about some of these recommendations around zoning and density and building heights. People have very strong opinions. You know, there's only there's over 50 recommendations, policy recommendations in the plan. And when we originally released those recommendations over a year ago, and we did it in survey form and asked people how they felt about those recommendations. And nearly all of those recommendations had very strong support, over 70% support, with the exception of the recommendations that had to do with building height and density. Where those recommendations were more like 60, 40 or 55, 50 or more mixed opinion. And people just have very strong opinions about that topic.
Speaker 2: So of all the Arnaud's you heard from, there was just one that was in favor of it and one that was officially opposed.
Speaker 3: I believe that's right.
Speaker 2: Okay. And on that, I think one of the slides said the steering committee, there were several members of the steering committee who didn't support it. What were their reasons?
Speaker 3: Well, the the final vote, the vote of the plan at the steering committee was seven in favor and two against. One of those members, Miles, provided his comments tonight in his remarks. And I think I won't speak for him, but he has some questions about the process. And oftentimes, it's it's a it's a hard technical concept to explain. And we run into this in many of our plans is the difference between a planning document, which is really a guide that articulates a long term outcome and outlines some some policies to achieve those outcomes versus the very specific regulatory language that is that lives in zoning or the very specific designs of infrastructure. And those happen in later processes. And the difference between a plan document and those details has created some discomfort among some some members. And I think, Miles, I can safely say, was one of one of the people who were uncomfortable with that. And then the other member who was concerned about the plan, I think it's echoed some of the concerns that we've heard from residents just regarding the impacts of potential density in the east central area. And those could include, you know, street parking issues and traffic issues.
Speaker 2: Okay. I just have one final question. So there are other efforts and CPD happening now and will be happening in the future. And I'm wondering if you discussed that during your efforts. I know when the Far Northeast plan happened, they which was met with much love and celebration. So we didn't have any of this controversy when that was brought to us. But they didn't talk about 80 news or a group living or residential infill or, you know, changing single unit zoning to duplex in triplex. Did you talk about all those things during this conversation?
Speaker 3: Yeah. I mean, we we learned early on in the process that we could not ignore. We had to have a strong emphasis on the affordable housing shortage in the east central area. I could pull up some of the numbers, but they were pretty mind boggling when we started looking at the data that we had. About 11,000, over 11,000 households in the east central area were cost burden, which is over a third of all the households being they're struggling to pay their rent or their mortgage. There is also a shortage of affordable units at the lower income levels of over 3000. We calculated through one of our consultants. For the first time I've seen in an area plan the specific number of low income units that we were short, which is over 3000, and we made that public. We say we have this huge problem. We also looked at all of the income, the current today income restricted units in the area. And we found out that almost half, about 46% of those current income restricted units or 1400 units were going to expire over the next ten years and potentially come back on the market as market rate units and therefore lose their affordability protections for people. So we knew early on that we had to do something pretty specific and serious and we could not avoid some of these really difficult conversations about how we were going to fill that affordable housing shortage.
Speaker 2: But did you specifically talk about these other efforts that are happening concurrently and plan for the future?
Speaker 3: And by that, are are you do you mean the missing middle in-fill housing options, the affordable housing zoning incentive project? We did talk about those two concurrent efforts, if that's what you mean.
Speaker 2: Yes. And group living and residential infill.
Speaker 3: Yeah. So, yeah. So the missing middle housing options is the residential infill program. We talked quite a bit about that. That was one of the topics that generated those strong opinions. We didn't talk so much about the Group Living Project. Even though those questions came up. We were pretty far into our process when that process started, where I think it was. We were already on year three when the group living proposal came out, but we did answer many questions about how that project might intersect in interrelate with these plans.
Speaker 2: So is addressing the missing middle the idea that single unit zoning would be replaced with duplexes and triplexes in four collapses?
Speaker 3: Yeah. So it's, it's looking at some of our lower density areas and in trying to figure out what is the best, most thoughtful way to introduce new housing options that are more affordable for particularly for middle income people. And so that you know how would we might integrate duplexes? Triplexes and four flex's. The east central area is almost entirely not a single unit today. So it's it's almost entirely apartments, a row, homes, duplexes. There's only a few blocks, basically the southern portion of one of the neighborhood statistical areas and Congress Park and then the northern two blocks of City Park West are really the only single unit areas. Even those areas have some of missing middle housing in there already. So it's it wasn't as big of an issue generally in East Central area as in terms of a topic as in some of our other plan areas like the east area. But it did have very strong opinions in those in those portions of the plan area.
Speaker 2: Okay. I know I said that was my last question, but I just have a follow up to that. So I I'm yet to see any new development in Denver or Inglewood, which is right next to my district where this is happening. Where there. Duplexes or triplexes or SLI homes have gone up on what was formerly a single unit dwelling, where the new dwellings are much more expensive than the original house that was there. So I, I'd like to see some kind of evidence that that is going to result in that missing middle housing. There's an entire statistical neighborhood in my district, University Hills, where they're tearing down what were very modest homes. And you'll see slide homes or duplexes that are six, $800,000, which are not affordable. And that's what I'm seeing in Inglewood right next door. And we've all seen it a lot up in not me understandable districts so for a future discussion. But thank you for answering my question. Sorry I went on so long.
Speaker 3: I'll just make one one quick point, because that's an important point. I think we definitely agree with that point of view. Councilwoman Black, we heard that point of view throughout our process. And so we've we've crafted that recommendation to be very focused on not encouraging demolition and redevelopment of of those homes, but rather repurposing some of those homes as duplexes. And I think that's why you see some support from historic Denver, for example, for some of these recommendations, because we're taking more of a preservation approach to that integration of housing.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Black. Councilwoman CdeBaca.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. I want to dove a little bit deeper into some of the questions Councilwoman Black and Councilman Cashman were asking about guaranteeing this affordability and this missing middle that we need. We have multiple plans across the city that have tried to address equity and affordability. And when it comes down to a rezoning, what we've found is that our plans don't guarantee any kind of movement on our goals. And so can you guys tell me how you've fashioned this to be different than any of the other plans we're using that are not yielding any results?
Speaker 1: Well.
Speaker 3: So I think for for the missing middle housing options in particular, what we recommended, again, was to try to get away from the debt, the consequence of scraping existing bungalows, for example, and then putting up larger duplexes, for example. And so we've explicitly said that that's not the outcome that were intending with this. And we've crafted the recommendation to say that that that those homes should be preserved instead of redeveloped and created creating larger footprints. I mean, some of the ideas around Missing Middle is that in general, smaller square footage is far more affordable than larger square footage is. And so obviously, you know, there's prices rise in single unit areas very quickly as well. And so we're trying to address that issue in some of these neighborhoods. What's different also, I'll say about the density approach in the central area, and this is particularly along Colfax and our transit corridors that we're recommending is what we would typically do in a plan like this, where we're planning a high capacity transit facility or BRT along Colfax is we would automatically allow more housing to be built near those transit stations. So that's a planning practice called D.O.T. or transit route development that's been used in Denver, that's been used in almost every city that has high capacity transit, both nationally and internationally as a way to improve carbon pollution, to lower air pollution, to manage traffic better, to allow people to reduce transportation costs. And so that has been the standard that we've used. However, we took a different approach in the East Central area, in part due to the number of shortage of affordable housing units that we researched at the beginning of this process. And what we've said is you do not get any additional units even near our transit stops unless you provide community benefits with the top priority being affordable income restricted units. So that's a different approach than we normally would take and what cities around the world would normally take when you're planning a high capacity transit route. So while we don't use the word guarantee because the city does not itself build affordable housing, we invest in affordable housing, we create policies to encourage and incentivize affordable housing. But we have shifted those policies to say, if you want more, then you have to do more and provide those community assets and affordable housing being one of them.
Speaker 2: So. The issue here, I think, is, you know, if you split a historic home or you reuse a single family home and make it a duplex. There's nobody saying that. In order to do that, you must charge an affordable amount for rent. In fact, they can charge really whatever the market will allow them to charge. And you can say you're in a historic home, so that makes it even more valuable. And so I'm wondering. With that and with Todd development, knowing that Todd development has really backfired on us. Are we incent are we pushing growth in an area without recognizing what causes displacement? When we talk about displacement, it happens because we increase the value of an area for speculators, for developers, for landowners. When we increase the value of the area because we allow more things to be built, we allow more profit to be generated, taxes go up and push people out and cause displacement. And so I'm wondering, you know, when we talk, when we say the city doesn't do affordable housing. How have we fed into displacement with the plans and the way that we drive growth? Have you guys analyzed the growth after we've created a plan in an area?
Speaker 3: Yeah. I mean, that's a it's a insightful question. It's definitely a complicated answer. And it's something that I think all cities that are growing, especially are trying to address. There's the many factors that that you find that contribute to displacement and gentrification. There are some neighborhoods that don't see a lot of development that have rising prices, and there are some neighborhoods that we have development that also see rising prices and vice versa. So it's not just as simple as development causes displacement according to data that we've seen. What we do know is from examples like San Francisco is that when you severely restrict the supply of housing while the city is growing and more people are moving to it, that prices tend to rise very rapidly. And so the thinking around density is where can we place density where people can benefit from infrastructure like transit, like parks and community services so that people have a higher quality of life and that we can manage pollution and carbon emissions in a more appropriate way. And what we've said in this plan is that we should couple those strategies for strategic growth with our affordable housing tools. So included in that missing middle recommendation, which is the infill housing options of duplexes and triplexes and row homes, we've said that we should that we should couple that recommendation with affordable housing tools, such as the pilot study on the West Side, looking at use and creating incentives again for residents who want to become sort of their own developer and develop their own properties and how we can partner with them through other organizations to keep those rents at a reasonable level. And using some of those that same thinking and that pilot on the West Side in this missing middle housing recommendations. And that's that's part of the East Central policy recommendation as well.
Speaker 2: And so my last question, with respect to affordable housing, we got really close to being explicit about what we expect to see from development when we said that height would only be allowed. Four. Originally it was for affordable housing, and then we softened up on that language to say that height would be allowed for a community, substantial community benefit. And we didn't set in stone what a community a community benefit meant. We just gave some examples. Can you explain to me why we softened up on that language? Why we backed up and what could be the unintended consequences of backing up?
Speaker 3: Yeah. I also think that's a really great question. So, yes, we did not limit community benefits only to affordable housing. However, we did say clearly that affordable housing is the top priority through this process. Remember, one. One thing to remember is that this is a long term plan and must be a long term plan. And so it's looking out 20 years. And the hope anyways is that 20 years from now we won't always be in an affordable housing crisis. And so we did put on some additional community benefits. One being that you heard tonight was the issue of small, locally owned businesses being displaced. And so that is an issue that we don't really have many policy tools. The Denver doesn't. Most cities don't. And so we had to think about how we could look at that issue through these creative solutions of using zoning and entitlements. And so we put on the table affordable business space as a way to incentivize that that outcome that we heard from the community. And that's particularly important along corridors like Colfax, where, again, more than 75% of those businesses are small, locally owned independents. So for that reason, we did broaden that recommendation, too, to look at businesses and as well as other things that are in short supply in certain areas. So if there is a food desert, we have said that an affordable grocery store and we we and we were specific about saying affordable grocery stores in affordable daycares where those essential services are needed, where there is accessibility issues. We also clarified, I think, to your concern, Councilwoman CdeBaca, about those details not yet being decided upon, and that's correct. And so we've clarified that those entitlements, those that additional height or density, cannot be granted until council has decided upon those community benefits. And those details are figured out.
Speaker 2: So you're committing that council will get to decide what appropriate community benefits are before CPD makes a recommendation to approve a rezoning on Colfax.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's what's written in the recommendation.
Speaker 2: Awesome. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman. Up next, we have Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Madam President. I've got a couple of questions. Some are somewhat along the lines of others, but I'm going to start with a different set that has not been asked. So first of all, this is probably for you, Kurt. So can you tell me if the same level of outreach was done in in all areas, and was there any concerted effort made in areas that were more predominantly minority, both African-American and Latino?
Speaker 1: You know. So we.
Speaker 3: Did intentionally.
Speaker 1: Hold.
Speaker 3: Community events and workshops geographically, dispersed it in every single neighborhood throughout the three year process. As I mentioned previously, we did shift our resources to be to do disproportionate outreach to those underrepresented groups that contained, you know, the demographics that were that had the disparities. So that was younger, lower income renters in in neighborhoods like Capitol Hill. In terms of your question about racial demographics, the east central area, while there is some diversity in the east central area, I believe and correct me if I'm wrong, the percentage of nonwhite residents in the east central area is, I think, 20 or 30% somewhere . Is that is that correct, Scott?
Speaker 1: It's about 22%.
Speaker 3: Right. And it's pretty widely distributed. I mean, there's no obvious location in East Central area where there is a concentration of people of color. That said, we did try to do outreach to places that are, you know, historically more diverse in terms of their destinations.
Speaker 1: So schools.
Speaker 3: Recreation centers. We target our outreach at places where communities gather. We as was mentioned previously, we did outreach directly to people who've been marginalized, such as people experiencing homelessness. We did pop up events at bus stops in other locations. So we didn't make an effort to try to diversify who we were hearing from. And in the final percentages of plan participants versus the census, demographics of the East Central area was generally consistent in terms of the percentage of nonwhite participants.
Speaker 0: So are you familiar with a Title IX complaint that's been filed? About outreach to I believe it's more concentrated on the Spanish speaking population within the boundaries.
Speaker 1: So there was a Title six complaint.
Speaker 3: Which is the term used in the federal statute, because the portion of this planning process received federal funds that went to the Federal Transit Administration. That's the.
Speaker 1: Other.
Speaker 3: Entity that was the guarantor. And that was several months ago in the complaint. And in that email that was sent to them was that we did not do a mailer as part of our notification process, whereas we did do a mailer in another plan area. And that was that. The complaint is that that was an unfair process that we had. And so we did have a discussion about that. We did evaluate it. We did respond to that complaint to the person and explain why we did what we did. And we found that there was not any kind of violation. Both RTD, which is the overseer of the federal grant that we had as well as the FTA, were not we did not find that there was any title issue with that notification question. We have heard.
Speaker 0: Just to be clear, let me clarify one point. Was the grant isolated to. Just specific conversations around the transportation part of the plan or was it isolated to the BRT? And so my next question after you answer that will be how did the BRT fall into the plan? All the work that's been going on with that.
Speaker 1: Into the short.
Speaker 3: So to your first part of the question, no, the grant was used for all the topics in the plan. So urban design, interpretation, preservation, etc. It wasn't just focused on BRT or the Colfax corridor, however, you know, because it was the Federal Transit Administration who was the Grand Tour. They were the Federal Transit Administration, you know, is also looking at Colfax to be an investor in that Colfax bus rapid transit. And so part of the reason that they give out these grants is to make sure that the land use and other issues like affordable housing are addressed and planned for ahead of that infrastructure, which is why we decided as a city to move forward with the east central in the east area plans ahead of some other parts of the city, because we wanted to make sure that we were being proactive and helping to guide that change that could occur from a huge infrastructure investment like BRT along Colfax and making sure that we're trying to guide that those changes in an equitable as a way possible. So that's kind of how that fits in as we looked at what the impacts of that infrastructure may have and try to create strategies and policies so that the community benefits from that infrastructure in there and we try to minimize any unintended consequences.
Speaker 0: So who who specifically responded from the city of Denver to the the complaint that was filed and was that submitted to the RTA?
Speaker 3: Yeah. I think it was it was submitted to FTA. FTA. So yeah, the Federal Transit Administration, Federal Transit Administration said that the city and RTD being the grant, the grantees should be the one to respond. And so I don't know the exact staff person that responded, but we sent a variety of emails related to this issue of mailer notification to those who are complaining about it.
Speaker 0: Okay. So one of the questions I ask during our budget process is who is our Title six person in the city of Denver? The airport used to have one. We used to have one in the city attorney's office. I don't know that we do have one now. So that's part of why I was asking who responded. And I guess I want to see if our city attorney is on to see if we do have a Title six point person in the city attorney's office as we did before. Of me. If you're on, would you mind chiming in and then I'll jump back to you. Purpose another questions. All right. We're going to go ahead and get Nate promoted up into the Pamela's. And Nate, I'm assuming you're the right person to answer this question. It may need to get bumped above your head, but that you might know since so many of these end up being interface with land use and transportation. I don't see him in our queue. Not yet.
Speaker 3: Or I can say well, always. While we find Nate in this specific instance. I think your question, councilman, our customers take it as a little broader. But in this specific instance, because we were a federal grantee, that RTD was is the the designated call, the designated recipient of federal funds from transit from Federal Transit Administration. So it's really their purview and their role in this instance to be the compliance person for Title six.
Speaker 0: But we were rewarded for responding. But that doesn't answer the question about who our point person is. And if if we get made in, we can maybe plug him in. If I can just continue with a couple more of my questions with Kurt. Do you mind if we move in that direction, Madam President? We can. And I'm getting information here that right now, you know what? I think we have Skye Stewart in our panel, so I'm going to go ahead and look. Okay. I think I can answer that question. That question about Channel six. Okay.
Speaker 2: Sir. Hi, Sky Stuart. Mayor's Office, Council one. We do not have someone assigned in the city attorney's office to that role. It's something that we are talking about. You raised this question during budget hearings and we're working through who is the most appropriate person. It's something that HRC has talked about taking on in the past, but we don't have it officially assigned there. So following up on your question, we're working to get that assigned. It is not someone assigned in the city attorney's office currently.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you for answering that. So all right, proceed with my other questions. So when we look at the height recommendations that are in the document. You know, obviously there are areas that are much higher densities than what exists today. And I want to know if any of the conversation looked at sort of maintaining a floor. And this is very different from what the 38 than Blake looked at. I mean, they looked at raising the density and then anything above that would be, you know, that included affordability could go higher. And if we used today's zoning as the floor and obviously, you know, the the change of the plan doesn't automatically result in the properties. But if we. Looked at setting a floor differently than what we did at 30th and Blake. And then people who want to go up to the levels that are spelled out in the plan could could reason, but it would require the the contribution of affordability. Was that part of the discussion at all?
Speaker 3: So that that gets to sort of the the issue that has been raised in our planning process of like those very specific details. And that that specific question about, I think we were talking about is the base height.
Speaker 1: That we call the floor.
Speaker 3: That's part of the conversation that's going on right now with affordable housing, zoning and seven project in the regulatory process. What we've we've recommended as a policy in the central plan is we didn't answer that specific question. But what we did say is that if you want to go beyond what you have today, you have to provide community benefits with affordable housing being the top priority in terms of where that exact base will go. That question specifically will be answered by that affordable housing and zoning incentive project.
Speaker 0: And that will create a base for the overall area, or will it be a case by case situation where the base is set?
Speaker 3: I think the goal is to create a consistent approach throughout the city and not just a case by case decision.
Speaker 0: Okay. I think that's probably going to be much easier to apply if it's done that way. You know, the other thing I just want to share is that we have seen that where we have encouraged higher densities, it hasn't equal affordability. And until we put the right levers in place and they're not always necessarily incentives, but where we have the right levers, that's where we're going to start to see affordability. Because, I mean, you could look at the Reno area, you could look at downtown, you could look at almost any area of our city or any of our TOD locations. You know, it's not generally where there are affordable projects. You know, some of them have incorporated some affordability, but not by and large. So can you give. Nest played a role in giving input into addressing some of the displacement concerns or recommendations that could have folded into the plan. And how was that incorporated?
Speaker 3: So yeah, Irene and her team announced we formed a interdepartmental working group. They've been a great partner and looking at our affordable housing recommendations, our anti displacement recommendations, along with other staff and host detail and others. And absolutely, I mean, the the neighborhoods in East Central are not one of the nest target areas. But in another project that we're working on in the East Cole Fox neighborhood, that is one of their target areas. And so we were having those discussions simultaneously with the same question about how we're going to get innovative and do everything we can to look at this displacement issue. And so our recommendations were developed in partnership with NEST and other staff members.
Speaker 0: And did that apply both to residential as well as businesses?
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: Displacement issue. Thank you. Can you tell me if the issue of connectivity was part of the discussion so that where we're including or asking any of the development to include affordability, that we're ensuring that connectivity to the Internet, whether it's through Comcast or CenturyLink or whatever, is not a lead behind barrier for for certain communities. And, you know, we've seen this played out in COVID with kids having to work from home and not having the Internet and having to be sent home either with our light by our libraries, with hotspots or other ways to ensure that, you know, lower income children are not being left behind in their education. So did that come up as part of the conversation? I think.
Speaker 1: Poverty covered it.
Speaker 0: Also. That's why I'm asking.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it didn't come up.
Speaker 3: In terms of like those community benefits that we're talking about, which were more a little broader than that. But what we did have as part of our sort of long term vision statement of outcomes was this idea of having free, high speed Internet service in community spaces, whether that's, you know, the rec centers and libraries, even parks and plasma spaces. And so that that concept is in is in the plan.
Speaker 0: Okay. But it didn't come up as part of the actual developments that may be going on, if there are new development, new projects that take advantage of some of the density opportunities.
Speaker 3: You know, not not that not that level.
Speaker 0: Okay. And then just one last question. Jumping back to the BRT. We're. Any of the details that have come out of the whole BRT planning effort incorporated into the the East Central Area Plan. And and can you just sort of highlight where that's at? Is that in the transportation section trying to pull up the.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 3: So really in two and two places, we have a whole section of the plan called the Colfax Corridor section where that linkage between BRT and the plan is, is, is articulated also because we receive extra grant funding through this project, we hired two planners in the Department of Transportation Infrastructure to work exclusively, exclusively on the central plan and east area plan. And so they provided that close coordination with the with the BRT team throughout the process.
Speaker 0: So that got folded into them into this central area plan. Okay. If you could maybe highlight where I find that in the document, is it in the transportation or the transit part of it?
Speaker 3: So yeah, if you look at the Colfax corridor section of the plan, you'll see the BRT stops in a lot of thinking around the land use changes that we've contemplated near those stops. It's kind of sprinkled in many sections of the plan. I mean, the BRT is such a big project. That's how we we for example, the height recommendations along Colfax were considered. You know, there were proximity to BRT stops. Many of the improvements that we've recommended for mobility in the mobility section where we're connecting bike lanes and crossings and pedestrian improvements, are that those station locations were looked at as connections to those as sort of nodes or little hubs along Colfax, so that the concept of BRT was really integral into many, many elements and topics throughout the plan.
Speaker 0: Those were extracted from the BRT plan into this plan.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean.
Speaker 3: It's it's a little of both. Right. So the the recommendations in the East Central Plan are informing the the BRT plan, which is now in the design phase. And everything done ahead of that informed that central plan.
Speaker 0: Okay. I think that's the end of my questions for right now. So. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. And we do have Nate Lucero up in the queue. And so just wanted I know, Nate, you had your hand raised. Wanted to give you an opportunity if you had something to weigh in on the Title six issue.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. I don't have anything in addition to what Sky has already said.
Speaker 0: Thank you, though. All right. Very good. Thank you, Nate. Next up, we have Councilman Hines.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. Mr. Upton, I have some questions for you. I want to start on civil rights. So, as you may know, civil rights are the reason why I am elected official today. And any sort of civil rights complaint is concerning to me. And, you know, my. The reason I'm an elected official is because my interest in protecting the civil rights of working for people with disabilities. So I do I guess I just want to add, in addition to what Councilmember Ortega had mentioned, did you. Have you gotten anything from RTD lately saying that that the Title six investigation is open or closed for what? Those statuses. You know, we've.
Speaker 3: We've heard some sort of rumors in the community that like this that this was done. But we've been checking in with RTD and they have consistently said no, there has been no complaint filed with us. We haven't received any official complaint. I checked with them just as, you know, like a 3:00 today just to make sure. And it was a no.
Speaker 1: It was at 106 today, but yes, this afternoon.
Speaker 3: So sorry, I.
Speaker 1: Was asking you question and knew the answer to you. But but I think it's important that certainly we've heard about the Title six complaint and and you reached out this afternoon. And as we understand, there is no process or complaint under way. So we're. Whether we have a Title six attorney or representative, I think that's another issue. And I think I think Councilmember, take it for for bringing that up. I think that's beyond this particular plan and discussion tonight. But but I do support her. Her concern that. How many public meetings did you hold for that very plan?
Speaker 3: Well, with your help included in that final push, when we did that extension to get more underrepresented residents, we're over 100. I don't know the exact number, but I know it's over 100.
Speaker 1: Okay. Yeah, that's it's good to get a sense of the size of those meetings. How many of them did someone request interpretation or translation services?
Speaker 3: I don't believe I can check. I don't believe anyone ever requested it. And even though all of our community workshops, we did invest quite a bit of resources into making sure that we had professional interpreters available at all of them. And we sent out the all of our outreach materials in both English and Spanish. We didn't get people taking advantage of those at those meetings. And I think that's in part due. It wasn't really surprising because when we're doing our research and we're setting up our communication plan, at the beginning of the process, we were looking at the demographics of the central area and the percentage of limited English to non-English speakers is quite low and the east central area ranges from anywhere from 0% in Congress Park to, you know, around 2% as a high end city Park West, I believe. So it's really around 1% average in the whole East Central Plan. That's different from other plans we do in the West area plan or outreach we're doing out in East Colfax where, you know, we have participants from five or six different languages in the meeting simultaneously and we provide those services. I know in the Far Northeast plan, Councilman Gilmore had a really great relations with many of the Spanish speakers and Latino community up there. And so we had more participants up there, but we just didn't we didn't see it as much in the east central area.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So thank you for that. And and just some of the demographics because someone asked them and. And the response was 80%. The it's actually on page two that the basic I mean, page one is the title page and the page to.
Speaker 3: Date the basic demographics.
Speaker 1: And and this is a I is a very Caucasian district. So 79% or 78.8% are are Caucasian or white in the in the plan area. And that's very close to the to the demographics of our district, ten to so about nine or nine and a half percent Latino. But but many of those are English speaking or maybe bilingual. And there are very few I know that I've not had any concerns with any of my town halls or outreach about native Spanish translation or translation into any other language. But I certainly am willing to accommodate it. Should it should it be necessary? Um, so I want to talk about. So speaking of, you know, um, a bit of diversity. So again, this is a pretty white plan. Um, can you give. So, but as you mentioned, there's diversity in other ways.
Speaker 3: So Miss Robinson.
Speaker 1: Mentioned that.
Speaker 3: 70% of the.
Speaker 1: Of the plan area is renter occupied. Do you know where the highest concentration of owner occupied? Where's that 30%?
Speaker 3: I believe the the highest concentration of owner occupied is in Congress Park.
Speaker 1: And the.
Speaker 3: Southern.
Speaker 1: Portion of cars park. Yeah, well, I would agree with that. So what it was. So let's let's take a snapshot. So Draft One was released in November of 2019, I believe. And and then in February of 2020, I think you and I did a check of where the data elements, the data that we had received so far . Do you do you know where the majority of data points were from at that point?
Speaker 3: Yeah. Scott, can you confirm this? But I recall we had a disproportionate at that point in the process, we had a disproportionately high number of comments and participants from Congress park from that from the car park neighborhood.
Speaker 1: And I want to say for some reason, the number 65 sticks in my head that 65% of the responses or the data a data points were from Congress part and particular South Congress part. So I guess the conclusion I'm trying to draw here is that in some ways it makes sense, but that people who were homeowners in single family homes really represented overrepresented. The demographics in February, I guess, is that. Do you do you think that that's a reasonable. Comment.
Speaker 3: That's right. I mean, that's the other side of the coin of the underrepresented population that we tried to target was we had overrepresentation in the opposite area.
Speaker 1: Yeah. And that's that's also what I'm what I was trying to get at. You mentioned even today that that the lower income renters and younger folks were under underrepresented. If you're also looking at page two, the vast majority of the district, I mean, the majority of the district is millennial, right? So, you know, between 25 and 34, there's a huge spike. Is that? Is that right?
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's right. I mean, generally the east central areas, younger, um, younger and again, huge majority renter.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So I mean, I think it's important just that in context in that, um, you did mention that you, you did some specific targeted outreach and you mentioned Capitol Hill. I think where I'm trying to go with this is you reached out to Capitol Hill because it wasn't because Capitol Hill was the only data point you were trying to get. It was you got a whole bunch of data points from other areas and you were trying to trying to create a more representative set of data based on, as you mentioned, the census data. So the next thing I want to ask about is reach. I think that you mentioned 10,000 data points for your cap at this point, is that right?
Speaker 3: I could do wrong. Yeah. Yeah, over over 10,000.
Speaker 1: And do you know how many data points blueprint got?
Speaker 3: I remember looking at this at some point a while back, but I remember when I looked at the numbers that were in East Central versus Blueprint Denver as they were comparable. I don't know the exact number, but it was surprising to me that we had almost the same level of outreach.
Speaker 1: And blueprint, a citywide plan that I mean, you know, 78 neighborhoods. It covers all 78 neighborhoods. Right. And this is only six neighborhoods. Right. So I just seems kudos to you, I guess is where I'm going with the amount of outreach for this plan is.
Speaker 3: Is on.
Speaker 1: Par with the citywide plan. Yeah, it is just six neighborhoods, though. The last thing that I wanted to ask you about was affordable housing. So I hear some concerns about affordable housing. Yeah. As we heard in the testimony earlier tonight, we have so many affordable housing providers who have spoken out in support of the East Central Area Plan. Can you help me understand how this plan provides benefits for affordable housing, where the market rate providers may not have certain benefits?
Speaker 3: Yeah. I mean, so this is one of the yeah, this is a plan where we looked at this question pretty intensely. We created an entire chapter which was little different than other plans we had done previously. That was all about affordable housing. So we have a number of recommendations, both zoning related and non zoning related. Again, in that partnership we have a host and NEST and other organizations. We did focus groups with affordable housing developers and we really have a robust package of policies and recommendations to look at affordable housing. And I think the one that has gotten the most attention and community feedback has been the one around zoning. And what we've done, as I tried to explain earlier, is with this with this recommendation that says you must provide community benefits if you want to be able to develop higher and more dense. And the priority is affordable housing. I think what that does is it gives an advantage to developers that build affordable housing. So affordable housing developers are now at more of an advantage because all of these properties have an incentive to build in affordable, affordable housing and a disincentive to not build affordable housing. So if you're affordable housing, if you if your job is to build affordable housing, you know, generally you're supportive of this plan, which is why I think you see that the testimony.
Speaker 1: And then so Telluride, the Telluride decision. You know, I would I would admit I am a little. I would like for there to be more affordable housing discussions. Homelessness is the biggest issue facing District ten.
Speaker 3: And the best way to.
Speaker 1: Do to help with homelessness is to provide them homes. And and so, you know, the Telluride decision is a state law that.
Speaker 3: That permit.
Speaker 1: Prevents any political subdivision from allowing rent control. And in the year 2000, the Colorado State Supreme Court decided that any requirement of workforce housing is considered a form of rent control. And so let's there was legislation introduced in the state legislature this year, COVID mix things up. But let's say that in 2021, the the folks at the in in the General Assembly, they pass something that allows us to require affordable housing and all developments. How does that how does that fit into the U.S. Treasury plan? Well, we have to start over. Or will we? Will that plug in to what we've created so far?
Speaker 3: Absolutely. I mean, the, um, you know, the what would result from that would, you know, would just be more affordable housing. Right. So what we've done this really thoughtful research, especially along Colfax, really a lot by lot analysis where we applied criteria on which lots would be most appropriate to add additional density or additional height in which should be preserved from a historic preservation standpoint or just an urban design standpoint. And we really went through that a lot by a lot of analysis and created a very detailed plan of areas, what we want to preserve and this balance of growth and preservation, which is why I think you see the testimony tonight from historic Denver and others who want to see more housing both support. The plan is that if you know, if additional tools like state laws change, that's just going to accelerate and help us meet those housing goals even more than the tools that we have provided. So I think that answers the question.
Speaker 1: Yeah. And I have one other question. We've gotten some feedback today from a registered neighborhood organization that they they're frustrated that their entire earner was not included in the plan boundaries. Can you can you help me identify which what the plan area is, um, by, I'm assuming it's actually, I'm, this is a question I know the answer to and I'm trying to get you to give me the answer anyway. So let me, let me be a little blunter. The plan area we chose statistical neighborhoods right as the boundaries we chose six statistical neighborhoods. Why did you or the city or whoever the powers that be chose choose statistical neighborhoods as a boundary as opposed to registered neighborhood organizations as a boundary. Yeah. So we get.
Speaker 3: This question from time to time. And those statistical neighborhood boundaries were established in the 1970s. They align with census tracts. The city has been using those statistical neighborhood boundaries to track demographic change over the years and as as you know, RINO's basically determine their own boundaries. And so for those reasons we use the statistical boundaries as a way to make sure we're being consistent. We have a basis of research and understanding an area over time so that.
Speaker 1: The statistical boundaries survive through rezonings, sorry. Well, through rezonings too, but through our analysis, they come and go and we're about to do a remapping of our city council districts. But the statistical neighborhood remains the same even through those those reapportionment processes, too, right? Correct. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman Hines. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. I wanted to ask Scott. Simply because I emailed him earlier today in the interest of giving staff adequate time to actually answer a question with preparation. But it would help me very much in analyzing this. It was enough to read through the plan itself, but it supplants for existing neighborhood plans. I think it's uptown. And what are they? Uptown Capitol Hill, Cheesman Park, Congress Park and the East Colfax Plans. It would really help me analyze this if I better understood in what ways are we perhaps radically changing those existing plans to something else, and in what ways are we keeping or retaining some of the elements of those existing plans? That would help me understand how much change these these neighborhoods might reasonably expect over the next 20 years with with the E cap. So, Scott, again, did I give you enough time to to love that or to analyze that question? Yes. Yeah. Thank you for saying that to us. And it's a great question. One of the first things we did in this planning process was read through those existing plans. One of the recommendations in those plans of whether it was still relevant or not or things have changed and no longer made sense, all of those into the new plan. But a lot of these plans are fairly old, including the Up to Never Plan, which was 34 years old now. And he's never that's been a very different situation when a lot of these plans were written in the eighties and nineties by the mayor. So a lot of the recommendations just make sense. Back then, there was a lot of concern about encouraging reinvestment in these neighborhoods. That is never as it seems for disinvestment for the recent years. And there's concern about how do we get people to move into these neighborhoods and spend money on these neighborhoods? And as we know, that's not the issue we're facing today. We're facing the opposite issue that we have a lot of people that want to live in these neighborhoods and not enough housing. And these old plans didn't really deal with housing at all. And as we've talked about tonight from our housing is a major component of this neighborhood plan or the new neighborhood, and that's just one example . So the ceasefire plan is significantly different than what these old plans had. That, I think, reflects how the city's evolved over the last 25 to 35 years. You recall offhand of those four plans, how old were each of those? Uptown. When was that? Yeah, uptown was 1986. 86, 86? Yes. That's before Councilman Hines was born, I think. And he lives there now. The Capital Hill Cheeseman Park Plan is 1993, I believe the current plan is 1995 and East Colfax Plan is 2004, I believe. Okay. Thank you. I. I also wanted to ask. Well, the other question I e-mailed you has already been addressed here. And I was about the the ethnic and racial makeup of the steering committee. And I hear that you addressed that earlier. So thank you. Or maybe Kirk did. I don't know who's best to address this. Last question. I have maybe, Kurt. We've talked about a lot about affordable housing. I'm still a little unclear on how this plan incentivizes it. What I see is encouragement, actually, maybe discouragement that's wrong said encouragement not to demolish. And I don't that's a double negative or something. In order to add units to existing properties as opposed to scraping, I know we love to throw around this term gentle density. I, I look at gentle density as displacing you with a smile because the neighborhoods where I've seen it happen. My aide, Dana montano, bought her grandmother's house when she and Albert were married. Her now late husband sold it off in the nineties. And we look that up recently. It's in Philip Park and it was valued by the assessor the last time in 2016 at 169 nine, it was bought and demolished a year later for almost 300, replaced with duplex units that each sell for about $600,000. So like Councilwoman Black and some other members, I have a concern that that we keep doing these things thinking that will produce one result. Yet they keep producing the other. Resolving Telluride, as, as Councilman Hines mentioned, won't solve that problem because this is private investors building new housing, selling it on the open market. So I worry about this gentle density. So how does cap. Do a better job at encouraging affordability. I read through and I saw the you know, maybe we can relax the bulk plane requirements or rear setbacks to discourage demolition. Is that it? And also is in this plan that will actually accomplish this goal.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think that's that's a great question, Councilman Flynn. I mean, like I said before, there's a number of recommendations. We have a whole.
Speaker 1: Affordable.
Speaker 3: Housing section of the plan that gets into things like trying to prevent the expiration of covenants and more more of those program programmatic recommendations. But to your specific point about the general density or the infill housing density, it's again, a small portion of the east central area that's that this that that recommendation applies to. But in our partnership with historic Denver and discover Denver through this process, um, we have a, we have a Discover Denver survey so that we surveyed all of these neighborhoods for historical significance and the single unit areas where that recommendation would apply are historically significant. And so for multiple reasons, not for the reasons you said which, which are, which we agree with. And it has been a point of view that's shared through our process about demolishing smaller bungalows and replacing them with larger monster, like maximize every square inch of the zoning that you have. We explicitly have said in our policy that that's not what we should be encouraging, right? That's not the outcome we want to happen. And if the recommendation says that if additional housing units are added in these areas, the actually have to preserve the existing structure if it's historically significant. And all of these areas where this would apply are historically significant. So that's the approach is it's it's encouraging a preservation and it's discouraging that scrape and, you know, the sort of McMansion style homes.
Speaker 1: Right. All right. We also have some interest we also have more specific versions about encouraging programs to provide dedicated, affordable housing when these new units are added. So I feel like that recommendation 11 in the plan, it has recommendations specifically about the. A missing Middle East is built into these neighborhoods. Look at programs that can help them get built and then as part of that help requiring affordability in those units. All right. I will I will look at that while the rest of the debate goes on. 11. Thank you, Madam President. That's all I have at the moment.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Councilman Hines, you're back up.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. Mr. Upton, people keep moving to Denver. Does de discourage people moving to this plant area?
Speaker 3: No, I think it is balance again. We come up with a balanced approach to allowing for the projected growth. So one of the first things we did was we looked at the 2040 Dr. Card housing and job projections, and we made sure that the land use recommendations could accommodate those housing and job projections. And while still putting into place policies to address that housing shortage that we had, especially at the lower income levels and trying to balance that with historic preservation. So that was kind of that balanced approach that we took.
Speaker 1: So a lot of people are moving to Denver because of jobs, because we've suddenly gained a lot of jobs and because of access to outdoor activities. Does or can ICAP discourage people moving here for jobs or outdoor activities?
Speaker 3: No.
Speaker 1: Okay. And then what about in 2020? We've got people moving here from.
Speaker 3: The coast because.
Speaker 1: They're climate refugees. You know, the West Coast is on fire and is flooding and the East Coast is. Is there anything in the U.S. plan that discourages people to move into the six neighborhoods because of. Global warming.
Speaker 3: I don't. Yeah, I don't think so.
Speaker 1: So I guess so. If we had people moving to Denver for a whole bunch of reasons, does that affect housing affordability?
Speaker 3: Yeah. Like I previously mentioned, you know, it's something that we look at in making sure that housing supply is keeping pace with the number of population moving to.
Speaker 1: To Denver. Yeah. I mean, I'm not trying to I guess I'm not trying to be critical of you. I'm trying to say it's very difficult for us when we have a perfect place to live and people really want to live here. And and so, you know, if we could keep the factors, just the people who are existing in the area plan and not have anyone else move to the area, I think we could we could perhaps tackle housing affordability a little bit better than one when we have a whole bunch of people really care because because it's a perfect slice of our planet. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman Hines. I have one remaining question. My other questions were asked by my colleagues, either Kerr or Scott. Are any of the bus rapid transit plans, are they funded or will they be funded in 2021?
Speaker 3: So we do have dodgy staff if you want to get into specifics. But it's my understanding that the next phase of the Colfax Bus Rapid Transit Project is funded through a general obligation bond funding. They're moving forward with that project and advancing the phase. I think. I think Mike Gill is on the call. If you have any follow ups or don't want more specifics on that, he's that he's in charge of that project.
Speaker 0: Okay. You know what? We'll go ahead. I just as long as we know that that you're considering something and I'm not seeing him raise his hand right now, so. Oh, there you go. Mike, do you want to go ahead and chime in?
Speaker 1: Yeah. I missed a little bit of the conversation when I was being promoted, but the question was around the next phase of the BRT, we do have about $5 million in city funds from previous years, as well as $55 million in the 2017 go bond that's available for this next phase. And that's what we're moving forward with, our NEPA clearance and the design phase.
Speaker 0: Okay. Great. Thank you. That was the the question I wanted answered. So. Thank you. The public hearing for Council Bill 20 dash 0930 is closed. Comments by members of Council. Councilman Hines.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. I want to open my comments by thanking more, thanking everyone who is still here, because this is obviously a long conversation, but this is an important conversation. But I also want to thank Councilman Cashman. When I was elected, he quote, he was quoted as calling me an urbanist. If only I had known that word before I was elected, I definitely would have used it. So to me, urbanism is about having places where people want to be and having places where people want to go. I talked a lot about the concept of a 20 minute neighborhood. Basically, we all deserve the opportunity to be close to things. We need to survive and thrive all within a 20 minute walk or role as in no cars. We live in the real world, not Narnia. But I still think that District ten is pretty darn perfect. Much of what makes District Ten so perfect is that we're a slice of the city where people want to live, work and play. I've lived in the East Central Area playing boundary since 2007, and I personally followed this plan since before I was a candidate. I sat on a blueprint representing Central Denver for a while and it's a central area plan was a natural extension. Obviously, my role now is different than than in 2017, but I definitely had a long view of the process. DeKalb extends Blueprint Denver and pushes that concept of the 20 minute neighborhood further to the forefront. It means adding reasonable density where it makes sense, like Colfax as an example, and limiting additional density where it doesn't make sense . Like, for example, in South Congress Park. It also means a limit reducing or eliminating certain areas of proposed additional density. As an example, the plan had at one time a proposed additional density around the businesses in Congress Park. And after hearing from the neighbors, those those proposed additional density areas were removed because it was clear that's not what the neighbors wanted. So as you've heard, this plan has been endorsed by numerous organizations, including the OMB, Denver, Denver Streets Partnership, Colfax and Blueprint BID's Neighborhood Development Collaborative, including our 15 Affordable Housing and Social Service Providers. And historic Denver. These are very different organizations with different priorities. Yet this plan finds a way to appeal to each of them. There are elements. There are elements on the planet supporting local businesses, housing affordability, addressing homelessness, vision zero and historic preservation. Again, just one example. 54% of Congress parks homes were built before 1940. And this plan, encouraged, encourages preserving those buildings to preserve the character of the neighborhood. This includes encouraging more historic districts, creating adaptive reuse ordinances to to encourage reuse of a building rather than a scrape. And it even encourages expanding private property rights for people with historic homes so that they can make better use of their own property. The intent is to provide additional tools to preserve our city's character rather than demolish it for the next McMansion. District ten and cap as some of the oldest neighborhoods in the city. And I'm glad that helps the city and property owners preserve that beauty, even if it's in Capital Hill, Cheeseman or Congress part. I do want to provide two cautions for recap just like everyone, most everyone else. This isn't exactly what I wanted either. First, I wish there were more affordable housing in the plan. Still, this isn't really a I don't believe a problem with the plan. It's more to do with the laws that handcuff our ability to require affordable housing. State legislation was introduced in 2020 to preserve reverse the Telluride decision, but COVID decided to upend that bill along with lots of others. I continue to encourage everyone to contact their state legislators to ask them to reverse Telluride and to give us all political subdivisions, including Denver. The tools we need to do what is clearly demanded by the people of Denver.
Speaker 2: Second.
Speaker 1: I'm saddened by the amount of misinformation that is that surrounds this plan. We've talked about this before as a council, and I want to bring it up again for this discussion right now. Denver law says Ana's are the way we should communicate with the people and the way people should respond. It's it's clear that that communication process needs improvement. And and it is no more front and center than with the central plan. Here's a troubling point. We've got all of us have received a bunch of email in the last 24 hours, and about half of them that I analyzed don't even live in the plan area. It's trouble. Troubling for two reasons. First, because they believe they're in the plain area. They after all, they signed it saying that they were eastern shore area plan residents, but they're not. Second, there are maps of the plan area on pages two, three, four, ten, 13, 14, 16, 17, twice on page 18 and all over the, etc. airplane document. So and if you prefer words instead of images, you don't have to read beyond the first sentence of the first page to get the list of included neighborhoods. So it suggests that people were taking positions without even looking at the plan at all. That's okay. If the if the information people are using to base their position is accurate and if the process is transparent, I'm not certain that is the case. So. One of the things that we did me we as in the district office, is we assisted that conversation between government and its people. I asked to delay the planned process. I didn't just ask for the delay without doing anything. We dedicated 100% one of the one of the team in district office to the essential airplane outreach. We fired thousands of residents. We partnered with property management companies who sent emails to their renters about etc. area plan. We held 14 additional community events and several train the trainer events to some of our events. Had a few people and one presentation had more than 150 people. There was so much outreach that my office had a scheduled event at bang up to the elephant in Capitol, an unknown to us. One of our trainers also had an early plan program at the exact same time and the exact same venue. As I understand it, the outreach more than doubled the data points thanks to that extra 30 day extension and more importantly, increased responses in areas that were underrepresented before outreach. 83% of this plan houses districts and residents. I want to thank them sincerely for their time and their fair consideration of others interests, not just their own. When it comes to the future of our beautiful city, it takes courage to change our approach to land and land use, transportation and climate as we move forward. I want to thank the steering committee members for their time, because I don't think anyone received 100% of what they wanted throughout this process. I also want to thank my team. We augmented city staff and our nose with outreach and I want to thank all of them for the extra work and stress during this process. I believe it is a strong plan thanks to CPD with help from so many other stakeholders and I urge my colleagues. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman CdeBaca.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. First, I'd like to thank everybody, Scott, Kurt, everyone else in CPD who put an endless amount of time into seeking input, including you. Councilman Chris. Councilman Hines. I appreciate all of that. And as much as input is important, all the input in the world doesn't matter if we don't heed the recommendations and deal with the concerns that people raise. I personally really love the adaptive reuse and change of use elements and the historic preservation pieces of the plan. And I want to thank her for acknowledging that I was the only person of color on the steering committee after inheriting Councilman Brooks seat. While the makeup of the steering committee was very disturbing. They were appointed largely by my predecessor and fortunate for me, Frank Lo Cantor was very graceful in addressing several instances of inappropriate comments around race and class from other steering committee members. So a huge thank you to Frank for helping in that way as the only person of color on the steering committee for the tail end. Responding to the articulated plan, I was extremely disturbed to have to have had a conversation in our very last meeting where we had to literally define social equity because not all of the members of the committee had heard the words or heard of the words or their meaning. We had several moments where I had to challenge committee members on comments about affordable housing not being appropriate, an appropriate community benefit, because it would bring down property values and comments that we needed to clean up the seedy parts of Colfax. I'm very frustrated by things mentioned by several other speakers tonight, including Miles. Miss Camacho and Joe Miles brought up the BRT traffic modeling, the design, the parking, the walking density, the walking and density studies that they requested and the alternate B BRT stops that were never really included. And but this whole plan was catalyzed by BRT. So I felt like not blending those two things together, the way that members were asking for it to be blended was problematic. I wish that we were having separate conversations about the mobility and safety component because from the few meetings that I was able to attend pre-COVID, most residents , especially the frustrated ones, they didn't appreciate tackling the potential for upcoming density with the needed safety, street measures and bike lanes. And so I wish those were separate and I support a lot of those elements in the plan. But our office had over 620 residents voiced their opposition to this plan. I think we need to be really careful about believing that will be able to meet our missing middle needs with a plan that doesn't explicitly define housing needs that must be met. The height incentives are even looser here in this plan than they were in the high incentives in the 38th and Blake overlay. And those incentives didn't yield any affordability. Everywhere in my district on the south side of Colfax, on the north side of Colfax is proof that more density doesn't equal affordability. While many of the neighborhoods in District ten have had plans, neighborhood plans in as old as many years as I am old, my district happens to have almost all of our neighborhoods have a neighborhood plan, and they're relatively recent. And what we know is that first comes the plan, then comes the rapid displacement and gentrification. And so I want us to be very cautious about that. Incentives without a mechanism to actualize affordability will once again open the doors to rampant development and accelerated displacement, particularly for the 70% of renters in this corridor, with the majority of the area relying on benevolent landlords to maintain affordability. I'm very concerned about how how rapidly land speculators will pounce on the opportunities presented for massive redevelopment along this corridor as long as they include community benefits. Community benefits that could range from parks, a swimming pool for the elite to affordable housing for those who actually need it. I'd love to believe that the insight, the height incentives.
Speaker 0: Open the open, the.
Speaker 2: Market for affordable, affordable housing developers, as mentioned. But the price of land is the first barrier to any benevolent build. This plan exponentially increases the value of land along the corridor with seven votes and nothing else for those reasons. I can't.
Speaker 0: Support this plan as it stands.
Speaker 2: Without firming up our expectations for affordable housing development and defining in the plan what our priorities are around community benefits. So with that, I'm a no tonight. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. Up next, we have Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 2: Thanks, Madam President. And thank you, Councilwoman CdeBaca and Councilman Hines, for your great comments. I just have a few things to say. One is that although most of you know, I am a lifelong resident of Southeast Denver, I actually was born in the East Central Area Plan area at Saint Joseph's Hospital many, many, many, many years ago . So in my district, unlike yours, Councilwoman Sayed Abarca, we do not have one neighborhood plan ever in the history of Southeast Denver. So I have been pushing for a long time for some plans in my district. And so when we have one in my district, I want it to be more like the far northeast area plan where everyone came to our council meeting to tell us how much they loved it. So this controversy with this one is really troubling me. And so I just want to express my concerns to CPD as we move forward with future area plans. I don't like this current controversy. I think it makes us all feel really uncomfortable. I feel like we need to listen to all of our residents. And right now I feel like we're having a war between NIMBYs and NIMBYs, and I feel like there's got to be a middle ground somewhere. So I hope moving forward we can find a middle ground that more people are happy with what we're doing. I also have concerns that our areas are too big. They're they're massive. I know we're trying to do a lot in it in a relatively short amount of time, even though it's going to be more than a decade . But these areas are they're just so completely different. Every neighborhood within the plan is so unique and so different. And I think that's part of the reason we're seeing that the disagreement and the controversy that we're seeing tonight, I don't know if there's a way we can divide them up some more, but I do think that that's going to end up. Having more opposition as we move forward. I also am concerned, I mentioned this earlier that there are too many CPD efforts going on and there are siloed. I think we need to talk about all of them together with our community members so they understand everything that we're doing. And they don't just hear about one thing and they get comfortable with that. And then lo and behold, something else pops up and they're like, Well, but you didn't tell me about that one. So I do have concerns about that. We can talk about it later. And as I think most of us mentioned tonight, we have concerns that density results in affordability when that's not what we've seen at all in Denver. So that's something else I have huge concerns about. I will be supporting this. I feel like there is overwhelming support for it. I appreciate Councilman Hines. It's predominantly in his district and he's an enthusiastic supporter of it and I will be supporting it. And I look forward CPD with working with you on the Near Southeast Area Plan, which is a tiny part of it is in my district. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Up next, we have Councilman Sawyer.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. I also want to thank everyone the staff and steering committee and community members, and especially the council members who participated in the process. These plans are incredibly time consuming and a really complex task full of trade offs and tough conversations. So I really appreciate the hard work that went into this. And I think, you know, no matter whether you're a supporter of this plan or not, I really admire the dedication of the group of people who came together to get this done and what they've accomplished over the last three years. So I think this is a tough decision. I think from the testimony that I heard tonight, some of the community is voicing its frustration really with the process. And based on my own personal experience in the area, you know, in the East Area plan, you know, I can I can understand that concern. I can understand that frustration. This is the first area planned to go through in an area that was already settled because the far northeast plan was adopted. Yeah, it was adopted a year and a half ago. But that plan covers an area that was largely undeveloped. And so it was it had different challenges, I think, and broad community support, certainly much broader community support than this one. So I think this plan and the East Area plan are different because they're they're the first plans that are involving neighborhoods that are fully built out and where there are people who are already there. And there are some tough lessons that were learned by CPD in the process around these plans that are just sort of a different situation than that first plan. But I really appreciate that CPD took the time to slow down and, you know, really reengage the community in partnership with the council office and ensure broader and more thoughtful engagement in the community. We've heard a lot of testimony about how different organizations, especially District ten, council office and CPD, some of the neighborhood organizations steering committee, worked hard over the last year to bring awareness of the plan to the community, particularly to the renters who hadn't previously heard about it. And I think to the our, you know, community of residents who are experiencing homelessness, which is incredible. I mean, that's unheard of in the city and county of Denver. And I don't I'm not sure that we have really celebrated that enough tonight. I'm not sure that we've really, like, taken a moment to celebrate that enough tonight. Think about what we just said. When has that ever been done before in the history of the city and county of Denver? That's amazing. And say what you will about this plan. The fact that that was done is really incredible. And you guys should all be incredibly proud of yourselves that you were a part of that because that is a big deal. And I just don't think that we really stopped tonight to think about that for a second. So I just want to really make sure that we do that for a minute here and celebrate that because it needs to be celebrated because that is that's really important that that we took the extra time and the extra thought to be inclusive, because that should have been happening this entire time and it wasn't. And so thanks for doing that. So and I think it's really important to recognize, you know, this wasn't some backroom process that was secretive and created only by the wealthy and well-connected. I think one of the things we as council members here so often is that, you know, things backroom deals happen and things are done and we find out about it later as a community members, that's not what happened here. And that's really amazing and really important. So, you know, I talk all the time about how I truly believe that under the principles of Plan 2040 and Blueprint 2019, all of our neighborhoods are better off with a plan than without a plan. But really, the question is, is this the right plan? Does this plan achieve its purposes? Right, because no plan is perfect. But is this is this plan, you know, does it do what we need it to do? And, of course, we all wish that the neighborhood plans went further to guarantee affordability. You know, Telluride severely limits us. And so I also want to just please put out there to everyone and anyone in the state who is listening right now. Please tell you ride has got to go. It is crushing us and we will live with, you know, this missing middle for for a very, very long time and the consequences of Telluride for a very, very long time. Because we've lived with it for 20 years and it's it's ridiculous. So, you know, everyone on the stage, please, this has got to be fixed. But I digress. Thoughtful development doesn't mean no development. And I say that all the time. Our city is going to grow because cities that don't grow die. And that's not what we want. We but we've got to grow in a way that makes sense. And so the question is, does this plan make sense? And I think the answer is it's not perfect, but it does. It focuses growth along the Colfax corridor, where it belongs and where those additional residents can help support our local businesses. So that that makes sense. You know, no one is going to get everything that they want when it comes to these plans and everyone has to give. And that means no one is going to be completely happy with how the plan has turned out. Everyone's a little disappointed and everyone's a little mad, and that's probably the way it should be. And from what I heard tonight, that's kind of what I wanted to hear. That's a signal of success. Some people telling us that there isn't enough density in the plan. Some people testifying that there's too much development and density in the plan. To me, that's indicative that we have found a good middle ground and that's an indication that we are sort of where we should be with this plan. And so that means that I will be supporting it tonight. So thank you very much.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. There's enough from the principals in the process of this plan for me to support it. However, I agree with Councilman, said Abarca, that I'm not comfortable that we really do have the techniques in place to prevent displacement or to guarantee affordable housing emerges out of this plan. And so I just heard, just to keep our shoulder to the wheel, to find those tools for a while. Well, I support what's been said about the need for changes to give us more flexibility in affordability. Lacking those tools, we need to figure this out. So I would continue to look in that direction. I think the outreach budget needs to be larger. I believe it's been a substantial effort. And that said, I know some of the people who've testified tonight that were dissatisfied with that process. And I there are people I respect. So I believe there were some holes that can be patched. I think that is very frequently the case. And again, we need to keep trying to figure that out. As Councilman Hines brought up, you know, the the way we don't send out information into the community and the way we expect the community to respond to us is a bit of a piece of Swiss cheese. And again, it has holes that need to be patched and we need to get that done. As far as one part of the process that I wanted to look at is, you know, having been a journalist for a long time, I would write articles about processes like this that unfold over a period of years. And inevitably, when the bulldozers are at the door, people are I never heard about this. No one ever told me about this. I think we need to recognize that that is a fact of life. And so when we get to that last stage where we're ready to go, then we need to put on the brakes as a matter part of that process and understand we need more time. And at that last stage, we need to put out another blast and let people know, hey, the bulldozers are here. Here's what's going on and give it that one last time for public input. That said, I you know, I thank the staff and I thank the hundreds of neighbors who participated and lent their ideas. I feel for those who don't feel that they were heard, and that's always a tough piece of this. But as I said at the beginning, I think I'm hearing enough about the process and the principles that that I can give this my support and being one of the next council people up for the Near Southeast plan, that will begin, it looks like early next year. I'll be looking to do my best to help fill those those blanks that need to be filled. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Madam President. Some of my comments have been made by my colleagues on both sides of this issue. I also would like to say thank you to our staff from CPB, Kurt and Scott, and the consultants that worked with you, and all of the neighbors who participated and gave input on all sides of this issue. We received quite a bit of email communications from both sides on this issue, and I've tried to listen intently. I had not taken a position one way or the other until listening to all the input here tonight. I appreciate the the concerted effort to include the historic preservation component. I think that's important in trying to recognize the value of some of our historic structures that we have throughout our city. And without speaking to it and including it in our plans, it doesn't always happen. I also appreciate the inclusion of Nest into the conversation about how do we move forward to include displacement measures to ensure that development doesn't always equal displacement and gentrification. As we had heard about concerns about outreach to some of our minority populations that have language differences. I think it is critical that we always adhere to following the Title six guidelines, and I would appreciate if we get a copy of the response that the Federal Transit Administration sent back to RTD, and I heard that that does exist. So I think it would be helpful for us to see that. Lastly, the conversation about the fact that CPD is already engaged in discussion about looking at Bass Heights as one of the levers, if you will, that can be used to. Address. You know, where we can include affordability, which is. Different from Telluride. I think council needs to be included in that conversation. It can't just be a CPD discussion. I think we need to have some input into that before it's a final product that's brought to us for adoption, assuming that includes, you know, approval by council. But I think we would all want to have some, some input into looking at that and sharing our thoughts and feedback before anything is finalized, whether it includes council input or not. And I just think that this has had a lot of input on all sides. And I am. Concern that we were not able to accommodate Ms.. Camacho just knowing there was a Title IX complaint filed around language issues and somehow we should have been alerted so that we could have accommodated ensuring that her voice was was heard as she shared it with us. And I appreciate that. Councilwoman CdeBaca, you know, tried to interpret what she was saying for us. And, you know, I know at the end she asked the question about how are we ensuring that that we are covering languages as one of the things. And and I did hear from our staff that that was accommodated. But I also heard from the community that on the front end of the process, it took people speaking to that issue on multiple occasions before some of the materials started getting copied. You know, in in Spanish. In English, before there were interpreters. Interpreters accommodated at some of the meetings. And I think this just needs to be our norm moving forward on any neighborhood plans where we identify what specific languages are needed to incorporate the materials and to find the right people to help ensuring that we're capturing the voice of those communities where needed. I will be supporting this tonight. I think there's a lot of work that's gone into this. I attended at least two meetings in the community where the central area plan was discussed. And, you know, I saw that the staff was listening intently, whether everybody's. Input was folded into every component. That doesn't always happen. But I think this this is one that looks like it has that balance to it. And so I will be supporting it to my. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman Torres.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much. Just want to thank the team, CPD and.
Speaker 0: Particularly the council offices of Councilman CdeBaca.
Speaker 2: And Hines. It really does take that partnership.
Speaker 0: With those offices. You know, I'm heavily.
Speaker 2: Involved in my own area plan and we're still working our way through some similar issues of reach. You know, feeling like you can fully inform 50,000 people.
Speaker 0: In a constantly.
Speaker 2: Changing city is a really difficult task. So I thank you for the three years of that effort.
Speaker 0: And and really being able to show that you made some really diligent outreach. It takes it takes that depth.
Speaker 2: The resources and time that everyone put into this.
Speaker 0: Are most important. Working council is.
Speaker 2: Land use and it always comes back.
Speaker 0: To plan compliance.
Speaker 2: So.
Speaker 0: That these plans.
Speaker 2: Really speak to what a neighborhood.
Speaker 0: Wants at the end of the day, and what they.
Speaker 2: Want to see their community grow into is really difficult.
Speaker 0: To come to a singular decision about. So I appreciate.
Speaker 2: The hard work that you.
Speaker 0: All put into it.
Speaker 2: I will be supporting tonight and just want to thank all the folks who have been involved, the duration of the project, but even those who came in at any point during that that.
Speaker 0: Period of time and tried to come up.
Speaker 2: To speed. It is lengthy. It is a huge document. It is complex and sometimes hard to see how does it affect my home and my property and my family? And sometimes in the face of that, it just creates resistance.
Speaker 0: And we have a lot of.
Speaker 2: Resistant communities and neighborhoods and.
Speaker 0: Homeowners.
Speaker 2: In the city, and we've got to be willing to.
Speaker 0: Be adaptable for a greater good. So thank you to CPD and to my colleagues. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilwoman Torres. And I'll go ahead and add my comments. The far northeast plan has been referenced a few times, and I have to say, myself and Councilman Herndon, we were relentless in. Pushing back and asking CPD when they said, We want 15 members on the steering committee. We went back and forth and I think we got it to either 18 or 20 members on the steering committee. And that is how you're welcoming and engaging folks and KCUR and Scott and your team. I want to thank you for the work that you've put into this and also Councilman Hines and Councilwoman CdeBaca. But you also need to have the representation. And it's unfortunate that we didn't have more people of color engaged in this process. And unfortunately, this is we're starting to see a pattern, I think, with CPD and the engagement, that it's not where we need it to be. It's not where community wants it to be. You've got to build that trust with folks. And even for some of the the monolingual folks that we had on the steering committee, I believe we even had some that shared a position so that we weren't taking up individuals time unnecessarily, that they could kind of tag team it and that we could get more outreach that way. And everything was always translated. Even if my council office had to do the translation, we translated it because it was that important that we knew we needed to have that, and so we were going to go that extra step. And so I would just ask that CPD really reevaluate how you're authentically engaging with community. And if you have one person of color and that is the elected councilperson for that area, that's not good enough. That's a point where. There should be a pause and there should be a recalibration. And I understand that this process has been going on for three years and there's been engagement, and there's about 70% of the folks that live in this area are renters. But we've got to up our game as a city and be more responsive to what those in our community who. Maybe don't have the privilege and the power to push their way in the door. We've got to open up that door and make sure that it's the right door that they want to come through and continue to do that over and over and over again. And I know a lot of times in the far northeast plan, I'm sure our planners were like. She's overdoing it. They're doing too much. But that's the work that we did. And that's why I believe we didn't have a big push back. And it wasn't contentious because we did that work upfront. And I appreciate all the community members that spoke and even in favor or in opposition. I'm glad that we were able to hear you and the comments of my colleagues tonight as well. And I'm I'm going to support this because there's been three years worth of work put into this and thousands and thousands of comments. But I also want to. Really point out the deficits that we're continuing to see and hear from CPD. And I'm not blaming the particular members that presented tonight. I think that this is indicative of. A larger conversation that needs to be had among CPD staff and administration to make sure that we're truly getting this right because this can make or break a neighborhood. And the one thing I would say, Councilman Hines and Councilwoman CdeBaca, there is going to be parts of this plan that you're going to have to go to bat on, that maybe CPD planners are trying to do something or shape something, and it's not the intent of the community. And we've had occurrences of that. And so we've had to go back and kind of call the bluff on it. Is that really what the community said or did the community say that because they were trying to get to a different outcome, not more of the same, and to really have those conversations. And so I will be supporting it tonight, but not without a bit of frustration and also sadness that we're at this point in the city around equity. And we're still, unfortunately, having some of these same conversations. Madam Secretary, roll call. Black.
Speaker 2: I. See tobacco? No. Clark.
Speaker 1: All right.
Speaker 0: Flynn.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Herndon.
Speaker 1: I. Hence I.
Speaker 2: Cashman. I can h i. Ortega.
Speaker 0: I. Sawyer.
Speaker 2: I. Torres.
Speaker 0: I. Madam President. Bye. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results one day.
Speaker 2: 11 Eyes.
Speaker 0: 11 Eyes Council Bill 930 has passed. On Monday, November 2nd, Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 965, changing the zoning classification for 4714 North Bryant Street in Sunnyside and a required public hearing on Council Bill 983, changing the zoning classification for 1790, South Humboldt Street and University and a required public hearing on Council
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance approving and accepting the East Central Area Plan, which plan shall become a part of the Comprehensive Plan 2040 for the City and County of Denver pursuant to the provisions of Section 12-61 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code.
Adopts the East Central Area Plan, as part of the city’s Comprehensive Plan. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 9-15-20.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_09282020_20-0813
|
Speaker 2: Uh. Two mailings to 400 persons who live in the neighborhood, both members of the Church Crazies Association and Nonmembers. 500 plus fliers were sent out with the mike to a survey, and there were multiple postings on social media. From that output, we got 228 respondents. A plurality favored the redevelopment plan and control run by Mr. Dick and the City Planning Department. With, depending on the specific location on the sites, 47 to 50%. Yes. In favor of the redevelopment and 37 to 40% no. So definitely a plurality favor of the redevelopment. The primary reason given was this the sites have been vacant for many years and. Mr. McKinnon showed us development, illustrations and visuals which suggested that the authors would be breaking through. Thank you for your time and I appreciate your looking into this.
Speaker 0: Thank you, John. Treating treatment is up next. Sorry for mispronouncing name.
Speaker 2: Tredinnick, but thank you. And my name is John Tredinnick, 3605 Cedar Avenue, Denver, Colorado. Good evening, Madam President, and our council members. I'm here speaking on behalf of the Cherry Creek East Association. You may know that they are rhino and they already know that that house, three of the four properties I was president of the association last year work with Bill Tanner, who headed my development committee. I serve as a board member this year and I've been authorized to speak on behalf of the board. Let me just start by saying there is a strong bias not to approve more than three stories in our neighborhood that probably won't surprise you, but we always listen to developers and their proposals, and that was the case here over the past 18 months, the board and particularly the development committee worked extensively with the macKinnon Group, that there were multiple presentations, including presentations, to get an idea of what was important, to explain what they were going to try to do, etc., and also presentations to the board . After we got some of our ideas shaped up, we had several community meetings. Those were in-person meetings. You might have heard about those where people actually come together and yell at each other instead of over Zoom. No, we had two, two very good sessions where we talked about issues and what would be important to the community. And we worked extensively with the macKinnon Group on these points. Ultimately, we did a very extensive survey which Bill Tanner has talked about. I'll leave it at that. But they made a lot of effort to not only reach out to not just all our members, but all our contacts in the community, and then people put fliers out to get that feedback. And that was done before we entered into negotiations. I then formed a negotiations group and worked closely with Lou Rader, Cherry Creek North, because there's a property on the north side and we thought we could work better working together. We also worked closely with the Hilltop folks who joined in ultimately, but we did the negotiations. And Lou Rader wrote up an extensive agreement that we think not only protects the community and met their needs or meets their needs, but will end up with a great a great project. So the board we shared all the negotiations with the community, shared the documents we created. The feedback I got after that was almost unanimously in favor. There are a few people that were not. That's to be expected and our board support supported the proposal 8 to 3. We think these are good projects for the community and for Denver. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, we have Jesse Paris.
Speaker 2: Then even the members of council could not be heard. Mm hmm.
Speaker 0: Go ahead.
Speaker 2: Um, so this rezoning meets all the criteria of the. Not going to change your mind on this. I just had to question on the first question is, what were the three letters of opposition? And the second question is, was there a traffic study done for this reason on Colorado Boulevard? Because that's either that or one of the speakers has already mentioned or traffic issues over here, especially on First and Colorado. So I want to see if there was a traffic study done on this. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Jesse. Next up, we have Lou Rader's. In lieu, you might need to unmute yourself. Okay. There you go.
Speaker 1: Okay. Good evening, counsel. I don't know if you can see me, but I am here. I'll start this with you. Okay. There you go. Thank you for the time this evening. Just to tell you a little bit about this project that you've not heard. I think this is one of the great examples of so many people in the city coming together and really working together with the developer who started in one place and it in another. Not to say, as John pointed out, that everyone was in favor of this, but so many people were and are and are very excited to see what this project will do to reconfigure that important intersection, provide the important gateways that have been in the Your Creek area plan for some time, and will allow a more pedestrian friendly crossing where there is in fact a bus stop. We are a very walkable neighborhood. This will join that with our hilltop neighbors and others to increase safety and will allow us to further the goal of affordable housing. We completely applaud the developer for including affordable housing. Again, one of the things that makes this such a, I think, a remarkable team effort. We have people from the city that helped us answer questions. Councilman Hines and his staff have continued to help us to try to imagine how it is going to look when we have some type of true gateway on the property that will be a result of the reconfigured walker drives. So this is going to be an ongoing effort. But we we noted to planning board that there's three and it jumps to five. There wasn't a four. So this is one of those situations where we were able to accommodate a lot of concerns by working with the developer and doing a private agreement where there are lapses, or at least not an opportunity to do a four story with certain restricted uses. The developer and his counsel, Caitlin Quander, were a delight to work with and we had a lot of people involved. We had very many meetings on this and we are so appreciative of the efforts that the entire team made in order to get this project off the ground so we can continue to work on it. We look forward to coming back to council at some point if we have our gateways figured out which we will do in the next year or so. And again, thank you all for your support of this project.
Speaker 0: Thank you. We have Larry Fullerton up next.
Speaker 2: Hello.
Speaker 0: Hi. Go ahead, Mr. Fullerton.
Speaker 2: Hi there. I'm Larry Fullerton. I have been active in the real estate community in Denver for over 40 years, including public service and private sector, and developed 200 condos in downtown and near downtown Denver. I am enthusiastically supporting this project and I just want to make two simple points. And I. I don't see me, but I hope you can see me. Number one, during my term, working with Mayor Pinera, I was very privileged and honored to develop long term friendships with Ron Straka and Jennifer Moulton, the two visionaries who started many of these planning processes that Courtney Livingston described in her presentation. And I know them very, very well. Ron was the best man at my wedding and Jennifer pals for many years. Unfortunately, they're no longer with us. But I wanted to say that I am fully confident that they would support this project and its compatibility with the plans that they started years ago. And secondly, having been through a few of these my developer days, I want to say how impressed I am with Doug macKinnon and his team and all the work they've done with the neighborhood organizations, community input, listening carefully and trying to be the best neighbor they could possibly be. So with that, I just want you to know that as a veteran in this business, in this community, I enthusiastically support this project. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. We have next Adam Astrof. And Adam, you might need to unmute yourself.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Sorry about that. Can you hear me okay?
Speaker 0: Yep. Go ahead.
Speaker 3: Yeah. My name's Adam Ashraf. I'm at 361a.
Speaker 2: Lady. And also speaking on behalf of Yimby Denver. We support this project. It's going to add affordable housing and more abundant housing to an area of the city that is at no risk for displacement and an area of the city that has, you know, a huge proportion of jobs, 80% AMI isn't everything, but this will be housing that potentially teachers.
Speaker 3: Store managers.
Speaker 2: You know, and people who work at the restaurants in Cherry Creek can use some of those folks in use. So thank you, counselor, for approving this. And while I am glad that the neighborhood, you know, and everyone could come to a compromise, I'm not sure how great it is that where we're allowing people to dictate what future neighbors can have on their balconies. But thank you very much for your support.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Up next, we have Dylan McQuinn.
Speaker 2: Hello? Can you hear me?
Speaker 0: Mm hmm. Go ahead. Oh.
Speaker 2: Great. So thank you for having me. First of all, I'm an architect for tribe architects who's representing the applicant for this project. My colleague Bill Mooney spoke nicely about the project, covered most of my points here, but a couple of things I just wanted to add a little more detail on. First of all, the chair category plan, which has been referenced quite a bit here, it specifically and unequivocally identifies these sites as gateway sites. So that term, Gateway is something that we kind of made up, expanded as referenced several times in that document as a kind of important entries into the Tier four neighborhood. And so I just want to point out that, you know, a rezoning in this location is not going to set precedent because that document is kind of our what we're leaning on primarily for the justification for the rezoning. And, you know, every site obviously can be a gateway site. So no precedent set there. I also want to point out the fact that, you know, this is obviously primarily a residential neighborhood in this district. This particular these particular sites are along Colorado Boulevard, again, which is a arterial street. So if height is additional, height is going to be allowed anywhere in the neighborhood. And this would be the place to do it, kind of in a boundary condition or a high speed arterial. Furthermore, you know that even though the five story zoning is what we're going for here, the private development agreement will limit this to four stories. And to layer on top of that, there are setbacks in the zoning code, upper story setbacks. So as you approach the neighbors on interior lot lines, the building will transition from a four story building down to a three story building and then down to a two story building at the edges. So it won't be completely out of scale with the neighbors. And then finally, with these new zoning designations that we're seeking here, the ground level setbacks will be increased as well. So all in all, we think the combination of these different zoning restrictions and the gateway locations makes this an inappropriate project for this neighborhood.
Speaker 0: Thank you. We have David part, bro, up next.
Speaker 2: Full Council. My name is David Pardo. I actually live in District one at 3342 Wind Street. But for the last seven years, up until a few months ago, I lived in District nine, right by Union Station. I'm here to in support of this project. For me, as a relatively young person, being able to buy a home in the city is hard. There are we have a lack of housing that's available. And to me, anything that we can do to produce additional housing units is of incredibly high value. Whether you live next door or whether like me, you live three or four or five miles away. Seeing something like this happen and seeing a large number of units come in, many of which will be available to people who do jobs like I do in the hospitality industry, will be highly valuable. And that that's all I have to say. I'm very much in favor of this project going forward.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, David. And our last speaker for the evening is Wendy Roach. You might need to send me your cell phone. There you go.
Speaker 1: Hi. Good evening. I thank you all for allowing me an opportunity to speak on behalf of this project. My main support of this project is that it's a project that's going to activate and elevate this major arterial corridor. As envisioned by their neighborhood plans. And I also appreciate all of the hard work, Lou Raiders and John Tredinnick and all of the folks and both of the Cherry Creek Rhinos did to make.
Speaker 0: This project work.
Speaker 1: Along with Doug macKinnon and his team, it'll be a it'll be a great project for this neighborhood. Those. Those parcels have been vacant lots as long as I've been here in Denver, which was 1997 and along a major arterial in our city. That's a shame. And it's an incredibly challenging couple of parcels on First Avenue and Harrison to develop. So I'm glad that Doug macKinnon and the Tribe team, who are and who have a deservedly well respected national record reputation, are going to be tackling this project and making it work for the neighborhood. So thank you for your time and I hope you support the project.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Wendy. Would you mind introducing yourself for the public record, please?
Speaker 1: I am sorry. I am speaking as a individual member of the Hilltop neighborhood. I live on the 600 block of Burke Street. I'm a member of the board of the Cranmer Park Hilltop. R.A. and I became acquainted with the project while I was president of the R.A. when I was invited by the Cherry Creek East and North R.A. to learn about the project and help them do outreach to our neighborhood, which I want to point out has been very robust.
Speaker 0: I'm no longer the president.
Speaker 1: There's a new president. It was a transition period, and our R.A. has supported this project and submitted a letter of support for it.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Very good. Thank you, Wendy. That concludes our speakers. Members of Council. Questions from members of Council. Councilman Hines.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. May I ask Mr. Workman a couple questions about the project?
Speaker 0: Sure thing. We will go ahead and get him back into the panel and we might end up just leaving him in here.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Go ahead.
Speaker 2: Good evening, sir. So a few questions for you. This zoning allows for five stories. I kind of I can't I think I got the answer to this in previous testimony. But I'll ask you anyway, will this development be five stories actually per the end? And I think Caitlin, who's also here, could probably speak to the agreement as well as liberators more than I can buy per the Good Neighbor Agreement. We're going to four stories. I think what you're considering tonight is the zoning is five stories, but we made an agreement to four stories per the good neighbor agreement. And I guess I was asking you on on behalf of the developer, I was hoping to ask the same question on behalf of the neighborhood, just to make sure that they everyone's on the same page. Yes. So but if you think I should ask Miss Quander, then I'm happy to ask. Yeah, I think she could probably have some clarity on that as well. Okay. Super sorry to send misdirected question. No.
Speaker 1: Councilman. Good evening. Kaitlin Quander land use counsel for the applicant feels correct. We entered into a private development agreement that we writers on behalf and John Phonetic on behalf of Cherry Creek East and Cherry Creek North Neighborhood Associations negotiated and drafted and that private covenant is signed and recorded against all of the properties, and that would limit it privately to the four story. So while you are considering a five story zoning tonight, privately it is limited and the developer is very committed to the first four storey limitation. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Yes, thank you. And I guess part of the reason why I'm asking is I know that there was some discussion about the height of this development. And and so I just want to make sure that, you know, that there was a discussion and that ultimately I want to talk about how there was compromise that was made, because I think the original proposal for the from the developers perspective for Mr. McLennan was for five stories. And I think the original proposal from the residents was for three stories. And so I think it's I think it's interesting and compelling to show that that there was a compromise made for stories. So let's see. So I guess one other question that was asked by one of the people testifying. Was there a traffic study created or conducted for this for this particular development or in advance the development? And I'm not sure who I should ask.
Speaker 0: I think Phil unmuted, but then Courtney was gone.
Speaker 2: Back on too. I mean, I think that's actually part of the site development planning process. Usually a traffic study is required. I see. You know, Doug can. After that as well, but not as part of the reasoning. But that's what that's when that will come in. And you're muted. Mr. yet. Is that working now? Yes, sir. CASTELLANOS We as part of this rezoning, committed to do a traffic study when we move forward towards a site development plan. A pure traffic study with amorphous zoning was not going to be a valuable piece of information. But we fully recognize you through a traffic study before we submit a site development plan that in fact, that is a affirmative and specific obligation under the good neighbor agreements. And we will be doing a traffic study group and in every one of the developments. And you have already been in contact with both sides. And Dottie, is that right? Because Colorado is a state highway. Correct. There was some jurisdictional questions between Dottie and sedan relative to work activities on Colorado Boulevard, as well as the First Avenue intersection. But we've approached both both entities and have received, if you will, kind of a initial positive response to their concepts to reduce and remove these write in and write out the three rights. In fact, as part of serious improvements of the intersection, we're going to be working hand in glove with them to make sure that improvements that they plan actually near-term will be done in such a way to accommodate the the long term vision of the intersection as we proposed to the neighbors and in addition to a traffic study, because traffic often is interpreted to exclusively mean cars. You're doing a study that includes creating pedestrian access across Colorado, at least at first. And so that to the people who have access to this development, will also have access to the nearby park. Is that right? Correct. Councilman, we specifically on the First Avenue Gateway. There will be a removal of what is today, sort of the in our minds, very unsafe pork chops, if you will, for sort of a small respite as you cross the larger Colorado Boulevard. So that will be improved such that the right of way is now reworked to provide accessibility, safe accessibility for all individuals. And on the Bayard intersection, what we've what we contemplated is the continuation of the bike lane, such that the bike lane concept can actually allow for as well as pedestrian access into Byrnes Park, which, as we all know, is sort of a kind of a strange, underutilized, great piece of greenspace in the middle of our city. Yeah. And I and I actually want to thank you for. We get a lot of comments generally negative for the the pork chops, as they're commonly called. But the, you know, the the car friendly swing in swing out from Colorado to to first. So I wanna I want to thank you for considering that in the traffic study because I think that we'll find out that pedestrians are not excited about the the pork chops. I mean, we certainly we know through feedback, but I think we'll we'll understand empirically through this study as well. So I, I don't think have any other study or any other questions. So thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Hines. Up next, we have Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. All this talk of pork chops is making me hungry for my dinner. But first one, I want to extend some of the conversation that Councilman Hines I was engaging in and recognize the work of the neighborhoods in together, working out the good neighbor agreement that's recorded against the land. I completely understand that. But I would like to ask Courtney if she could increase my comfort level for this departure from relative relatively recent plan guidance that says three story maximum in the staff report, which I'm going to flip over to right now. It says the acknowledges that the request exceeds the height recommendations as shown in the plan from 2012, but the request is consistent with other recommendations for the vacant parcel within the Cherry Creek North sub area as well as other plan goals described earlier. So could you be a little more specific about why in this case, other than the agreement with the neighbors who appear to be happy with it and have endorsed it, what is it in our plan guidance that says there are other recommendations that make the increase to 65 feet appropriate?
Speaker 3: Well, I think I think that if we're looking at the Cherry Creek area plan, we have those recommendations, but we also have recommendations. You know, talking about the fact that this is a gateway, that it's important to the community to focus growth in this location, to redevelop the parcels. You know, specifically, you're looking at encouraging private reinvestment along Perimeter Street, that page 73 of the 72 of the Cherry Creek Area Plan, you know, looking at the half block. You know, the plan acknowledges in its recommendations that here is New Street is very unique and that it creates a half block condition in between here and in Colorado. And so that makes it super challenging to redevelop along with all of these other constraints, wanting that sidewalk connectivity. So we have a lot of recommendations pushing and pulling here. So we're looking at it in all together. So on balance, we feel that this application does meet the plan criteria because it is meeting the recommendations to help redevelop this area and meet the goals that way.
Speaker 2: Hey, I don't suppose you were here in 2012, Courtney.
Speaker 3: No, I was not.
Speaker 2: Okay. I'm wondering if that's the case. Why? Along Colorado Boulevard, at least in on that half block. Which, you know, very awkward between Harrison and Colorado being a half block. Why the area plan didn't accommodate more than three stories, especially along Colorado Boulevard. And I noticed there's there are some structures there that look like they're higher than three stories already or they're not.
Speaker 3: I think that's a little bit farther south.
Speaker 2: Okay. I'm thinking of the sunrise.
Speaker 3: Sunrise assisted living. But that. Isn't that a cedar? Between Cedar and Alameda.
Speaker 2: Yes. Oh.
Speaker 3: I believe that is. And so the plan has that that. You know, that was built way before 2012, I believe. Yeah, because it was there in 2006 and that's well over three stories. And in the plan guidance, I think that's on page 72. It does show that that assisted living is five stories in height. So it does account for the existing condition there.
Speaker 2: Okay. All right. Thank you. That's all I have. Madam President.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Sandoval.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. So I have a few questions for, I think. Hmm. Caitlin I think this would be best suited for you or Courtney. So. Although. The zoning is five stories. You have a covenant. That's for. You can go down to development services and you can still get a five story permit because these are associated with the zoning. So how do you ensure that that actually happens? Because we have a couple of covenants in northwest Denver and it's not until they get brought to my attention through the site development plan, the city that they are following, the covenant. So how do we ensure that this is actually going to take place? Because the only way that somebody down in development services knows about this deal is they'd have to go to the crooked recorder's office. Councilwoman, thank you for the question. So a couple of points. The development agreements are that have been entered into are recorded against the property. And I will say that, look, radars and John Tredinnick have done a fantastic job of circulating both the terms and the actual written agreements themselves to the neighborhood organization and throughout. So there's a much wider awareness about the terms. And, you know, I think those organizations were lucky to have Blue Raiders in particular, who is a retired real estate attorney from who tap rock to draft those with me on behalf of the neighborhood because you know, she certainly represented them well and not as an attorney, but as a member of the neighborhood. So within those reported private covenants, there are the site plans themselves that the neighbors and Mr. macKinnon and Tribal worked through closely. Those are actually attached. So the depictions of what is proposed are attached and recorded. So that's that's provides a lot of clarity. And in addition, there is a default in enforcement provision. So the neighborhood association has the ability to go and get you know, I think if we were to try and apply for something that is not allowed, they would one be in communication with them because we have to as part of the covenants on the site plan, we have to give them copies of the site development plan as we're submitting them to the city. But if they were to find there, there was something that was inconsistent. There is a notice and default enforcement process written into the agreement. Certainly don't ever anticipate having to go there. But I appreciate the question and the neighborhoods and and my client made sure to write in a very clear process for them to be able to enforce them. So if I heard you correctly, your first two sentences answered my question. So as the site development plan is pushed forward, it's given to the neighborhood is the same time. Is it process to development services? Is that what I heard? That is correct, yep. Okay. And so question for you, Courtney. How is an applicant able to read zone on land that's not contiguous?
Speaker 3: With the application, vacancy and application, there doesn't need to be contiguous by code standards.
Speaker 1: Okay. So they can just do a map amendment based on however they'd like so anyone can go in there. So anyone, any person can go in and have a Swiss cheese map amendment, basically.
Speaker 3: Yes. If the property owners are in agreement and sign up to it.
Speaker 1: Okay. So one more question to you, Caitlin. This. Covenant have a sunset. Councilwoman. Yes, it is. And I'm just double checking 50 years from the time it was recorded. So certainly intended to last kind of the lifetime of these buildings and then it go and it revert and then after the sunset, it reverts to the zoning that we're approving today. Is that correct? To the five story with no. None of these restrictions on it? Yes. Although I would assume that anyone that was potentially redeveloping the site would probably be back negotiating with the neighborhood associations at that time. And 50 years from now, you know, who knows what that area will look like. But yes, you're correct. 50 years from now, the development agreement concludes.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Sandoval. Councilman Sawyer, we had you up in the Q. Did you get your question answered?
Speaker 1: Yes. My question was about the enforcement and Councilman Sandoval. Got it. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilwoman. The public hearing for Council Bill 20 dash 0813 is closed. Comments by members of Council. Councilman Flynn, I'm sorry. Councilman Hines, your Councilman Flynn's picture was right below you, and I said his name. Councilman Hines, go ahead.
Speaker 2: If Councilmember Flynn wants to take it away. Okay. So, thank you, Madam President. I, I I'm excited about this this project. The these plots at first in Colorado are, excuse me, current and first in Colorado and beyond, have sat vacant for a long time, for decades. They're oddly shaped as in they're not as deep as most parcels in the area would be. So they've been underutilized. And, you know, I'm a big multimodal advocate. They limit pedestrian access along Colorado, a transit quarter that we've identified because of their poorly created and maintained sidewalks and and they're pedestrian friendly lamb chops, pork chops. Neighbors have complained about these locations for years. The current developer, McKinnon, purchased these sites in April of 2019 and immediately started engaging the neighbors to figure out what would work for these plots. Both of these intersections, Colorado and Bayard, as well as Colorado and first or, um, you know, areas that that the neighbors have contemplated for for many years, engaged community members have spent a lot of time adding their thoughts about the vision for these sites. And they I'm also excited that they used well-known architect and District ten constituent David Schreiber, to help design what would work on these plots because he's using a tribal architecture developed around the nation. So we're really fortunate to have a national architect that's that's also working here in our own city. So so I'm really excited that he's creating something that will integrate into Cherry Creek, something that will be a grand entrance. I understand that, that the zoning asks for five and Blueprint says three. As, as we've heard, it won't actually be five storeys, it'll be four and three and two stories because of the step process. And, and so the way that this, this development will be on this funky parcel will we'll still be in some ways what the neighbors had asked for anyway. You'll see in the packet that the 15th Century Creek North Arnaud's both combined to write a letter support. Both groups created a detailed agreement between the neighbors and the developers. I personally have been to multiple neighborhood organizations. I personally have, you know, before I was elected, have worked on good neighbor agreements. I have never seen a 67 page and a and and that's what we have here in attached to this proposal. And so I really I credit church groups and particularly Cherry Creek North, my readers for for their attention to detail to make sure that that the developer and neighbors are in lockstep and and that the developer is kind of caged in to doing what, you know, what the agreement has been. So is this exactly what every neighbor wants? No. But it's a solid compromise that incorporates a lot of what the neighbors have asked for. So another thing that no one has really touched on much so far is the affordable housing. I think. What's important for this development is that this affordable housing and it is in a very pedestrian friendly area of the city and they're working to make it more pedestrian friendly. You know, as long as you don't walk along Colorado. But that's another issue that we need to continue to to address. It's also an area with access to great public schools. Something that hasn't been mentioned so far is that the affordable housing is required to have a minimum of 900 square feet. So I think that that's particularly compelling, too, because when you have an area that's very pedestrian friendly and you have really good schools, you know, a lot of times affordable housing is shoehorned into the smallest possible unit. And in ensuring that these affordable units and support school age kids to go to these awesome schools, I think that that's another component that that is a result of the the long conversations between the developer and the neighbors. So as I ask before, as I mentioned before, I would finally say I value multimodal transit. And I I'm so glad that the developer is willing to to proactively already engage in conversations with Saeeda and Dottie to make sure that this, frankly, pedestrian unfriendly area is is turned into a much more pedestrian friendly area. And I think that with is with this development and this vision, I think that this will be an exciting gateway into Cherry Creek. So thank you. And I urge and I vote.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Hines. Up next, we have Councilman Sawyer.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. And I think, you know, Councilmember Hines hit it on the head. I was talking to my staff about this rezoning today, and one of my aides said something really interesting. She's a Denver native and she said these parcels have been the way they are now for her entire life. And she's not going to be very happy with me for hinting about her age publicly. But she said, you know, people have been talking about what to do with this land for almost a half a century. So, you know, while there are residents who understandably have concerns about the density proposed in this rezoning, and as we talked about in the questions section, you know, Blueprint says three stories and this is five stories. But, you know, we're compromising it for stories here. I think the question is really whether given the criteria we're looking at and we're required to look at in rezonings, is this thoughtful development? Great. That's the goal here. Is this thoughtful development. Does this meet the needs of the community? Is this development for development sake, or are we finding that there's a community benefit here? Is it worth it to develop these properties into this proposed plan, or should we just let these lots sit deteriorating for another half a century? And, you know, thoughtful development doesn't mean no development. It means development that makes our community better. And I think from what we've seen from the questions and the answers that we got tonight, this proposal does that it not only includes affordable housing, but, you know, like Councilman Hines said, it includes affordable housing at a minimum square foot , 900 square feet per unit. That's two bedrooms. You know, this affordable housing is specifically for families in a neighborhood with access to three excellent public schools. Parks directly on two main transit lines. The Good Neighbor, the 67 page good neighbor agreement, which cracks me up, includes design standards that take into consideration things like setbacks. Setbacks, though residents don't feel overwhelmed by the four stories that make up the compromise. Because many of them would have preferred the three stories. So visually and sort of spatially, it's going to be a good it's going to be a good compromise. Is it perfect? No. Right. This development represents a compromise between a developer that, frankly, would have preferred higher density and taller buildings and the neighbors who, frankly, would have preferred less density and lower buildings. The fact that no one is 100% happy in this situation is probably the best indication that it's a success. And so I will be supporting it this evening as well. It's right across the street in District ten. District five is just on the other side of Colorado Boulevard. I think this is a really great option and I'm very excited for it as well. I just want to thank Mr. McKim in. I want to thank his team. I think this is really great. I want to thank the Arnaud's for all of the hard work that they did. So thank you guys all very much. This is this is a great option and I'm really looking forward to supporting it. So thanks a lot. And thank you, Councilwoman.
Speaker 0: Oh, thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Sandoval.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. A lot of times I love looking at zoning and I love looking at precedent setting. And I would just have to say that this good neighbor agreement is a document that I'm saving and I will be able to use in the future when we are negotiating land use deals in northwest Denver. So first off, thank you to the team who put together this good neighbor agreement. It's very thorough. I've worked on several in my time as working as a counselor, and this is the most robust one I've seen. So thank you for that. I would like to thank the team for the affordable housing. That's super important. And if I'm going to go really down into the weeds, you even got into the construction materials, which is very important for Northwest members. You talk about brick, you talk about tree line. You talk about how it intersects. You talk about parking, being underground and only having one insert when when in, when we're in and when we out. So a lot of the work in zoning, I believe, and development is the devil's in the details. And so this is good neighbor agreement is there's tons of details in here. So thank you for providing this document for future rezonings in Denver. And based on the criteria, I, I had similar questions similar to Kevin Councilman Flynn about the heights and how we sometimes deviate away from neighborhood plans. But I really believe that Colorado Boulevard, this site will be it will be long lasting. And if you look once again into the details of the good neighbor report, the construction materials that you're using, I bet this building is going to be here longer than 50 years when this comes in at sunset. So that's always what I'm looking at when I'm looking at site development times and what's in the what kind of construction are you using? What kind of materials are you using? Because in Denver you can go from 100 degrees to 37 degrees within 24 hours, and that's really harsh climate to build in. And not very many architects know how to build in that type of climate. So with that, I will also be offering my support to me above and beyond the criteria. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Sandoval and I not seen any other hands raised will add my comments that this rezoning of these numerous parcels, in my opinion, does meet all of the criteria, and I will be voting in favor of it as well tonight. Madam Secretary, roll call, please.
Speaker 2: HYNES All right. Cashman Hi.
Speaker 1: Kenny. I Ortega Sandoval. I swear I Taurus. I am black. I see tobacco. I. Clark.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 0: Flynn.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Herndon.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 0: Madam President, I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce results. 13 IVs, 13 IES Council Bill 813 has passed. Our next rezoning is Council Bill 20 dash 0815 and it's changing the zoning classification for 50 South Kalama Street Street 39, South Kalama ten South Lappin Street and 101 South Santa Fe Drive in Baker.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 55, 65, 101 S. Colorado Blvd., 51, 97, 101 Colorado Blvd. and 98 Harrison St. in Cherry Creek.
Approves an official map amendment to rezone property located at 101 Colorado Boulevard from G-RH-3 to G-MU-5, properties located at 98 Harrison Street, 97 Colorado Boulevard and 51 Colorado Boulevard from G-RH-3 to G-RO-5, properties located at 55 and 65 South Colorado Boulevard from PUD 56 to G-RO-5 and property located at 101 S. Colorado Boulevard from G-MU-3 to G-MU-5 (various districts to multi-unit, 5 stories) in Council District 10. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 8-18-20.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_09282020_20-0815
|
Speaker 0: Madam President, I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce results. 13 IVs, 13 IES Council Bill 813 has passed. Our next rezoning is Council Bill 20 dash 0815 and it's changing the zoning classification for 50 South Kalama Street Street 39, South Kalama ten South Lappin Street and 101 South Santa Fe Drive in Baker. Councilmember Canete, will you please put Council Bill 815 on the floor for passage?
Speaker 1: Yes, I move that council bill 815 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded by Councilman Herndon, the required public hearing for Council Bill 20 dash 0815 is open and we have the staff report, please.
Speaker 3: Yes, thank you. Good evening once again. And Bill Courtney Lovington with Community Planning and Development. This is a map amendment application for 55 kilometer 39, South Township 101 South Santa Fe Drive and 10,000 can request from IAU to and I being your two to I am a five to the seven with waivers. The rezoning request is in Council District seven. In the Baker statistical neighborhood. The request is comprised of four parcels for a total of 6.43 acres west of south Santa Fe, south of West Elmhurst Avenue, east of 25. And the railroad track, the only Park and La Familia Recreation Center, are both about a quarter mile to the east and the site is about a half mile north from the Alameda station. The request is to rezone to I.A. 5 to 7 with waivers to the billboard use overlay, which the site currently has and is proposing to retain with the request. The G7 is a design overlay which is applied for with two waivers requested to the design standards of that overlay. The applicant is requesting the rezoning to facilitate redevelopment, which has an associated voluntary affordable housing agreement. Majority of the site of the subject sites are zoned IAU two i.e. is the light industrial zone district allowing for office , business and industrial uses. The I zone district has no height maximum and instead regulates intensity through a maximum floor a ratio of 2.0. The southern portion of the site at 101 South Santa Fe is zoned IB due to I.B. as a general industrial zone district and allows many for many of the same primary uses that light industrial does with the inclusion of a few more intense industrial uses. The zoning really comprised of three main sites with the largest at 50 South Carolina Street, which was previously used as a warehouse for the former Sports Authority company. And that has been vacant for almost five years now. The parcel at 39 South Tomas is used for parking and 10,010 is undeveloped to the south, 1 to 1 south. Santa Fe is also a parking lot. The large area is a mix of commercial and industrial uses like workshops. There are some commercial retail uses, like a lighting showroom in a restaurant to the north existing. There are three single unit homes built in the early 1900s to the north of the 50 kilometer parcel. There's more residential to the east. And that's what recently over some photos the site this is the these are showing the vacant for the port authority warehouse at 50 kms. The showing of 39 South Palmas at ten South Lincoln beyond. This is the west side of the vacant warehouse, 50 South Kettleman. Finally, this shows the property at 101 South Santa Fe looking southwest. As the site is over five acres in size, the rezoning subject to the large development review process as an outcome of the process. A large development framework document was recorded for the site and is included as an attachment to the staff report as part of the process. A community information meeting was held in February and the notes from that meeting are also attached. The site is will be required to provide 10% open space and as an outcome of the LDA process, a mobility study was required which helps determine traffic impacts of any future development and needed infrastructure improvements. Additionally, the layout noted that the enhanced design is needed for the site to support walkability and livability and also outlined the need for an affordable housing commitment. The voluntary, affordable housing commitment is associated with the proposed rezoning includes at least 10% of all units constructed on the property would be higher use with a 60 year period of affordability and a range of unit sizes. The affordability level varies based on the product type under a build alternative plan. The project and the large parcel contemplated would be required to provide only seven income restricted units and under the Voluntary Affordable Housing Agreement. The 10% is approximately 47 income restricted units, about seven times what would be required normally be required. Be. I'm inspired. You have to do a seven month waiver. It's what is requested here. So this is a table that shows an increased design standard as a result of applying the design overlay with flavors. And then what we would get with just the I'm at five district alone and then the first column is the current design standards of the existing zone districts that are in place right now. So we'll talk about the waivers requested. I'll take each one as it is. The first waiver requested is to the D7 Nonresidential Street Level Active Use requirement, and that would be replacing the current provision that would require the large parcel have about 210 linear feet of nine residential street level active use and reduces it down to 185 linear linear feet. For the other two parcels included in the rezoning, the 121 South Santa Fe and then the La Pan 39 counties. The standard of the DE seven would apply normally, so it's just for that big site, the first one. The second waiver requested reduces the ideal seventh street level minimum height from 16 feet down to 14 feet. The applicant has requested for this additional flexibility in the design. Considering the large size of the block and the need for a parking structure to be feels at the the 14 foot height still accomplishes the intent of the ground floor standard to allow for future conversion, as well as creating an active pedestrian realm and gives them proportionality. And so the waiver request can be found on page 53 of the application attachment. The application was noticed according to the code requirements. In the applicants application. Notes of outreach conducted with the community prior to submitting the application. Specifically meeting with the Baker R.A. multiple times. There was also, as I mentioned before, a committee information meeting as part of the process. Baker R.A. wrote a letter of support, and there are six additional letters of support from committee members. Moving on to review criteria to prove a rezoning, it must be found that the MAP amendment is consistent, consistent with the five criteria found in the code. The first criteria is that it must be consistent with the adopted plans or five adopted plans that apply to this requested rezoning plan. 2040 Blueprint. Denver Alameda Stationary Plan. The Baker Neighborhood Plan and Housing and Inclusive Denver. First Continent 2040, adopted in 2019. There are multiple goals and strategies that the request is consistent with that said, in terms of the vision elements that pertain to equity. The proposed rezoning would enable the development of additional housing units and the mixed uses and proximity to the Alameda station. The proposed rezoning also has an affordable housing agreement that requires a minimum of 10% of the units be income restricted at various levels, depending on product type. Next to environmentally resilient element of compliance. So this would allow for mixed use infill growth with access to transit via the Alameda station. Additionally, with the industrial mixed use, redevelopment and proximity to transit helps improve air quality through decreasing the reliance on single occupancy vehicle. And let's move on to how the two classes consistent with Blueprint Denver versus object state status shown within the district context and the industrial mixed use zone within that district context. Blueprint shows the properties as part of the Innovation Innovation Flex Place type blueprint describes innovation flex places and makes you places for businesses, offices, manufacturing, logistics pieces, and says that multi-unit residential is compatible here. So the request to district allows for a variety of industrial and commercial uses, and the D7 with waivers provides enhanced design standards like increased transparency, minimum street level height and three level active use requirements, all meeting the the vision for those innovation flex places. The proposed zone district is intended for industrial dominated area areas served by these collector streets. So what works right here? That's a collector street. And considering that the other three types are industrial arterials, the request of zone district is appropriate here. Moving on to the growth strategy. That map that shows the vision on how we distribute future growth across the city. The proposed MAP amendment will allow mixed use growth and helps to support the future employment and housing growth anticipated by the plan. Additionally blueprint have policies related to uses and design outcomes in the innovation district. So the application of the Geo seven in this location implements the recommendation for urban pedestrian friendly building forms for variety, for vibrant mixed use district by repurposing a tool that we already have in the code. And so Blueprint recommends that using custom zoning tools like waivers that we're using here are most effective when a standard zoning district doesn't exist. So in this instance, we have the 50 South comment parcel, which is extremely large, will likely have three primary street frontages and will be applied in the in Baker with the nonresidential active use and street level minimum standards of seven were initially calibrated. Currently, the design overlay that enables enhanced design standards for the industrial mixed use phone district does not exist. So applying the D7 in this location necessitates customization with those waivers to respond to unique circumstance and enables the implementation of the plans recommendation. Additionally, the five acre site was was subject to the order process, which isn't typical for a standard rezoning. So that customization with the waivers is is appropriate here. Next. The blueprint is also consistent with policies and strategies related to creating exceptional design outcomes in a particular location. Desired higher quality design can't be achieved through just the Impact Zone District alone. So applying that design overlay with waivers here is how is appropriate, because it's how we ensure new development. New residential development will introduce residential uses that are better design and more pedestrian friendly than would otherwise be realized by simply just applying that identified zone district. So the site also is over five acres in size, as I've mentioned. So there was an equity evaluation and the equity concepts were considered in context of the application first with access to opportunity. So this equity concept helps us to consider if the city is making progress towards achieving the vision for complete neighborhoods across the city. The site has a higher access to opportunity score in the contemplated development in connection with the proposed MAP Amendment will provide a little over a half acre of open space and that will further strengthen that equity metric. Not the the subject property is in an area that has lower vulnerability to displacement in these areas, important to maintain affordable housing options so all residents can continue to live in the neighborhoods. So there is an affordable housing commitment in connection with the proposed rezoning. Therefore, we think it shouldn't have a negative impact on this measurement specifically. Next to the subject. Property is an area that has moderate housing diversity. Affordable housing agreement provides additional income, restricted units, and with a diversity of bedroom counts per unit and a range of affordability levels, we don't think that will have a negative impact on this housing diversity metric. So also when we're looking at the expanding job diversity equity concept in terms of the job mix, the area has more emphasis on retail and manufacturing type jobs and the citywide average. The zone district allows for very commercial office manufacturing and retail jobs, and having a mix in many different types of jobs enables people of different incomes and education levels to find employment here. And the application mentions adding some level of offices to that parcel at 39 South Kalama. So this could help expand the mix of jobs and increase jobs in this area, since currently these parcels have no jobs at all because they're vacant. So this rezoning application may actually have a positive impact on the area of job diversity. So next, we'll move on to the Baker Neighborhood Plan from 2003. The plan identifies the properties as part of the industrial sub area of this plan and describes these areas actually as fundamentally nonresidential. And while there is some strong language in the plan against introducing residential in this area, we think that the guidance should be taken in context. And a lot has changed in 17 years in this area, like many of the industrial businesses leaving the area. We have guidance from new guidance that's different from Blueprint Denver and the support of the Baker, R.A. and the community for transitioning this area and introducing residential here. So let's move on to the Alameda Stationery Plan from 2009. You can see that the southern little tip portion there, the parcel 101 South Santa Fe Drive is within this plan area boundary. So that's a half mile from the Almeida Station. On the plans land use concept map. One of the subject parcels is designated as industrial and there's not a lot of language in the plan about industrial , but the plan recommends that industrial areas should have manufacturing offices and other employment uses with special attention to design. So the Annex five zone district that they're requesting does allow for those uses. And we can consider that consistent with the plan recommendations. The plan also calls out the West that avenue as an enhanced sidewalk route, bike route. The rezoning enables the development that will implement the plan's recommendation because the development will be required to install sidewalks in this area. And those have street trees and those will create enhanced pedestrian friendly street. That's how the inclusive Denver adopted in 2018. As we all know, the plan talks about promoting the development of new, affordable, mixed income housing. And there's a voluntary, affordable housing agreement associated with this application. And that we find that the requested rezoning meets the next two criteria. It'll result in uniformity of district regulations as the IMX 50207 with waivers is considered in itself the unique zoned district. And it will further the public health, safety and welfare not only through its implementation of adopted plans like the Blueprint Denver, but also through enabling a higher design quality through the application of the design overlay. And that requires active uses and pedestrian oriented street frontages. Those design features make the area more walkable, and that has been shown to be linked with increased physical activity and decreased obesity. And then next, the criteria requires just five circumstances to exist for the rezoning. There's been a lot of change in the area since 2010, such as multiple new developments to the southwest of the site. Additionally, the application also identifies the adoption of Blueprint Denver last year. With that innovation flex place type that change and that justifies the rezoning fact concurred. The new future land use guidance for the site provided by Blueprint Denver is a change from the previous guidance and consistent with that criteria. And then finally, the final review criteria for math amendments is consistency with neighborhood context. Purpose statements. Purpose and intent statements as a code. The requested district is characterized by providing a transition in between industrial and accommodating residential, which aligns the area net with the D7. There's a list about 12 purpose statements in this application. And what purpose statements in this application is consistent with the promotion of promote promoting vibrant pedestrian street frontages with active uses street fronting buildings. So when we take all of that, on balance, the application is consistent with this neighborhood context zone, district purpose and intent statement criteria inclusion CBD finds that all zoning Denver Zoning Code criteria has a met and recommends approval. We still have Andrew from host available to answer questions about the Affordable Housing Agreement and Development Services. Also hear available available to answer any questions that you may have as well as the applicant. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Oh, well, thank you, Courtney. We appreciate it. Tonight, council has received two written comments on Council Bill 815. There are no submitted comments in favor of the application and two submitted comments in opposition of the application. All members of Council that are present have been sent these comments and have certified that they have read each of the submitted written comments. Do members need any additional time to read 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 815 have been read by each member of Council and all written testimony will be submitted to the official record of the hearing . Tonight, we have seven individuals signed up to speak. Our first speaker is Patrick Smith.
Speaker 2: Good evening, members of Council and thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you, Madam President. My name is Patrick Schmitz. I am here on behalf of the Applicants Asset Investment Partners Relocation of 4100 East Mississippi Avenue in Glendale, Colorado, 0246. And Courtney, thank you for such a great presentation. I myself, along with Kenneth, all are here really just to answer any questions you guys may have. So thank you so much.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Next up, we have Kenneth Ho.
Speaker 2: Good evening, Madam President and City Council. Thank you for your time this evening. Again, just available for respond to any questions. I also want to thank all the city staff in particular CPD and host for going through the LDR process and in negotiating the development agreement and affordable housing agreement as well. With that, I look forward to any questions that you may have.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Our next speaker is Bruce Peterson.
Speaker 2: Can you hear me?
Speaker 0: Mm hmm. Go ahead, Bruce.
Speaker 2: Mm hmm. Good evening. I am Bruce Peterson, a fourth generation owner of Rio Grande Company. And I've worked there over 44 years. And a lifelong resident of Denver residing in 1928 South High Street. Currently, our company was founded in 1893 and has operated in Denver since and is the owner with me of the ten acre of a ten acre active industrial site just southeast of the property. The Southern property, the business, the businesses that operate on our side are industrial with fabrication, manufacturing and and trucking. This use generates industrial traffic. Our concern is the close proximity of industrial and residential uses from the added traffic of the proposed 450 unit apartment complex just northwest from us. We communicated via letter and spoke briefly at the planning board meeting. We also submitted a letter to the latest meeting detailing concerns and submitted a letter to council prior to this meeting. We have spoken to the developer several times. One of our main concerns is the impact of the proposed signal at Santa Fe and Bayard on our and others existing movements. We hired transportation consultant Matt Brown Postoffice and Associates to review the Transportation Mobility Study provided by Kimberly Horne and West Side Development. We reported our findings in our letter to council. Matt Brown is also going to be highlighting traffic concerns today. The area has been industrial for a long time. Business businesses built up around the railway and grew in this area as the city did. Not all the industrial industries moved out. With the growth, there are a large number of industrial businesses in the Baker neighborhood. These businesses rely on maneuvering successfully in the area area as they currently do. Traffic around 50 south. Kalama is bordered by two major three lane one way streets, Kalama on the west and Santa Fe on the East Bay areas on the south. And just further south is the main line track for the Bean and U.P. Railroad. This creates a complicated set of conditions. Our businesses need good access as currently configured so that we can facilitate 252 and front trip, 250 to and from trips daily. We understand much of the project design is not final at this point, and if this project is approved, the site development plan process will begin and finish the detailed plan. We want to have a voice and play a role with the developer and the city concerning how the site development plan and the building design affect the important functions of our businesses. Thank you for your time and keepers.
Speaker 0: Next up, we have Adam Astor. And you might need to. There you go, Adam.
Speaker 2: Yep. Hello?
Speaker 3: Hi. I'm out of Mr. Apartment 361.
Speaker 2: A lady. I live a couple of blocks from the site and I'm definitely excited to welcome new neighbors to our neighborhood. I think we are well placed to add additional residents. We are at a lower risk of displacement than some other surrounding communities. We have good access to public transit as well as just being simply a mile and a half from downtown. I just walk to work, you know? I think that this is a great site to add both jobs and housing. So I hope you guys will vote to approve. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, we have Matt Brown.
Speaker 2: Evening. My name is Matt Brown. I'm a senior transportation engineer with Stauffer and Associates located in Greenwood Village. I've been practicing traffic engineer for over 25 years, and I'm a registered engineer in state of Colorado. On behalf of the Rio Grande companies, I was asked to review the transportation mobility study that was prepared for the 50 South on our site. Based on that review, there are two topics that I'd like to highlight tonight. The first is in regards to the proposed traffic signal at the Bayside and Santa Fe intersection. And the second is just more generally regarding the industrial nature of traffic in the area. But I know I'm probably speaking to the choir here, but traffic signals do have consequences. They tend to increase average vehicle delays for motorists, fuel consumption and even potential for rear end crashes. So we really need to be judicious in their application and particularly along our two roadways like Santa Fe. Traffic signals are a precious commodity. Typically, we would not consider locating a traffic signal at a site driveway or even at an intersection with a local road, which they are. Avenue is in this case. There are also three active rail crossings and other traffic signals near this intersection. It's really a pretty complicated scenario, putting another traffic signal in the midst of all of what's going on there. Lots of engineering constraints and regulatory hurdles that need to be overcome not only with the city and county of Denver traffic, but also with the the railroad and the Public Utilities Commission. And those topics aren't really addressed in the study this point. We also have some concerns with vehicle queuing. You know, not only will it potentially encroach on the track, but they also have the potential to block access points. For example, today, traffic, a lot of traffic from Bayard Avenue from the east has pretty much a free right turn movement when there are gaps in traffic to turn north on to Santa Fe. If the intersection is signalized and bad to the west is converted to a those right turn, movements now have to wait behind vehicle stop to cross light and as a result vehicles will end up winding up along that and potentially blocking driveways. And the study doesn't really address whether there four lanes or other improvements that are needed at the intersection to address those concerns. Like distance. Also, as you're traveling northbound at Santa Fe, it's not ideal in advance of the signal. There's a curve in the road. There's lots of visual clutter going on with overhead utilities. You've got the railroad crossing there. And so the visibility of the traffic signal or a traffic signal at that location would not be ideal. So we think during the STP process it makes sense to look at other site access or circulation concepts that avoid the need for a traffic signal at this location. Finally, I think it's important to acknowledge the industrial nature of the area and the need to accommodate large vehicles at intersections and access points. There clearly be a need for intersection improvements as well as offsite improvements of the rail crossings and along area roadways to accommodate multimodal travel. These haven't been identified, but it's worth noting that land uses in the area generate many trucks and their ability to move freely needs to be maintained regardless of how the site near to.
Speaker 0: You, Mr. Brown. Thank you for your time. Up next, our next speaker is Jesse Paris.
Speaker 2: Good evening, members of Council. Good evening, Council President Gilmore My name is Jesse Paris. I'm representing for Denver Homeless our low life star action movement for self-defense, positive action, commitment to social change as well as the Unity Party of Colorado and Mile High and those I'll be your next mayor in 2023. I'm in favor of this rezoning because we need more affordable housing throughout the whole metro area. I just have a few questions. The first question is, is it true that only 10% of 450 units will be affordable between 60% and 80% and my level. So is there a traffic study done for this rezoning story? Was there a trade study done for this rezoning or how long is this affordability agreement going to last before it's due for 60 plus year? Or what is the time frame for that? So someone could please answer those questions. I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Jesse. Our last speaker this evening is Brian Lomax. Mr. Loma, you might need to add me. AMY Mm hmm. Yep. Go ahead.
Speaker 2: Hey, thanks. You know, as I'm sitting outside of Melanie and Mike. Mike night instead of in a vacant city council chambers, I'm reminded that as we continue to develop areas, we're not effectively looking at the long term impacts. I read through all the documentation, so I know there was a traffic study and I see the train traffic. I see the trains travel there a lot. It's a congested area, one of the few industrial areas left in the city and county of Denver. And I'm really like I'm concerned that we need. Affordable housing. But when we're looking at placing people next to trains and next to industry, that's not necessarily the best places for it. And for anybody to be living. And I'm just kind of really concerned about the idea that definitely looking at bike traffic, looking at the industrial traffic mixes that are going to be ending up in this initial in this zone as you as currently mapped out, it's concerning to me. While we recognize that we have to have places where people live, not necessarily against this, not necessarily for this. I'm really concerned that as I read zoning regulations and we look at the park plans and stuff like that, we're not budgeting for the infrastructure of sustainability. And so definitely housing near bike pathways is something near the the main train lines, something that we need and we need to consider more. So this one's a little bit of a mix for me, but I know nothing is easy, but I'm really, really concerned. There's a lot of heavy, heavy traffic there. It's not the right place to put people. You're going to drive that industry out of town by by if you don't do it right. That's all I got. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Loma. That concludes our speakers tonight. Questions from members of council. Councilman Clark, I was wondering if you're going to chime in since this is in your district or.
Speaker 2: We've got I don't have any questions at this time. I would love to get in comments, but I see some other folks getting in raise their hand for questions. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Very good. First up, we have Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you. Madam President, I would like to ask.
Speaker 2: It.
Speaker 0: It's that Matt Brown that talked about the traffic study. If you wouldn't mind coming back on. Go ahead with your question, Councilman. We've got the map back up.
Speaker 1: Okay, great.
Speaker 0: So, Mr. Brown, first of all, were were you able to complete your comments because you you ran out of time? And I just wanted to make sure if there were some other key points that you were able to get those across.
Speaker 2: You know, I was very close to the last thing that I really wanted to emphasize was just the importance of being able to accommodate industrial traffic in this area. So as improvements are made for this site and offsite to accommodate the multi-modal connections and so forth, I just wanted to make sure that the industrial traffic was a part of the consideration.
Speaker 0: So the study that you did was independent. It was not. And it was done for Rio Grande. Was there already a study that was done by the applicant of the redevelopment that you looked at and compared yourself?
Speaker 1: You.
Speaker 2: Yes. So. Excuse me. The applicant retained a traffic engineer that prepared the transportation and mobility study for for their project. And that's the information that I reviewed on behalf of the Rio Grande. Okay.
Speaker 0: Okay. So I just find it fascinating that that's done prior to this application yet again. This is an example for my colleagues of the level of detail that we don't get as part of these applications. And it's why some of us have advocated that we should go back to some of the things that used to be part of the rezoning, so that we are, in fact getting more details and making a better informed decision on the request that we're being asked to approve. Let me just ask you a further question about whether or not that traffic study, either that you did or that you reviewed, done by the applicant, look at pedestrian access to the east, to the Baker neighborhood, and to some degree to the to the north, because if the site is going to have a lot of commercial on there, that will draw more pedestrian traffic across. What is what is that, three or four lanes on Santa Fe? Ensuring that we've got safe pad access is really critical to that mobility. So is that something that you looked at or was that included at all in their study?
Speaker 2: My interesting I did look at that and my understanding is that the the improvements that are proposed by the applicant are limited to on site improvements. So and I they're here obviously and can correct me if I'm wrong but I believe they're proposing to make sidewalk improvements on the north side of Bayard. But my understanding is that that's between Kalamazoo and Santa Fe, not east. As you go east from Santa Fe towards the Baker neighborhood, obviously you have a lack of sidewalks and accessibility along that corridor and you also have the light rail crossing there that isn't an accessible crossing. And so that's what I'm referring to with respect to the need for additional on site improvements and that those being the industrial use of the area and traffic be considered in evaluating the appropriateness of those kinds of improvements, like being able to turn, you know, big vehicles at corners and at intersections is something that my my client in particular is interested in ensuring that that that isn't compromised as a result of any improvements that are made.
Speaker 0: So I want to ask a representative from the developer if they can address my same questions. So thank you, Mr. Brown. Appreciate you answering my questions. I'm not sure who the best person is that should address this, but I just wanted to ask about the the head connection where we may have you know, there's a lot of interest in the Baker neighborhood to support the project because it will add, you know, more, more people and more amenities. But at the same time, it could pose a greater risk for pedestrians. And so I just wanted to ask the applicant to address that as well. Right. Thank you, Councilman. We have Kenneth Ho. And he's ready to answer your questions. I. Kenneth, how are you? I thought you were in there for a minute. Now I don't see you.
Speaker 2: You hear me now?
Speaker 0: Yes. No reason.
Speaker 2: Okay, great. Thank you for the question.
Speaker 0: Oh, you just cut out on us. We just lost you.
Speaker 2: Can you hear me now?
Speaker 1: No, we can't.
Speaker 2: I'll hold the speaker out in front of me a little bit here. Sorry for the audio difficulties. The mobility study was actually part of the LDR process that we went through with the. So that's why this this was done specifically as part of it. And, and I believe it was scoped as part of whatever the city is now requiring for LV hours. In terms of the pedestrian connection says so of the study that was being reviewed actually has already been submitted to the city and I'm not sure whether it has been provided to council, but in any case, it is. The study recommended a light at Bayside in Santa Fe in order to not only accommodate automobile and truck traffic, but also, frankly, pedestrian crossings as well as as the previous gentleman spoke about. You know, traffic signals are complicated, but at the same time, they not only may create some inconveniences for automobiles and trucks, but they create important breaks in traffic for pedestrians and cyclists. And that improvement is a offsite improvement in order to enhance the pedestrian bicycle access, also along Bayside, which is identified as a key pedestrian bicycle route.
Speaker 0: Thank you for answering that question. I want to move on to whether or not the LDR process looked at your proximity to rail on the West Side and whether it discussed some buffering to protect the residents that would be living and working in the development, you know. Were there setbacks that were identified from the rail and some kind of buffering that you all would be looking at? And can you explain what what you guys are thinking?
Speaker 2: We were we were during the earlier process provided with the rail study and the report and we reviewed it, you know that you know, the additional buffering in order to address noise from the rail is going to be incorporated into the design. The vertical developer has already talked about that, but there weren't any specific recommendations regarding any spatial buffering from.
Speaker 0: So the buffering you're going to do is only for noise, not necessarily for impact of an incident that might occur of any of the products it travels along that corridor, knowing that we have high volumes of flammable liquids and other hazardous materials that will travel on that corridor.
Speaker 2: No councilwoman there. There isn't a specific distance related to that occurrence.
Speaker 0: So. Do I hear you to say that your development would? A but a close proximity to that trip to those tracks? Or are you looking at some kind of setback? And I guess I see Courtney trying to chime in here to see if the city is recommending any distancing from the tracks as well. Courtney. Was that addressed at all? The LDR process.
Speaker 3: So we did talk with the applicant. You know, we have as recommended by the task force, we created a proximity detection feature in Excel to identify project proposals within 200 feet of a rail corridor. And we did talk with development services and that the project during the site development plan phase would be reviewed by the Denver Fire and building reviews take into account any needs for life safety requirements and egress when adjacent to rail corridor. But currently there are no specific setbacks or agency specific regulations for development proximate pregnant railroads. But we did bring that up to the applicant. The proximity is close, but we didn't have any specific regulation to measure it against.
Speaker 0: So, Kenneth, where do you plan to place your parking? I'm assuming you're going to have a parking structure with that many units being built on site. What is the placement of the parking garage going to be?
Speaker 2: And that's what I was going to say during the site development plan. Right now, the the concept plan and we are not a vertical developer here, but we have submitted a concept plan that is that locates the above ground structure on the south part of the site. And so there will you know, again, as part of the step, we don't have a final step related to that or site design, but that is the desire and that was what was actually studied as part of the mobility study, having the the parking structure on the South Side, which would which is what was putting the traffic on to be on.
Speaker 0: Okay. And I would just encourage that you all look at placing it closer to the tracks. I think it would pull the traffic off of the the street for if you put it further back rather than closer to the street, which will create some of the traffic issues that I just heard Mr. Moore talk about a few minutes ago. And so that could also be part of your buffering for protecting the residents if there was an incident. And this is something that I think our city is being really lax in addressing in terms of ensuring that we as a city are protecting human life when we are approving these applications and encouraging people to live in these developments by sheer, you know, approvals through all of our processes. So let me just see if I have any other ones and I apologize. Madam President, let me just look at my notes here real quick. Yeah, I think we covered all of them. So thank you very much. And we'll let someone else sort of questions. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Councilman Ortega, Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. Kind of along the lines of Councilwoman Ortega's questioning, you know, Rio Grande companies been in that area as my math tape doing math on the fly. But I get 127 years. And, you know, we've lost enough industry in Denver that I don't want to put roadblocks in front of a long time a neighbor . And so, you know, the letters that that they sent in, I thought, were actually quite reasonable. They expressed their concerns and just asked to be involved in crafting a solution that works for everybody along the way. And so I guess I would ask Kourtney and Mr. Ho both if you could comment on what your commitment is to involving Rio Grande in that discussion as things move forward. Yeah. Councilwoman Katherine, thank you for that question. And we have had several meetings with Mr. Peterson and Rio Grande actually spent almost 2 hours with him a couple of days ago understanding what his concerns are. And we actually spoke with the vertical developer today and confirmed that we'll be introducing the two of them, assuming that this goes forward to to have direct conversations about the future site plan. I think you meant you didn't count some. I am here to thank you. Courtney, are you there that you can comment on that, please. As to what I guess what I'm asking is what is CPD's? How do you consider these conflicts moving forward where we've got a neighbor who's been doing business and supporting our taxpayers for 127 years and is concerned about their ability to continue doing that and making their contribution.
Speaker 3: Yeah. And I would defer I'm trying to see if there's someone from Deirdre from development services on. That could help. Can I have comment from the development services perspective because really gets handed over from, you know, redundant planning service to development services. For that, I'm looking to see if she. On here.
Speaker 0: And not.
Speaker 3: No, I'm not seeing. Okay.
Speaker 0: Oh, wait. You know, we've got her in the attendees. Her hand is raised, and so we'll go ahead and get her into the panelists. All right, Deirdre, you might have to unmute yourself to answer Councilman Cashman's question or if you need it. Repost.
Speaker 1: Hi. Yeah, I would like repost. Thank you. I heard my name and then I. Okay. Thank you. Every person.
Speaker 0: Go ahead, councilman.
Speaker 2: Oh, yeah. So what I was asking thank you for for being here. You know, we've got an industrial neighbor to this proposed project who's been in the neighborhood for over 125 years and has concerns about maintaining their ability to continue doing business with hundreds of truck trips and auto trips a day. And I'm just wondering, as you look at a traffic plan for this development, how much weight goes into something like that, an existing industrial client as well as, you know, residential tenants?
Speaker 1: Well, thanks for the question and not that I would want to pass this up on. Not sure if anyone. Dottie is also on the call by daddy because they review the mobility reports and they actually help with the stopping of those reports. The Mobility Report is designed to identify all of the traffic background traffic and then of course future traffic associated generated by that development. And so that those mobility reports would take into account what is occurring with current traffic is associated with a current user. So a neighboring industrial user, anyone in that area within whatever the scope was, whether it was a quarter mile or 500 feet, whatever they decided was appropriate for that study. And then they would determine based on that, you know, what Signalization was required and if there were improvements, that the project just could not accommodate because the traffic would become, you know, would overrun the amount of improvements that they could do.
Speaker 0: They couldn't get.
Speaker 1: Over that issue. Then that, of course, could pose a problem for a project. But in almost every case, in cases like this, you know, it's a smaller site. They've been asked to mitigate accordingly. And there would be a signal. And of course, they would be looking at where pedestrians are crossing and, you know, whether there are additional lanes or turn lanes associated with new traffic being added to the existing count. So that's kind of my CPD planner view of it. I'm sure that Dotty has even more information they can provide that's provided during the administrative process of the site development plan review, but it is definitely taken into account during during that process. The LDR, the framework specifically identified a mobility report as something that needed to be done prior to approval of any site development plan, just to understand the feasibility and make sure that we understood.
Speaker 0: If.
Speaker 1: There were any particular key issues that the applicants needed to be aware of going into it. And obviously for them to know if there were really big red flags when it came to traffic.
Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you very much. And I guess the last thing I would say is getting back to you, Mr. Ho, you said you met with Rio Grande for a couple of hours. You're introducing them to the vertical developer. I'd like I'd like a little stronger commitment on your part to continue to involve them in part of the dialog. I know it's in cases like this, it's really a, you know, a compromise situation. Two heads better than one. Three heads better than two type of thing. Absolutely. Councilman, Councilman, we've spoke with them on a number of a number of times. And right now, the vertical developer, Camden also is a long term holder. And so they know that they're not they're only going to be neighbors for for a long time here. So I think that that kind of dialog, as well as dialog with the rest of the community, there were some, you know, during the LDR process and during the community information meeting, the community had a very strong preference, not locate the to the entrance and exit of the parking structure on the Ellsworth side, which is part of why we located down on the South Side and obviously other folks have other interests. I think that there's also a pretty high likelihood that that this light will actually when when all is said and done, may actually facilitate some of the movements from Rio Grande site and make it easier for them to access Santa Fe going north from Bayard because of the traffic signal as well. But absolutely, we're happy to have further conversation since we aren't selling the entire site to Camden, we will be part of we will also be neighbors for some time as well. So we look forward to being part of that conversation. Thank you, Mr.. Thank you, Madam President. That's all I have.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. And we looked in the attendees and we looked for somebody from Dotty, but unfortunately, we didn't have them in the meeting. So sorry about that, Councilman. Next up, we have Councilwoman Torres.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. Tennis. I just wanted to make sure. One of the questions that I had when this came to LUDI was about connection to the Santa Fe Arts District and just wanted to make sure that that connection was made and that there was some conversation there.
Speaker 0: You still.
Speaker 1: Can.
Speaker 2: You hear me now? Okay, great. Councilwoman Torres? Yes. Thank you very much for the question and for alerting us to the fact that we were part of the Santa Fe Arts District. I know that we're working on changing the R.A. boundaries on the on the city website. We did reach out to Ms.. Shayna Belton, the board chair, I believe, of Santa Fe. Our sister had both a meeting with her and then her presentation to the entire board. And based on that, you know, we followed up with her and she didn't have any specific concerns. But we also welcome continuing a dialog with her and introducing her to the Oracle developer as well. So thank you very much for that.
Speaker 1: Thank you for doing that. My only other question in this, we chatted about.
Speaker 3: This a little bit.
Speaker 1: At committee, but given Councilman Ortega's questions.
Speaker 3: About.
Speaker 1: Orienting parking toward the south where.
Speaker 0: The rail.
Speaker 1: Lines currently are, how would it impact your development or your plans for that property if in the future that moves those lines and they end up on kind of the northeast corner of that property?
Speaker 2: Yeah, based on my understanding of the seat change, it would actually remove the lines from the south and southwest of our property and actually move it beyond our northwestern boundary. So if that change happens, then we would not be under any influence of that other than potentially how they how they do a grade separated track at all of the intersections to the east of us. And the plans are far from certain as to how all that will work. So good question. But if they actually do that, make that change would actually reduce the significantly reduce the train, automobile, pedestrian and bicycle interactions around our site.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Those are my questions. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Speaker 2: Madam President, to you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Next up, we have Councilman Sawyer.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. So I just need a little bit of clarification around the vertical developer who's, I guess, coming in next. So the the agreements that you've got with hosts, Kenneth, are those do those run with the land then? Is that will those covenants be binding on the vertical developer as well?
Speaker 2: That's correct, Councilwoman, that the those commitments are actually part of the. ANDREWS Andrew can answer them as well, but they're part of the development agreement. And so it's it runs with title. But I know Mr.. Mr. Johnson wants to address that specifically.
Speaker 1: Andrew, do you want to jump in or. I feel like that was a good enough clarification. But if there's something else.
Speaker 2: Excuse me, I'm you know, it's true. Around the land, there will be a covenant against the land.
Speaker 1: Perfect. Thank you. Okay. And then just in terms of clarification around the zoning and the waivers, so there is no other in our in our zoning code. There is no other way to do what you want to do here than without waivers. It's just my understanding that it is our goal in our zoning code, Courtney, to not use waivers in general that the purpose is to of of our form based zoning code was.
Speaker 3: To do away.
Speaker 1: With waivers and it is often as we can. So why are we doing waivers in this instance?
Speaker 3: Yes, great. Great question. And it is a complicated rezoning with a lot of different moving parts. Through the LR process, it became clear that enhanced design was needed for this site based on community feedback. And so we we use the seven as, you know, something that we had an existing tool that we can use for these transitioning innovation flex districts. And that using this existing tool, we know that it might need to be customized a bit to fit in this specific location. And the applicant suggested to waivers. And those waivers we evaluated and we felt that the the policy was meant that, you know, a bridge to a future text amendment or, you know, in that thing that we we don't know if we're specifically going to do change the the seven. But we know that there is some issues with these two aspects. So it does meet the policy that we have for waivers in custom zoning.
Speaker 1: Okay. So I guess I understand that it means the policy that we have for custom zoning. But it. Doesn't that doesn't explain why we're using custom zoning in the first place. Really? So I guess can you flesh that out a little bit for me?
Speaker 3: Yeah. So the the innovation project setting blueprint in envisions including residential uses. You know, with the industry today doesn't have those standards in place to ensure a well-designed mixed use outcome. So by applying the design overlay, we're not going to get entirely residential outcome. And that, you know, we can get some commercial uses here by applying the DOT seven. Okay. Does that make sense?
Speaker 1: I think so. You seemed like you sort of like jumped in and you seemed like you wanted to say something else. I thought it does. It's totally fine. Sorry about that. Go ahead.
Speaker 3: No, no, no. It's like, uh, you know, this is a, I think that the G-7, it is applying an existing tool, but it's a way for us to get enhance design, get from a mix of commercial uses so we don't end up with a entirely residential product here.
Speaker 1: Okay. So this is going to give you the flexibility to put in the commercial that you need in the development as well. It's a kind of fill out that the bottom floor space. And activate that. Is that. Is that. Is that what you're saying?
Speaker 3: Yep. Yep. Got it.
Speaker 1: Okay. All right. Perfect. Thank you. I think that's that pretty much answers my question. Thanks, Madam President.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman. Next up, we have Councilman Sandoval.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. So, Courtney or Kenneth, I have a question for you. So on the overlay and they did see oh seven, it talks about feet. Can you talk to me about that in percentages? So of the waiver that you're proposing, what percentage of the building would be active street use?
Speaker 2: I am going to need to do some quick math. Councilwoman. Maybe Courtney might be doing that as well.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Because I mean, I write the waiver and I'm working on one for Tennyson. But people think percentage is not these feet that you're talking about. I need to know the percentage that we're talking about here.
Speaker 3: Right. You know, I think it's interesting here because in this, you know, in this area is unique because both Santa Fe, Cal Math and Ellsworth, based on the the standards in the code would likely be designated primary streets. And so that's why the deal seven has so much of that nonresidential active street frontage that, you know, you'd see in Reno, you wouldn't see three primary streets. It does that that doesn't typically occur. It's typically it's like one, you know, maybe two. So it doesn't really account for the three primary streets of the waiver is helping us apply this existing tool in this location. You know under the standard I think they would have to have normally. About what does that 200 and. 15 linear feet of nonresidential active use. Is that correct, Kenneth? I think we did the math, so.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 3: And so it's going down to 185 feet.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So what's the average? So there has to be a formula there. You would have had to do a formula. I didn't. You can do a formula where like you're trying to meet a goal of how much of a building where how much active are you trying to get to? You're trying to get to 40%. Are you trying to get 50% or you trying to get to 70% trying to get in that sweet spot? 60%. That's that's what I'm trying to figure out with this waiver. Because what I'm doing and the reason I'm asking this is because I've never seen a designer really have a waiver before . I've just seen a design overlay be redesigned and implement a new iOS eight or nine. That's what we were told we're doing and we've been working on on Tennyson Street. I'm trying to figure out where you're trying to get to on this active street use. Like, is it going to be 50%? What's the goal?
Speaker 2: So I believe it's a 400 foot block and for the 185 feet would go to about 46%.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 2: And yeah, so that, you know, and again, specific designs are. Are going to be determined during the inspection process.
Speaker 1: So a little under 50% of their commission would be active street. Then is there a requirement, Courtney, in the design, the seven that talks about doors like how many feet a new door should be so that you don't have these big open spaces that don't get leased and don't get have rent and don't. So you keep them a little bit smaller, but then you can break them up as they go on. Go on. Do you understand what I mean? I think you probably and.
Speaker 3: Yes, yes, I talked to Christopher Johnson. You know, we've been in contact about the Berkeley Regis overlay. And I know that I think that the Berkeley Regis overlay that you've been working on and we'll have a standard talking about a frequency of entrances, is that what you're talking about? The deal seven doesn't have that standard. And I think that, you know, those smaller embedded neighborhood commercial areas that the the Berkeley Regis design overlay will address, you know, that rhythm and cadence of those entrances is important for those smaller embedded neighborhood commercial areas. But as I said, the Deal seven doesn't have a design standard existing currently to address that.
Speaker 1: Okay. And then. Was it Ken or Courtney? Was it through the LDR process that you did that you decided that this site needed the design overlay? Or was that something that you had thought about prior?
Speaker 3: That was through the LDR process.
Speaker 1: Okay. It was a recommendation through the processes that would I.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Okay. Okay. And then. And then can when you breathe, how much of the how much of this site will you keep and will you redevelop as a vertical developer?
Speaker 2: Hard to predict the future, Councilwoman Sandoval. Right now, where we would we would hope to, you know, of the kind of three main parcels. If you talk about the rectangle and the triangles, we're looking probably at one of the triangles being something that we would hold on to and develop ourselves. It's hard to hard to predict what the different markets are. We really actually had considered this site as potentially moving our offices to. Unfortunately, right now, the office market is a little bit challenging, but we hope that that will improve in the future. So we're still hoping to do that in the future.
Speaker 1: So. You bet. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman Sandoval. We've got Councilman Ortega at your back up in the queue. Yes, I am. One last question. So, Kenneth, I'm not sure if you would be the better person or Courtney to answer this question, but given that Santa Fe is a state highway, I would suspect that they would have to weigh in on adding a signal at that location. I know when the folks were working on the Gates project and they were talking about putting a signal on on Santa Fe on the southbound traffic side that involved that will involve course final approval. So can you just speak to whether or not anybody has talked about that just yet? I know it's a little you know, it may be a little premature, but you at least want to know that going in. Right. Whether or not that will be approved. So has anybody done that? Kenneth. Here, you're muted. So here.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Thanks again, Counselor Ortega. So we have spoken with kids, not specifically about this. Like we were actually talking to them about some of their plans around.
Speaker 0: The realignment of.
Speaker 2: The realignment of the railroad tracks. That's correct. And and what at least my understanding and certainly, Courtney, please correct me if I'm wrong. Well, this is a state highway. I believe that Denver actually has in this section of it, because it's not part of that. It's I believe it's actually controlled by Dottie. Because they said that they are a referral agency, but they will not make that final. He suggested that it would not be their final decision here. But in any case, we have spoken with them, they're aware of it. And they've I think we included one of the letters that they had no opinion, but we had we hadn't gotten into that level of a site specific, but they.
Speaker 0: Would have to give final sign off, even though he has some you.
Speaker 2: Know, I think that's more of a city. But but yeah, like I said.
Speaker 0: Can you clarify that?
Speaker 3: I think that they are a referral agency and they will they'll get the application and they'll have an opportunity to review it. I'm not. In terms of who has the trump card or the ultimate authority. I am not I couldn't speak to 100% certainty. Okay.
Speaker 2: If I may, I could add clarification to that. The court jurisdiction actually ends at Alameda. So it's from Alameda. Okay. This section is fully and entirely under Denver City and county of Denver control.
Speaker 0: Got it. Thank you for that, Matt, and we appreciate this go round. Q Madam President, I have no further questions. All right. Thanks for jumping in there, Matt, to answer that question. Thank you, Councilman Ortega. The public hearing for Council Bill 20 Dash 0815 has closed comments by members of Council Councilman Clark.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. I think that there is certainly some things that warrant more discussion as we move through this. But there's a lot to be excited about here. You know, for the community, this has been a vacant building that takes up an entire block for some for over five years. And and what we have through this process and I love that this went through that LDR is, you know, a new affordable, affordable housing plan. This gets deeper into the arms than the last one that we had in front of us with 75% at 80% or less of AMI an additional 40 units beyond the seven that would have been required. And 25% of those will be two bedrooms and 25%, three bedrooms, which are really, really critical and really missing in Denver as a critical need for affordable housing for families. We also have 10% open space. And I think that the walkability, the activation of the main floors, that's something that we have to deal with. We have a plan that we didn't even talk about here because it's a seat off plan for Alameda where the community was promised a bike head bridge at Bayard to get across the Valley Highway and over to the South Platte River. That's going to land right there. We already have today. Stranahan Is the copper door coffee shop Crazy Brewery. There are, there's a barbecue place, there's a board game place and I was takeout food movement, climbing and fitness that's all over there on that side. And you have the entire community. People are already walking and biking across here. We have to plan for that and I think we can do that in a way that works for our industrial partners. But the truth of this area is it is not all industrial anymore. There are places, breweries, places where people are going to grab a drink, a coffee, where people are walking. And we have to look at how do we get them across, you know, a road that has really only been designed for cars and for cars to be going very fast if we're really committed Division Zero, this is an area where we have to be doing that with or without this project. And this project helps catalyze some of the work that we need to be doing that we probably should have already done. So I think it's an important piece of that that that adds in to that. You know, I really want to thank applicants for working repeatedly, not just checking the box and saying, hey, we reached out to the R.A., but being present, hosting meetings, being at our no meetings, really working with the neighborhood around this. And this is something that the neighborhood supports and is excited about. So I think, you know, so more conversations as we continue to grapple with our city and its evolution, not just in areas that are industrial, that are adding new uses and breweries that also have food trucks in front of them, that have traditionally been in more industrial areas. But also, as we evolved from a city that was built around the automobile to a city that is built around moving people, we're going to continue to grapple with some of these things. And I think that this is a great opportunity to do that and to start to make progress. So I will be supporting this tonight and then and I would ask my colleagues to support it as well. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Clark. And I will go ahead and add my comments that this rezoning passes all the criteria and the guidelines. And it's really exciting to finally see something happening on this site. And so I will be supporting it as well. Madam Secretary.
Speaker 1: Roll call, please.
Speaker 2: After I.
Speaker 1: Flynn.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Herndon.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Hunt.
Speaker 0: Cashman.
Speaker 1: I can eat i. Ortega.
Speaker 0: I. Sandoval.
Speaker 1: I. Sawyer. I. Torres.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: Black Eye CdeBaca. Abstain. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 1: One of abstention. 12 I's.
Speaker 0: 12 I's Council Bill 815 has passed our pre adjournment announcement on Monday, October 5th. Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 930. Approving and accepting the east area. The East Central Area Plan. Excuse me, which plan shall become part of the comprehensive plan?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 50 South Kalamath Street, 39 South Kalamath Street, 10 South Lipan Street, and 101 South Santa Fe Drive in Baker.
Approves an official map amendment to rezone properties located at South Kalamath Street, 39 South Kalamath Street, 10 South Lipan Street and 101 South Santa Fe Drive from I-A UO-2 to I-B UO-2 to I-MX-5, UO-2, DO-7 (industrial to industrial, mixed-use) with waivers in Council District 7. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 8-18-20.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_09142020_20-0951
|
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded comments by members of Council. Councilmember Ortega.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Madam President, of practices names on a couple of occasions and I apologize. I kind of butchered a couple of them. I just want to say thank you to all of these retiring librarians from our library system. This is a lot of institutional knowledge walking out the door, and we all know how critical our libraries are for our communities, especially now. During COVID, they've played a vital role in continuing to provide hotspots and continuing to make sure that people have access to their varying resources. But the work that James has done is is pretty phenomenal. And I wanted to just call him out because he's actually someone that I was working with in assisting me to do some of the genealogy research on my family. And for any of you who have not undertaken this and, you know, logged on with 23 and me and Ancestry.com, a lot of those are connected back to the Mormon Church. And I understand James will speak in a few minutes, but I hear we are second to the Mormon Church in terms of the volumes of material that we have in our library system. And that wouldn't have happened without the hard work of James and his colleagues that work beside him in assembling all of those records. So that when any one of us go to look up, you know, birth records, marriage records, any of those things that are now archived, it's so much easier to do it because you can just go to the Denver Public Library and find those records and find more information on your families. So I just want to say a huge thank you to Ms.. Carausius, to every one of our retiring individuals for your true dedication to our city and our citizens, for the incredible work that you have done and you will be missed. I know there will be a void with people coming into our libraries and no longer seeing your smiling faces. And that will be replaced with with other folks. But thank you, thank you. Thank you for your work. And just want to encourage Michael at least to support this.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 5: Thank you, madam. Madam President, I just want to add on just very briefly to what Councilwoman Ortega has offered here, and thank the entire library staff, those who are leaving. Losing a lot of institutional memory. But I just want to amplify what Councilwoman Ortega just said about not just the, you know, the Western history collection or the genealogical collection, which I've used extensively in a lot of my research, but to the entire library staff of the city. They are sort of the National Archives for Denver and for Colorado and a lot of the Rocky Mountain West. And they have done, I think, a tremendous job in adapting to changing times as far as how people use libraries and as to how the public wants to use libraries. And I just want to thank them for their service as those who spent so many years leave their careers behind. Hopefully, they'll mentor the folks who will be fulfilling the functions behind them. And I look forward to continuing to work with them. But thank you to the Denver Public Library staff and congratulations to the retirees. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. And seeing no other hands raised, I'll go ahead and convey my congratulations to the library, folks. And, you know, the library was the hub in many of our communities prior to COVID. And you handled so many different issues within the library. And that team are so flexible. And I know they're losing a lot of that institutional knowledge and support. And so we think of the folks that are still on with them, but then also those who are moving on to their retirement and the work that they've done for the city. So congratulations again, Madam Secretary, please, let's do roll call.
Speaker 4: Ortega. I. Sandoval. I. Sawyer, I. Torres. I. Black. I see tobacco. I. Clark.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 4: Flynn. I Herndon. At times.
Speaker 2: Hi.
Speaker 4: Cashman.
Speaker 1: Hi.
Speaker 4: Hi. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I know the Secretary closed the voting and announced results. 1313 ISE Proclamation 951 has been adopted. We have 5 minutes for the proclamation acceptance. Councilwoman Ortega, we'll start the five minute timer, and we'd love for you to introduce who you here to? Here to accept the proclamation?
Speaker 7: Yes. We didn't invite every single one of them of you would be here all night, but. And we will get a copy to each one. But I did want to see if James Jeffrey is in the queue so we could call him up to speak on behalf of himself and his colleagues who are retiring.
Speaker 0: I think we were looking and staff was indicating to me that he's not in the attendees, but we'll do one more. Final look here.
Speaker 7: He she was not wanting to be singled out. Let me just say that.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 7: And we wanted to acknowledge everybody. But, you know, I try to highlight somebody when I'm doing this that just exemplifies the work that they all do. And so that's why I had picked him, because, you know, we've all worked with many of these individuals, but this was someone that was helping with something very special in being able to compile that family history. So if he is not on, we can move on with our agenda. I just want to once again say thank you to all of them for their incredible. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Well, thank you, Councilwoman. And we we did a look, and we don't have him, unfortunately. But again, congratulations to all of the library folks, and we'll go ahead and move on to the next proclamation. And for the record. Proclamation 952 recognized in September 2020 as National Prepared Prepared statement is sponsored by Councilwoman Ortega as well and has been placed on consent. Madam Secretary, please read the bills for introduction for us.
Speaker 4: From business, arts, workforce and aviation. 2856 a bill for an ordinance approving a proposed a mandatory agreement between the city and county of Denver and the Denver Housing Authority to support the development and construction of grow market, providing grocery accessibility and workforce training and development from finance and governance. 2840 A bill for an ordinance approving the Mayor's Reappointment and appointments to the Denver Commission on Cultural Affairs. 2849 A bill for an ordinance modifying Chapter 18 of the Revised Municipal Code of the City and County of Denver to allow contributions to the Health Maintenance Organization Benefit Plan to be implemented in 2021. 2876 a bill for an ordinance amending the Classification and pay plan for employees in the career service and for certain employees not in the commercial service. 2877 a bill for an ordinance amending the Classification and Pay Plan for employees in the career service and for certain employees in the career service. 2884 A bill for an ordinance making a rescission from an appropriation in the Wastewater Management Operations Fund to make a cash transfer to the Wastewater Management Division's Planned Fleet Replacement Fund from land use, transportation and infrastructure. 2852 A bill for an ordinance approving a proposed temporary easement between the city and county of Denver and Housing Authority of the city and County of Denver for pedestrian access during construction of 1025 North Decatur Street and 2800 West 10th Avenue. 2880 A bill for an ordinance relinquishing the easement established in the permanent easement recorded with the Denver Clinic and recorded at reception number 2020023588. Located at 5191 Yampa Street. 2882 a bill for an ordinance relinquishing portions of the easements reserved in Ordinance Number 279 series of 1995, recorded by a Denver clerk and recorded at reception number 9500046347. Located at South Phenix Street between West telling me two avenue and West Dakota Avenue from Safety, Housing, Education and Homelessness. 28 one for a bill for an ordinance approving a proposed second and mandatory agreement between the city and county of Denver and the Regents of the University of Colorado to provide services to individuals living with HIV AIDS in the Denver Transitional Grant area.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Council members, this is your last opportunity to call out an item. Councilmember Flynn, would you make the motions for us this evening?
Speaker 5: I guess I will. Madam President. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Now, I'll do a recap under resolutions. Council members say of OCHA has called out Resolution 891 for questions and 895 for a vote. And Council Member Hines has called out Resolution 728 through 735, 741 through 743, 838 and 839, 853 and 864 through 873. All for a vote under bills for introduction. Council members say to Barca has called out Bill 849 for questions under bills for final consideration. No items have been called out and are pending. Councilman Herndon has called out Bill 285 for a vote and the first item up is council resolution 891. Council members say to Barca, please go ahead with your questions on Council Resolution 891, please.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. I just wanted to get clarification on what the extension of time for job creation is and how that impacts the project and the community.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilwoman. I believe that we have a staff member. Here to answer your question. Here we go. Go ahead.
Speaker 1: Doug. I council members. Madam President, Doug Selby, Councilmember CdeBaca. Madam President, the job creation we put in Skyline economic development funds, Skyline housing funds for the housing portion of this project and some general funds for the housing portion under the skyline, economic development, there's a job creation. And so with the developer, the vertical developer now in place and ready to begin construction, closing on the loan is planned for the end of this month. We anticipate the job creation will be done much sooner than what is put in the extension before you. We just wanted to make sure we had enough of a cushion in case severe weather delays with construction. But the job creation should be created through the Community Public Infrastructure Project. Below that, housing, which is still a clinic project.
Speaker 4: You got it. Thank you. That does it for my questions.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilwoman. All right. Moving on. The next item up is Council Resolution 895. Councilmember Flynn, will you please put Council Bill 895 on the floor for adoption?
Speaker 5: Yes, Madam President. I move that council. Resolution 895 be adopted.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Has been moved. Thank you for the second comments by members of Council on Bill 895. Council Member CdeBaca.
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation recognizing the service of James Jeffrey and Denver Public Library retirees to the City of Denver.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_09142020_20-0895
|
Speaker 0: Thank you. Has been moved. Thank you for the second comments by members of Council on Bill 895. Council Member CdeBaca.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. This is one we've had extensive conversation about in committee last week and wanted to make sure that we get a separate vote on this one, because I personally do not think that the targeting happens in the States and I do not support advancing this contract. Neither the portion length of time nor the salary increase.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you, Councilwoman and I, we're having quite a bit of feedback from the from the chamber, so I'm not sure if we can fix that on on your end or our end. Up next, we have Council Member Flynn.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam President. There's been a lot of talk about this contract with the Police Protective Association, and I wanted to make sure that our folks in the public understood some things that aren't really being talked about that have to be dealt with. Number one, the contract is not just no raise for police officers next year with a raise in the year 2022. The fact is that this contract is a pay cut for police officers next year. It is a 3% pay cut for next year because of the elimination of the premium pay for holidays that officers must work. We have to have 24 seven police officer coverage in the city. So it is a 3% pay cut. It was designed to save us next year, $5 million. That was the target set by the administration for the negotiations. And we met that target with this pay cut for police officers. So it's not just no raise. It is a pay cut. It's the financial the financial equivalent of an eight day furlough without pay, equivalent to what the career service employees are taking here in the city. Eight days without pay. And what and frankly, what members of council are just with one exception, are taking as a as a furlough this year to help with the budget. So that's the driving reason, among other reasons, for the people wanting a two year contract. Because if we're asking officers to take a pay cut next year, they wanted something at the back end of the contract. And so, yeah, we wanted a one year contract, but we weren't able to get that at the table. So nobody gets everything they want in any negotiation. But even so, the pay is put in writing. It's willingness to open up the contract next year. Depending on what our budget outlook is for 2022. We are in similar negotiations with the firefighters union right now and we've set a similar target for them that may result in a pay reduction for firefighters next year as well. I just want people to understand that this is a pay cut for police officers. It's also important to realize that city council must accept our own responsibility for what we've heard a lot of complain about the lack of transparency, the lack of our involvement. The PPA fulfilled its obligation. Contrary to some of the emails we've been getting, they fulfilled their charter obligation to notify us of their intent to open these negotiations. They sent us a letter on March 9th and we failed to respond to it. So City Council has to accept our own responsibility for the fact that we missed the first couple of bargaining sessions. Yes, the administration should have reached out and said, Hey, do you have someone you want to send here? But we did receive the notification. We failed to follow through. So this lack of transparency and the lack of us being at the table for the first session lays partly at our door as well as the administration. So considering all these things, I'm persuaded that that this contract gives us the certainty we need going into budget talks tomorrow, starting tomorrow, we need to nail down these savings, going to arbitration. We'll put this up in the air and will and will make those budget talks a little more difficult. So I intend to vote in favor of this to secure the certainty for the budget for next year. And with the eye toward if we are in the situation a year from now that PPA will come to the table as the other unions have done and that the PPA has done on four other occasions back when the city was in a in a budget crisis. So having having thought of all those considerations and on balance, I think approving this contract is the best way to go. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Hines.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President, I. So three things I want to say. First, I want to thank Director Hanlon for reminding council last week that sometimes we could believe what council thinks is an agreement with the executive branch. But unless we have a seat at the table, those understandings may or may not actually make it into a binding proposal. So I would say to my colleague, Council member Flynn, thank you. I totally agree that we have a shared responsibility. I know that when we have meetings that include elected officials, if that elected official or body continues to not show, I think I would maybe reach out again. So I just want to make sure that when we're having important discussions like things that materially affect the budget that that we do, certainly we share some of the responsibility. But but if we keep taking attendance and city council keeps not being there, I think that if I were in that bargaining process, I would reach out and say, hey, where are you? Second, we've received mail from, you know, outreach from constituents who appear to be pro-police, who also want us to vote against this agreement. A quote, It doesn't look like to me the police get anything out of it. Remember, they do protect us, unquote. Point three about unions. So I'm very interested in collective bargaining agreements for more people. I think working families need more protections. And so I'm conflicted about considering a vote against CVA for DPA. A union representing workers in Denver just happened to wear a badge and a gun. To help get more context, I reached out to multiple people in Denver's organized labor community. I received no organized response that affirmed DPA as a part of the collective fighting for increased worker rights for all. I did receive response from some expressing concern, including DPS, previous endorsements of anti-labor candidates and related political parties. So certainly I want our Labor communities to know that I did think and concern are consider the idea of increased worker protections. And. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Hines. Councilman CdeBaca, since we had you already up, is it okay if I go to. Okay. All right, great. Councilmember Sawyer.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Madam President. I looked into this a lot and even pulled the 28 contract because I think that's, you know, the most historically equivalent in terms of time frame rate and financial kind of stresses that are very similar to what we looked at, what we're looking at right now. I really wanted to see kind of what what the agreement look like that and what the agreement looks like now and whether those two things were sort of our sort of equivalent. And they are. So I think that that's a really good and interesting thing to know. Right. That that in in a previous financial time like 2008, you know, these these agreements are very similar. And it should be noted that in in that 2008 agreement in 2009, there was an MOU you that was signed that changed the agreement around when it became clear that that the city was in a financial continued to be in a financial crisis. So I think that that's just important to note. That said, you know, what we're looking at here is a situation where that the 2021 police changes would essentially be the equivalent of what our career service employees took in 2020 with the eight day furlough, like Councilman Flynn said, and that 12 of us took in 2020. Right. So what we're looking at in 2021 would be what? So that the police would take what the rest of our employees took in 2020. What we don't know, because we haven't seen the budget yet for 2021.
Speaker 4: Is whether our career service employees.
Speaker 6: Are going to be required to take anything else in 2021. Are there going to be more furloughed? Is is there going to be a cost of living accrual next year for our employees? We don't know. We haven't seen the budget. It comes out tomorrow. We're being asked today to vote on something without all of the information in front of us, because if.
Speaker 4: We.
Speaker 6: Are asked to do this and in our employees are asked to take furlough days or are not going to receive a cost of living adjustments, then it's not fair. That we're going to approve something tonight for those officers in 2022 that the rest of our employees aren't getting. We are not dealing with a full deck of cards. Here we are. We don't have all of the information in front of us, and that's not okay. So frankly, I think that we should delay this week until we have the budget in front of us so that we have all of the information in front of us. I don't know why it is that we are being asked to do this tonight when we haven't seen the budget yet. It's my opinion that we should push this back a week. I'll wait to hear what my other council members think of that plan. But if, you know, if we don't if we aren't going to do that, then I think I'm going to have to be a no vote because I can't make a decision without all of the information in front of me.
Speaker 4: So.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Torres.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 6: I've just.
Speaker 4: I've heard the practical arguments in voting in favor of the agreement and understand the rationales. I can't vote for this particular agreement. Tonight, whether Councilman Sawyer intends to delay it or not. I'll still be a no on.
Speaker 0: It later on. I don't see.
Speaker 4: The sea of being very realistic or equitable for us to have a proposal in front of us to save 5 million in one year and then be on the hook for 9 million the following year. This is this would be too difficult an issue to to also explain even to my own staff who are taking furloughs that officers aren't this year.
Speaker 1: And I don't.
Speaker 4: Think it looks so rosy next year. So I'm going to be a no. If we had up voting on it tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. As I've said before, there are many fine men and women in the Denver Police Department. They work hard every day to keep our communities safe. They deserve to be paid well. Just as there are many fine women and men working for Parks and Rec. Our Department of Transportation, Infrastructure, Department of Finance, Community Planning and Development, etc. who also work hard every day to deliver a great city for people to enjoy. And they also deserve to be paid well. This is a once in a century, we hope. Point in time as we look into the future. It's a pipe dream to think that revenue will miraculously, miraculously jump back to pre-pandemic proportions where money is flowing. And we can be assured we can properly honor our workforce with the salary increases they need and deserve to assure DPD erased without the same assurance being given. All city and city employees is simply not fair. I would be far more inclined to look at a contract that says DPD salaries are increased as soon as our career service employees get the same benefit. Instead of relying on a letter from the PPA, which I do appreciate that they will come back to the table if budget tightness requires. I believe more appropriate would be a letter from the city assuring the PPA that we will come back to the table when budget allows. So I'm asking both sides to return to the table and work towards an agreement that is more equitable across the board. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Sandoval.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. So I'll be brief to my colleagues. Point to Councilman Cashman website. Thank you for saying that. I agree that everybody in this city plays a very important role. And to my colleague, Councilman Torres, it I do not see a future. That's right. And given that we are going into the winter and we do not know what the impact of this pandemic will look like in our future. It's hard for me to sit here and say, approve a contract that would make whole $9 million in year 2020. And also, I just do not feel comfortable with the fact that although to my colleague Kevin Flynn, I agree that we have to take this responsibility. I also think that given that our chief negotiator has been doing this for the city and county of Denver for a long time, and city council has never been left out from the process. And this is the year that they chose to be this out. I just don't feel good, and I feel that we have to approve this contract in good faith. And I cannot approve this contract in good faith, although I do very appreciate all the men and women in uniform, especially in the police department, who have been really helping the communities who have been impacted along south, central and north federal with the multiple shootings that have happened in our communities this summer. I wish we were not put in this position, but we are. And so therefore, I will not be supporting this contract either. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Clark.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. I'll just say that I really respect the issues and the points that my colleagues have brought up on both sides of this issue.
Speaker 1: All echo what Councilwoman Sandoval just said, and I wish that we were not in this position right here.
Speaker 2: I you know, I think that.
Speaker 1: Everybody has brought up.
Speaker 2: The complexity of this. And on top of that, we're in the middle of a.
Speaker 1: Community conversation about.
Speaker 2: What policing should look like in our city and across our nation, and that complicates things. On top of that, we, as Councilwoman Sawyer mentioned, haven't.
Speaker 1: Seen the budget for 2021 yet, and things are not good.
Speaker 2: And so I will I won't get too deep into it, other than to say.
Speaker 1: That it is based on the information.
Speaker 2: That I have. I believe that if we turn this back financially, this will likely get worse for the city. Those cuts will have to come from somewhere else. Our career service employees do not have the right to bargain and sit at a table like this, and there is a high likelihood that extra money that we will have to come up with.
Speaker 1: If this goes to.
Speaker 2: Arbitration and comes back worse and doesn't save that $5 million will be on the backs of extra.
Speaker 1: Furlough days for our.
Speaker 2: Those very employees who don't have the right to bargain. It is not a perfect situation or one that I think any of us want to.
Speaker 1: Be in, where we're weighing unknowns.
Speaker 2: Of the future and knowns of really hard budget times. But it is my belief, based on what I have seen, that turning this back will lead to further cuts, which will further impact furlough days for the rest of the employees in the city. And for that reason.
Speaker 1: I will be.
Speaker 2: Supporting this and I sincerely hope that.
Speaker 1: If it does not go through.
Speaker 2: As it looks like it may not, that everyone worked really hard to make sure that that is not.
Speaker 1: That I was wrong and that in fact, we don't end up in a worse financial position for our career service employees by turning this back. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. And thank you to all my fellow council members for your very, very thoughtful remarks.
Speaker 6: And I'd also like to thank all.
Speaker 4: Of the hundreds of community members that I have heard from people who have a lot of different opinions, ranging from Abolish the Police to please give us more police. And I've really.
Speaker 6: Tried to listen to.
Speaker 4: Everyone's feedback and I agree.
Speaker 6: With.
Speaker 4: Really everything that my fellow council members.
Speaker 6: Have said here tonight. It's unfortunate the.
Speaker 4: Way this played out this year. I share your same concerns about other city employees and furlough days. But for practical reasons that Councilman Clark just brought up and that Councilman Flynn mentioned earlier, I'm concerned that we could be in a.
Speaker 6: Worse budgetary.
Speaker 4: Situation if we don't approve this, and it does go to arbitration. So I will be supporting it.
Speaker 6: But I do want to reiterate that the officers will receive.
Speaker 4: As Councilman Flynn pointed out, what is essentially a pay cut for 2021 and that they have agreed, and I trust them, that they will renegotiate for 2022 if necessary. And I believe them when they made that commitment in writing. And I do want to point out a couple of other things that I think there's been some misinformation about. The police.
Speaker 6: Did.
Speaker 4: As requested, cut over $10 million from their 2020 budget. And I believe their 2021 budget request is also going to be less.
Speaker 6: And the final.
Speaker 4: Point I want to make is that I've heard from people who are concerned that this agreement doesn't address.
Speaker 6: Discipline.
Speaker 4: And investigations of police officers. And the reason it doesn't is because those are prohibited top topics in the bargaining.
Speaker 6: And so by delaying it, it's not as if those would come back.
Speaker 4: In to the.
Speaker 1: Discussions.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman, can each.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Madam President. I appreciate the comments of particularly Councilwoman Torres and Councilman Cashman. I previewed at committee some of my concerns with the financial risk taking. I think that I described this less about a philosophical position about police and more about your budgeting approach. One thing that I've heard both from folks testifying and public comment tonight and from some colleagues who are planning to vote for it. So folks on both sides of the issue that I do just want to disagree with this contract doesn't guarantee or require any particular level of overall funding for an overall department. The only single line item it actually freezes in is retiree health that's paid in lump sum. Everything else is about this is what an individual officer is owed for their, you know, uniform upkeep or not for their pay or not their vacation or not. And so, you know, obviously, personnel is a significant portion of the department's budget, but it is nothing in this guarantees how many officers will be in patrol division or in traffic division or in any division. And so I will just say that I don't think it serves as well to describe this as a false choice between taking funding from police and then having if it if it were to be required per officer in a bargaining session, in an arbitration decision, that then those dollars would have to get made up by career service employees. That's simply not the case. We as a city could take that from administrative overhead in the Safety Department. We as a city could reduce personnel. We could, you know, as retirements happen, we could not replace those folks. There are numerous ways that we could make up any cost risk to us if arbitration didn't go well within the Department of Safety budget. And in fact, I would suggest it would be our obligation morally to do so. So I just, you know, so for those who think if we don't approve, you know, there are those who might want us never to approve a pay contract. You might think, oh, if you don't approve the contract, somehow that's defunding police. That's not how it works. This is simply what individuals are owed. We I you know, if this were a better contract, I would be advancing it. And then we would have a separate conversation about how many officers and how much administration and how much budget goes to the department. Right. This does not determine those numbers. And I know it's kind of complicated. So I you know, I have a lot of empathy for constituents trying to understand the difference between this contract. But this contract doesn't give any dollar amount to DPD. So so I want to be clear that I'm not going to vote no tonight because I think somehow by voting no, I'm going to keep dollars out of the department. That's not what this is. This is about saying, I believe we need to try again for a better deal that has less risk in the later year. So I am you know, the administration made its prioritization on cuts in 2021. I believe we need to prioritize higher the risk in 2022. Right. Maybe we still have some priority in 2021, but they put no prioritization in 2022. Right. So we just disagreed about which budget year to prioritize the most. And so that is the reason I'll be voting no tonight. And I believe that I believe that we can mitigate our risks by going back to the table and trying again to find some common ground that balances the risk of 2021 better with the risks of 2022. And number two, should we fail at that and we have an arbitration decision that's concerning, we can mitigate the risk to other departments by ensuring these cuts occur within DPD. So we have two paths, in my opinion, to mitigate the risks. There are risks and I acknowledge them. And for that reason, you know, again, I share my respect with those who analyzed the same situation and came out slightly differently. You know, for me, I can't support this tonight and I'll be a no vote. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman Ortega, did you want to get up into the queue?
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 7: It's very clear the votes are not here for this to move forward. So I won't belabor my comments, but I just think that it is important that if we are talking about significantly impacting this budget, that we need to have a plan and we don't have a plan. Many of us are involved in this conversation with Dr. Robert Davis and many other players from our community that are working to ensure that we do have a plan that looks at how we do policing differently. And Councilman Cashman and I and Councilman CdeBaca are on the Crime Prevention Control, CPIC, Crime Prevention and Control Commission. Hate acronyms, anyway, where, you know, we're involved in looking at how we do things differently with our judicial system, you know, with our jail system, with with discipline issues, lots of different things. And. In terms of the plan that that will guide how we move forward. And I think that it's critical to just, you know, ensure that we've got that in place. Secondly, I want to say that we city council members had three different occasions that I participated in. I believe there was a fourth where we talked about this particular contract at Mayor Council in Executive Session, and we had a chance to move it forward sooner if we felt like we didn't like it. And the, you know, decision was you send it to the floor and let it go down there as opposed to fail in committee. They were looking for clear direction from us to say, you know, yes or no. And we were sort of all over the map. And so that's why we're here tonight dealing with this. We're going to go down on the floor further delaying the time frame in which we'll have the details of what then gets folded into the 2021 budget. I believe they're good for their word and they put it in writing. They would come back and negotiate, just like the firefighters are doing now, even though their contract wouldn't expire till the end of next year. They're going to negotiate sooner and I believe that the PPA will do the same thing. So I believe we should move forward. You know, there are no guarantees of of what that outcome is going to be. We we were the ones asking them to, you know, put everything on the table that that was asked of them. We didn't put anything new on the table from the city side. And they they agreed to all those things that we asked them to give up. Yes. This is part of the collective bargaining process. And I said in committee, if we want collective bargaining for city employees, then we should put this issue on the ballot and try to get collective bargaining for our city employees so they have the same fair process for how their wages are set rather than it being done through the mechanism that we currently use. So I'll I'll be supporting this forward moving forward tonight, although it looks like the votes are here for it to be sent back to the bargaining table, which will more than likely end up in arbitration. And the arbitrator decides on one side or the other. The last, best deal and it may or may not be in the city's favor. So we'll just have to wait and see where the chips fall on this one. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilwoman CdeBaca.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. And thank you to all of my colleagues for clarifying and asking and making the right statements tonight. I do want to just add to that last comment about arbitration that our charter clearly outlines a process for us to come to a better agreement if nobody feels like they've gotten the agreement they wanted within the 15 days after the arbitrator provides a decision. And so that is very clear in our charter. And I think something that if we trust DPD to come back to the table in a year, we should probably also trust that if nobody feels like they're winning after an arbitrator's decision, that we will come up with an even better agreement within those 15 days. And that's it for my comments. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Herndon.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. I will I will be brief. I appreciate everyone's comments and this in mind. So I will be supporting this. The right decision may not always be the most pleasant, particularly when you are in a Soviet state where we are going to have to make the most difficult decisions of any time. Because even when I came in in 2011, as we were ending the recession, that one even compared to what we're having to do. So we're in a position now where we know we have a guaranteed $5 million in savings coming from the coming from the PPA for 2021, which is a fair, fair comment to say what is the right you to prioritize. But by sending this back to the table, I don't see a way where we as a city can be coming to be a stronger financial position. So where will those dollars have to come? And we can have the debate about where is should become. I'm not sure if we should.
Speaker 2: Necessarily go directly.
Speaker 1: To safety if we have the opportunity to take it right now. But we'll see how the budget lines up in the council. And so here we control the purse strings. So if we felt as if there wasn't equity, we can adjust the budget anyway we see fit. So I believe going with the decision of the strongest financial position that we're in right now and then moving forward that budget conversation. So if this does seem to go down, I hope that we as a body are specific to the negotiating team to say what we want as a legislative body, that they can try to move forward with that. And if not, then I hope we're ready to bear the responsibility. Should we be in a worse financial position? Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Herndon, seen no other hands raised. I'll go ahead and add my comments as well. We had a very dynamic, deep conversation at committee last, the week before last. And it I want to clarify and have on the record that the postal mail letter that was sent by the union on March 9th was never received . I never saw a copy of it. Our former legislative director never saw a copy of it there. And we delved into what is your intake mechanism for city council? Who opens the mail? Who logs the mail? Who lets people know when there's something pertinent coming up? And so as far as we know, we never received it. I've seen a copy of it, but we've never received it. And so that does then beg the question why wasn't a copy of that sent over? If there was no response by city council, that would be a quick email to send on March 10th or any time in March, any time in April, any time in May to let us know what was happening and to be there at the table. Unfortunately, that didn't happen. And going back and looking at committee, something that really struck me was that we're talking about 5 million worth of cuts in 2021, but then making the police totally whole in 2022, plus a 2.7% raise possibly. I mean, that that is unheard of in these sort of economic times. And I have to also look at it that we have no assurances for the rest of the city's workforce, and we weren't represented in good faith at the table. If I felt like there was anything that city council could have done differently, I would be the first one to step forward and say, I own that mistake. Leadership owns that mistake. But that didn't happen. There were no opportunities to pretty much stop this train once it had left the station. And when I was briefed personally as the president of council, the two year duration had already been sent over to the union. We tried to pull it back and to ask them to stop the process and not ratify it and not move forward. And we were told that their bylaws outline that that's what they have to do. And so there were plenty of points, I believe, that we could have pulled back and had a deeper conversation. But unfortunately, that didn't happen. And to the final point, whenever we were briefed in executive session in May or council, it was only a briefing. There were never decision points for us beyond. If this isn't going to make it through council, what are the steps? But then I felt like we belabored it as far as we could at committee and that we were told we couldn't keep it in committee. We couldn't continue doing this work. It had to go to the floor of council for a vote. And so with that being said, I am not in. Support of this because I don't feel like council was represented in good faith at the table. There were plenty of folks that we work with day in and day out that nobody thought it was important enough in 2020. With everything that's happening in the world and in our community to ping city council and say, Hey, you're going to have to vote on this, ultimately you probably better be at the table. So you feel like you were part of this process that that unfortunately never happened. And so I am not supportive of this tonight. And with me having the final comments, I want to just go back to you, Councilwoman Sawyer. You had mentioned to to hold this over in, delay it one week. We do have budget hearings. Are you wanting to delay it one week, or would you be amenable to us going ahead and doing the roll call vote that you do? Any member has the ability to delay it by one week with no vote.
Speaker 6: Thank you. I appreciate you talking, President Gilmore. I wanted to hear the thoughts of the rest of my council members to see kind of where everyone else was at. But it doesn't seem like any holding it over a week until we see the budget would really change anyone else's opinion. So I'm happy to go ahead and vote tonight. Thanks.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilwoman. Just wanted to check check in with you on that. Madam Secretary, roll call on Bill 895, please.
Speaker 4: No backup? No, Clark.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 4: Flynn.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 4: Herndon.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: And I think you.
Speaker 1: Cashman No.
Speaker 4: Can each. No. Ortega.
Speaker 7: I.
Speaker 4: Sandoval No. Sawyer. No. For us? No. Black. I. Madam President.
Speaker 0: No. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 4: Eight names, five eyes.
Speaker 0: Eight NES Council Bill 895 has failed. The next items up are multiple resolutions. Council member Hines has called out for a vote. We will put these items in a block and take one vote. Councilmember Flynn, will you please put these items on the floor for adoption?
Speaker 5: Madam President, I move that council resolutions all series of 2020 be adopted in a block. 728 729 seven 3731 732 733 734 735 741 742 743 838 839 853 864 865 866 860 7868 869 eight, 78, 71, eight, 72 and 873.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Council member. It has been moved. Can I get a second?
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Collective Bargaining Agreement between the City and County of Denver and the Denver Police Protective Association, for the years 2021-2022.
Approves a collective bargaining agreement with the Denver Police Protective Association for 2021 and 2022 including: a 0% salary increase in 2021; suspending the holiday pay provisions for 10 holidays in 2021; reducing the City’s contribution to the Denver Police Retiree Health Fund by $360,000 in 2021; creation of a one-time 100-hour time bank in 2022 to be used in the future like vacation leave; a 2.77% salary increase for 2022; and expressing hazard/specialty pay in terms of a percentage of salary effective January 1, 2022. The agreement results in $4.9 million in city budget savings in 2021. The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 10-5-20. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 9-2-20.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_09142020_20-0729
|
Speaker 0: Thank you. Council member. It has been moved. Can I get a second?
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Comments by members of Council on these contracts. Council Member Hines.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. So these are a is a bunch of stuff all at the same time. And I thank you for being willing to consider them in a blog. The reason I believe that they're in a bloc is that all of these are on call contracts and they total close to half a billion dollars. And so I called out these contracts because of outreach from District ten residents. They I'm concerned, but they're concerned. So I share their concern that that we're earmarking nearly half a billion dollars in contracts less than 24 hours before the executive branch releases the proposed budget for Denver. Council doesn't have any advance notice about the mayor's proposed budget, as we mentioned in the last discussion. But we all know that the 2021 budget will be smaller than the 2020 budget. And considering the smaller budget, this could be seen as a public by the public as guaranteeing this money to to certain vendors. So I wanted to I wanted to bring up. How about the Department of Transportation and Infrastructure? Maybe Mr. Gallardo, if he's available. And one.
Speaker 0: Yup. There he is.
Speaker 2: Yes, I'm here. Thank you for having me. So, Mr. Gallardo, can you help explain the connection or lack thereof between these contracts and the budget? And I recognize that some of these I guess some of these are not dodgy contracts. Some of these are parts contract. So feel free to speak specifically to the daddy contracts if you like. Yeah. And I think, you know, on call contracts all together is fine, too. The way they work are very similar. The uncle contract is is putting aside a set of money that we we hold the contractors in this amount, but.
Speaker 1: We are not obligated to.
Speaker 2: Spend that amount. So you're not approving $25 million here right now. This is your budget. Conversations will still take place next week. You're still able to if you. God forbid, cut our budget in half.
Speaker 1: We are not.
Speaker 2: Obligated to this $25 million per contract. So so it's it's not a scenario where we're coming before your budget talks. Our budget will still be impacted if we only have, you know, if we had $250 million to spend on these contracts and we only have 100 million in the works scope would change to around $100 million among these contracts. So it wouldn't change your conversations on budgets next week, would not and would impact on what work we're allowed to do. But we don't impact your compensation. So the thank you. The all of these contracts are just to make sure that that I understand and people watching understand all of these contracts. They're not guaranteeing the maximum amount for each vendor. So we could theoretically authorize a vendor $25 billion and give them zero. Is that right? That's correct. That's correct. And that's one of the things that Councilman Ortega has done such a great job working with us on is making sure that we're looking at the utilization of contracts and making sure that utilization is spread among them. So we have a report that we've been working on, and I think Councilman Ortega may have a question that's related to that. But we have a report that we're working on that will be an annual report and then also a quarterly report that will show you the utilization of the contracts. And most contracts are on calls. We're not able to match them out anyways just because of the amount of work that comes through during the time of the contract doesn't always meet requirements. So but we.
Speaker 1: We, we.
Speaker 2: We do have a reporting mechanism that we plan on putting in place to be able to update council more frequently. And and and thank you. I see that councilmember take his hand is raised so I will skip that part of the maybe we've and certainly I, I have questions but I believe Councilmember Ortega could probably ask them better with quite a bit more wisdom than I do. She's been on council a little bit longer than I have that the next contract or question I have is is allocating on call amounts to certain contracts. Well, I guess this maybe might come out kind of loaded. Does it disenfranchize small businesses? I mean, after all, not many small businesses can support a contract where they might get 20 million, $25 million, some might get $0 million, and yet they must be ready to go to work on Denver's call. Yes. And we recognize that. And again, I give kudos to Councilwoman Ortega for pointing this out, is breaking these contracts up. We hope to have a set of local contracts that are going through at the same time that are SB contract. These are small business enterprise contracts are on calls and they're meant to actually go towards small business enterprises. Maybe we need to be the prime on the contract is just the first time that we advertised that we didn't get much traction on it. We have advertised it now this month and so far we have, I believe it's six or nine that have inquired to it. So hopefully we're able to bring these to council late October, early November, and these are directly towards skis on the same type of contracts as these where they're smaller, so they're able to take up the capacity on their own. So that, I guess, begs one more question. I think some of these contracts and maybe they were the past contracts, but some of them of the $432 million total had been ready to come before us for a month. And and so we're willing to wait for a few weeks for these contracts. Why not wait until we have the small know SB contracts as well and just send in all you know, we already had close to half a billion, you know, why not a little bit more. You may be referring to parts of contracts here. I can't speak to that, but I will say 4 hours when they were ready to go, we moved them forward. Knowing that the SDS will be following. We placed a fact sheet with these contracts when we posted them in the two four weeks ago. That gives that explanation about the contracts coming to follow, and we hope to have those here by November. But again, you may be speaking to Clark, so I can't speak to there. That's totally fair. Okay. That's I guess those are the questions that I have for now. I know Councilmember Ortega is still in the queue and I. So Councilmember, can you just so. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Sure. Thank you. Councilmember Councilmember Ortega.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Madam President. Jason, thanks for being on to address a couple of things and thanks for the opportunity to chat briefly this afternoon. So I appreciate the commitment and being able to say that here publicly that Daddy is committing to provide these quarterly reports to us on utilization. And for me, utilization isn't just about the firms that are being used. It's about looking at the data on which which contractors have a really cozy relationship with which city agencies, where we tend to utilize the same ones over and over and over. And a lot of people go through this process. You know, they get excited. The council finally approves their contract and some of them never get utilized and we never get to see that data. So we've been asking for the ability to look at that and the fact that you're committing to that. And I see you nodding your head.
Speaker 2: Yes, I will say it again. We are committed to a quarterly report. We will also do an annual report that is more inclusive with everything. So you have the big picture at the end of the year. And you also asked me earlier today about bond projects and funding and reports on that. We are committed to report on that as well. I don't know if it's going to be quarterly or twice a year, but I have gotten a commitment from the agency executive director saying we will report. It's just we have to figure out how they quantify their information to be able to give it to you.
Speaker 7: In a way. Well, we need to be able to look at that data so that we know which of these bond projects are actually being kept on budget. And then we're not expecting beyond the amount of money that was earmarked for the projects because we have other projects down the line that are waiting for their share. And if we spend it all on these projects, there's not enough money to do all the other ones. So that's.
Speaker 2: Exactly.
Speaker 7: For this body to be able to look at that information and make sure the agencies are staying within the budget of what the taxpayer approved. So I would advocate and hope my colleagues would support that. We want to see that data at a minimum on a quarterly basis. So if you could pass that back onto your.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, I'm happy to take that.
Speaker 7: But I think that's critical. That really covers all of it. I just want to thank you, Councilman. Thanks for calling these out and being able to continue to have this conversation. Councilman Flynn and I will be looking at bringing the ordinance before you guys shortly. We've got some draft language that we're just looking back and forth that before we bring it to you on some of the contracts that will come to City Council. So stay tuned and look for that soon. So thank you so much. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. I wanted to check back in. Councilwoman Canete, we saw your hand raised. Are you okay? Okay. All right. Wonderful. Councilman Hines, your backup.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. I just wanted to make a comment. Thank you, Mr. Gallagher, for your for your comments. We have you on the record as as committing to these to these contracts. I, I like the idea of quarterly reports. I, I think that we do these every six months or so when we come and we get all these on call contracts, and they all are thrown at us all at the same time. I hope that six months is plenty of time for you to go back to the people, whoever you know, whoever you need to talk to and get these these reports in place. I know about six months ago we had a similar conversation here about about these uncle contracts. I, I hope that we are in a better place six months from now, and we don't have to talk about these again and agreement. I just want to reiterate that I mean that again, we don't think the executive branch will release the 21 2021 proposed budget in the morning. And we have no idea what will be in that budget, given the budget for the legislative branch of government is in the proposal and we'll learn whether our request was incorporated into the plan at the same time as the general public. So I get a little skittish when I see half a billion dollars or $422 million in and and it just happens to be right before the budget drop. So thank you, Daddy. And thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Hines. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 4: Friends.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 4: Cashman.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 4: Each and. Ortega. I guess. Sandoval. I swear. Now. Torres, I. Black. I. CDEBACA Well, I. Clark.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 4: Flynn.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 4: Herndon.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 4: Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 4: One need to eyes.
Speaker 0: 12 Eyes Resolution 728 729 737 3132, 3330 435 741, 42, 43 838 839 853 864 865 866 867, eight, 68, 69, eight, 78, 71, 72 and 873 have been adopted. The next item up is Council Bill 849. Council Member State of Akure. Please go ahead with your question.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. I just wanted a quick clarification on what they mean in this bill by the HMO contributions moving to 2021. Is it just that we're waiting or what exactly does it mean? Before I dove too deep into this one for a second reading.
Speaker 0: All right. We've got, I believe, Chris O'Brien. He's joining us to answer questions on this one. Or also had Heather Britten.
Speaker 4: Hi there.
Speaker 0: Hi, Heather. Go ahead, please.
Speaker 4: This is Heather Britton, director of benefits and wellness for the Office of Human Resources. The only change that the Health Insurance Committee made this year for employee benefits was to remove a health plan that was offered by the Denver Health Medical Plan called the deductible HMO, and they replaced it with a HMO. And really what that means is that employees now will have lower cost at point of service for the new plan because they'll have just co-pays, no more deductibles. And the city is asking to continue with the same contribution we had for the HMO in 2020 into 2021 for the HMO. And it's good news or all around. It results in lower costs for the employee and out of their paycheck and when they go get service through Denver Health. Got it. Thank you very much for that. Sure.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Heather. The next item up is Council Bill 285. Councilmember Flynn, we need a motion to take us out of order. Please.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed On-Call Construction Services Contract between the City and County of Denver and ECI Site Construction Management, Inc. for Site Development, Landscape and Irrigation Installation Services.
Approves a contract with ECI Site Construction Management, Inc. for $15 million and for three years for on-call site development, landscape and irrigation installation services in City parks and other City property (PARKS-202055325). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 10-5-20. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 7-28-20.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_09142020_20-0285
|
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Heather. The next item up is Council Bill 285. Councilmember Flynn, we need a motion to take us out of order. Please.
Speaker 5: Certainly, Madam President, I move that council bill 20 dash to 85 be taken out of order.
Speaker 0: It has been moved a second again. Thank you. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 285. Council Member Herndon.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Compels at present. In order to take the action up on this item tonight, council needs to pull this item out of order since it is currently pending for September 28.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman. Madam Secretary, roll call on taking council Bill 285. Out of order, please.
Speaker 4: Herndon.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 4: Cashman. I can eat. I. Ortega Sandoval. I. Sawyer I saw as I. Kwak I zellerbach I park I when 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 285 has been taken out of order. Councilmember Flynn, will you please put Council Bill 285 on the floor for consideration?
Speaker 5: I guess, Madam President, now that my clock is stop buying, I move that I move the council bill 20 to 25 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved to make it a second second. Thank you. Councilmember Herndon, your motion to postpone, please.
Speaker 1: Yes, Madam President. I move that final consideration of Council Bill 20 20285 with this public hearing be postponed to Monday, December seven, 2020.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. All right. We got the second there. Thank you, sir. Comments by members of Council on the Postponement of Council Bill 285, Council member Herndon.
Speaker 1: Bingham and President Talking Alone. Currently it was scheduled for September 28th. However, the applicant has asked for council to reschedule the public hearing to the date mentioned before Monday, December seven.
Speaker 0: Wonderful. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Roll call on postponing final consideration of Council Bill 285, please.
Speaker 4: Herndon.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Hi.
Speaker 4: Cashman. I can eat. Hi, Ortega. I Cinnabon. Hi. Sawyer. I. Torres. I. Sorry. Black. I see. Tobacco. I. Clark.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 4: Flynn.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 4: Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 4: 13 Eyes.
Speaker 0: 13 Eyes. Final consideration of Council Bill 285 with this public hearing has been postponed to Monday, December 7th. That concludes the items to be called out. All 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 an item out for a separate vote. Council Member Flynn Will you please put the resolutions and proclamations for adoption and bills on final consideration for passage on the floor?
Speaker 5: Certainly, Madam President, I move that proclamations and resolutions be adopted and the bills on final consideration be placed upon final consideration and do pass in a bloc for the following items. All series of 2020 952 811 825 857 858 887 891 175 823 826 827 841 843 846 859 875 894 728 729 seven 3731 732 733 734 735 741 742 743 838 839 853 864 865 866 867 868, eight, 69 eight, 78, 71 eight, 72 eight, 73 eight, 83 eight, 28 eight, 58, 85, eight, 95, eight, 12. And last but not least, 819.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Flynn. It has been moved. And can I get a second? Thank you, Madam Secretary. Roll call, please.
Speaker 4: We did have some items in there that were included that were already voted on, but they were already passed as well.
Speaker 0: So I saw that I was going to ask you how you wanted us to handle that, but I doubt you want us to go back through and read it again.
Speaker 5: I was only reading it was only reading what was before me.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 4: Black. Hi. CdeBaca. I look back.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 4: Flynn.
Speaker 1: Hi.
Speaker 4: Brendan.
Speaker 1: Hi.
Speaker 4: Hi. Cashman. I can reach i. Ortega. I. Sandoval. I. Sawyer. I. Torres, I. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced results.
Speaker 4: 13.
Speaker 0: 13. Eyes. The resolutions and proclamations have been adopted and the bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass the pre recess announcement. Tonight, we have required public hearing on Council Bill 711, changing the zoning classification for 25, 35 and 2545 East Astbury Avenue in University Park.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 22, 24, 26 and 28 South Garfield Street in Cherry Creek.
Approves an official map amendment to rezone property from PUD 470 to G-RH-3 (planned development to row house) located at 22, 24, 26 and 28 South Garfield Street in Council District 10. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 6-2-20.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_09142020_20-0711
|
Speaker 0: One public hearing tonight. Speakers should begin their remarks by telling council their names and cities of residents and if they feel comfortable doing so, their home addresses when called upon. Please wait until our meeting hosts promote you to speaker. When you were 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 will be available for questions of counsel . Speakers will have 3 minutes. There's no yielding of time. You'll 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. We have a public hearing on Bill 711. It's a bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 2535 through 2545 East Ashbury Avenue in University Park. Councilmember Flynn, would you please put Council Bill 711 on the floor for passage, please?
Speaker 5: Certainly, Madam President, I move that council bill 2711 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded the required public hearing for Council Bill 20 dash zero 711 is open. May we please have the staff report?
Speaker 2: Good evening. Council President Gilmore, members of Council Jason Morrison with Community Planning and Development. The rezoning in front of you this evening is 25, 35, 25, 45 East Asbury Avenue. The request is from Puti to 78, which is an old code PED to EMU two and 2.5, which is urban edge multi-unit district up to two and a half storeys. We are in Council District six. So South Denver. In the University Park neighborhood. And the subject site is on the corner of East Asbury Avenue and South Clayton Street. It consists of one multi-unit apartment building and one single unit building for a maximum number of 21 dwelling units with a maximum height of two stories and 20 feet. Maximum height. The property owner is requesting a rezoning to correct a discrepancy between the number of dwelling units permitted by the RD, which is 21 units, and the actual number of units in the development, which is 23 units. The discrepancy was discovered after the property owner purchased the property and requested a zoning letter from the city as part of real estate due diligence. The letter indicated that the existing improvements on the property were not in conformance with the zoning established by P up to 78 and that a rezoning would be needed to correct this noncompliance issue. As I said, the current zoning is a former Chapter 59 students party to 78. The site is adjacent to zoning of Eastside to the north and east and adjacent to UTC to the South and GMU three to the west. Digging a little deeper into Puti to 78 PDT 78 is a former Chapter 59 custom zoned district that allows for one multi-unit building and one single unit building for a maximum number of 21 units with a maximum height of two stories and 20 feet maximum height. Within the Pudi maximum building coverage, including garages and accessory structures, can't exceed 24%. Front, rear and side setbacks are specified within the pad, and permitted encroachments into the maximum setbacks must conform to those allowed in the former chuck 59 hour three zone district. And that's a multi-unit dwelling, high density zoned district. The site is currently occupied by multi-unit residential. Surrounding uses include multi-unit residential, two unit residential and single unit residential. And here's a bird's eye view of the subject property. And we're looking north in this image. You can see East Asbury Avenue to the bottom of the property and South Clayton Street, just to the right of the property. And these five images are some of the multi-unit two unit and single unit residential adjacent and nearby the subject site. The maximum application was unanimously recommended for approval by Planning Board in July and before by committee back in August. Since the staff report was published, we received one letter and support from the University Park Community Council. Two letters of support from area residents and two letters in opposition from residents concerned about limited parking. Falling home values and increased density. As you know, there are five review criteria when analyzing the appropriateness of a request, and I'll start with consistency with adopted plans. In addition to comprehensive Plan 2040 and Blueprint Denver, there is one neighborhood plan and that is the University Park Neighborhood Plan from 2007. But first of all, look at comp plan 2040. The proposed MAP amendment is consistent with several strategies from Comprehensive Plan 2040 listed here and also detailed in your staff report. Specifically, the request is consistent with strategies under the equity vision element because it will enable development of housing units close to transit and mixed use developments. It will also create a greater mix of housing options in the University Park neighborhood. The request is also consistent with strategies under the environmentally resilient vision element for several reasons. The site is an infill location where infrastructure is already in place, and furthermore, the proposal focuses growth near existing bus routes, servicing high capacity transit along University Boulevard , Evans Avenue to the South and Interstate 25 to the north. When looking at blueprint Denver context, the requested rezoning as showed on the context map is urban edge. The requested EMU 2.5 zone district is consistent with the future context that is mapped in this area. When looking at future place within Blueprint Denver The future place of this area is low, which is predominantly single and two unit uses on small or medium lots. Buildings are generally up to two and a half storeys in height. The residential emphasis and the 2 to 2 and a half storey height maximums of the proposed EMU 2.5 zone district are consistent with this plan direction. However, the EMU 2.5 Zone District is a multi-unit district with a variety of residential building forms, including single two unit and low scale multi-unit residential. Blueprint Denver acknowledges that since the future place map in the city is a citywide map, the boundaries of the map should be interpreted with limited flexibility, especially at the edges, if the request furthers the goals of Blueprint Denver as depicted in the map in front of you. The residential alley serving South Clayton Street and South Combined Street acts as the dividing edge between the low residential and low medium residential classification. This rezoning request also furthers many of the goals and blueprint Denver via the following policies encouraging high density development and transit rich areas. Rezoning properties from former Chapter 59 zoning. Diversifying housing options by exploring opportunities to integrate missing middle housing into low residential areas and incentivizing the preservation of structures that contribute to the already established character of an area. Furthermore, the creation of the excuse me furthermore the creation of 8278 in the 1990s and able to small scale multi-unit use at this location and a transition to the EMU 2.5 zone district will not disrupt the existing character along East Asbury Avenue. Therefore, the request to EMU 2.5 is consistent with the overall intent of the future. Places MAP and staff finds that the EMU 2.5 zone district is the closest district available that balances plan direction and the existing condition. And finally, within Blueprint Denver, I'm looking at the growth strategy. The request is also consistent with Blueprint's growth strategy, which maps this area as all other areas of the city. These areas are anticipated to see 20% of new housing growth and 10% of new employment growth by 2040. And finally, looking at the University Park Neighborhood Plan from 2007, general recommendations from the plan include creating a community that accommodates a wide variety of uses. This is done by respecting the urban design and the architectural character of established and preferred residential forms and providing a diverse mix of housing types near transit amenities. The subject site is located in a single family residential neighborhood sub area, which is characterized as having predominantly single family homes and occasional duplexes interspersed. Buildings of one or two stories and height characterize the prevailing degree of development, and any higher intensity buildings should help form a transition between the prevailing neighborhood pattern and an activity center. Staff finds that the request is consistent with both the general and suburb recommendations because the previously established small scale multi-unit use will continue to provide an important transition between the varying neighborhood pattern of single and two unit uses to the east and south, and a higher density activity center about 3 to 5 stories along University Boulevard and University of Denver to the West. The proposed EMU 2.5 zone district is an appropriate zoned district on the edge of this sub area and will encourage any development that results from this rezoning to be consistent with the sub area's urban design and land use recommendations by reinforcing residential character and maintaining the established scale of the primary building forms. The proposed rezoning will result in uniform application of zoned district building for use and design regulations. It will also further the public health, safety and welfare by implementing adopted plans, as well as providing additional housing units that are compatible with the University Park neighborhood and the adoption of the Denver Zoning Code in 2010 and the retention of a former Chapter 59 zone district. On the subject, property, including custom zoning, is an appropriate justifying circumstance for this proposed rezoning. The requested EMEA 2.5 zone district is consistent with the neighborhood context description, zone district, purpose and intent and staff. Fine's staff recommends approval based on the finding that all review criteria have been met. Thank you. Council President Gilmore.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Jason, for the staff report. Council has not received any written testimony on Council Bill 711 and we have one individual signed up to speak tonight. And we'll go ahead and maybe have you stop sharing your screen for us, Jason, and we'll thank you. And we'll bring up Jesse Paris. You're on mute, Jesse.
Speaker 2: Good evening, members of Council. My name is just a microphone and we're almost out loud. Last night I was about to commemorate the party of Colorado and Mile High Note and I will be your next mayor in 2023. I'm in favor of the three zoning out. So anytime that the council passing rezoning pertaining to housing I'm in favor of I just kind of question, you know what what's going to be the ammo level for. Sorry. And also, was there a traffic study done? Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Jesse. That concludes our speakers questions from members of council. Councilman Cashman. Oh, yeah. And you saw. I'm showing that you're unmuted, but we're still not. People to hear you. Not yet. Okay. Well, we might need to get Councilman Cashman to come back into the queue here and seen Councilman Flynn. We'll go ahead and go to your questions.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam President. While we're waiting for Councilman Cashman's audio, Jason, can you explain? One of the letters of opposition said that the current PD allows 21 units, but there are already 23 on the site, so it's in violation of the existing zoning. Can you explain that? Is that is that the case?
Speaker 2: Yes. I appreciate the question, Councilman Flynn. That is correct. So kudos to 78. Allows for up to 21 total units. And as I mentioned in the staff report and during the presentation, there was a discrepancy that was discovered after the property was purchased, that the property has been operating as 23 total units since about the mid to late 1990s.
Speaker 5: Right. But do we know how that happened? How.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 5: I'm trying to get it.
Speaker 2: Right. Yeah. And so, unfortunately, I don't know that example. I don't know the answer to that question. I did a search in our system and I could not find an issue with with the permitting. It just, you know, something something occurred in the in the 1990s and it's been operating as 24 units ever since.
Speaker 5: Thank you. And, you know, under this new zone class, would how many units could be developed there? You know, and a lot of it depends on how they're configuring and what the square footage is. But what's your idea of that?
Speaker 2: Yeah, so I don't know the answer for sure. As you alluded to, it certainly depends on on a new construction. It is my understanding currently that the property owner has no intention to actually develop the site. It's simply to bring it into conformance. But if I had to venture a guess and in talking to my colleagues with Host, we had thought that it'd be about the same number of units.
Speaker 5: Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Madam President. I am.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Cashman, good to see you back, sir.
Speaker 1: Well, I hope you can hear me this time.
Speaker 0: We can?
Speaker 1: Well, how about that? The miracle of turning things on and off. You know, I'm in. Councilman Flynn literally took my questions right down the list, wanting to see what future. And while it I understand that it's to come into compliance wanted to be clear on on the future entitlement for that parcel it's only a third of an acre but still wanted to get that straight. So my questions have been answered, ma'am. Approaching.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, councilman. The public hearing for council bill 20 dash zero 711 is closed. Comments by members of Council Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 1: Yeah, thank you, Madam President. I believe this clearly meets the criteria we're called to to judge this application. I'm I'm confident that the it doesn't present any kind of dramatic increase in entitlement that would cause me to question. So I'll look forward to supporting this this evening.
Speaker 0: Thank you, sir. And looking at the presentation as well, it meets all the criteria. And so thank you, Jason, for joining us. Madam Secretary, roll call, please.
Speaker 4: Ashman. I can eat.
Speaker 0: She was trying to get a muted I.
Speaker 4: Very go yes.
Speaker 6: Is not clicking thank you.
Speaker 4: I Ortega I. Sandoval, I swear. I, Torres. I. Black. I see tobacco. I.
Speaker 2: Park I.
Speaker 4: Flynn.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 4: Herndon.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 4: Hines.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 4: 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 7-Eleven has passed. Councilmember Flynn, would you please put Council Bill seven and 16 on the floor for passage?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 2535 - 2545 East Asbury Avenue in University Park.
Approves an official map amendment to rezone property from PUD 278 to E-MU-2.5 (planned development to multi-unit), located at 2535-2545 East Asbury Avenue in Council District 6. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 8-4-20.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_09142020_20-0716
|
Speaker 0: 13 eyes. Council Bill 7-Eleven has passed. Councilmember Flynn, would you please put Council Bill seven and 16 on the floor for passage?
Speaker 5: Yes, Madam President, I move that council bill 20 dash 716 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved. Make it a second.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 0: Wonderful. Second comments by members of Council Councilmember Hines.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. Per the request of the applicant, this application is being withdrawn. So I'm asking my colleagues to vote no to defeat this bill.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman. Seen no other members? Just a reminder, council members, please vote no on this. Madam Secretary, roll call irons.
Speaker 2: No.
Speaker 4: Cashman?
Speaker 1: No.
Speaker 4: Kimmich. No Ortega. Oh. Sandoval. No. Sawyer now. Torres. No. Black? No. See the. Clark.
Speaker 2: No.
Speaker 1: Flynn may. Herndon May.
Speaker 0: No. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 4: 12 nays.
Speaker 0: 12 nays. Counsel Bill 716 has been defeated there being no further business before this body. This meeting is adjourned.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 755 Lafayette Street in Country Club.
Approves an official map amendment to rezone property from U-SU-C to U-SU-C1 (allows for an accessory dwelling unit), located at 755 Lafayette Street in Council District 10. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 8-4-20.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08312020_20-0901
|
Speaker 0: I appreciate it. Overall in that round of applause for our retirees. And so thank you, Mary Ann, and the other folks that were honored tonight for this and and wonderful retirement. That's exciting for you. Next up, we have 20 dash 0901. It's a proclamation recognizing the service of Rosa Kasman with wastewater management, division and retirees from the city of Denver. Council member Ortega, will you please read proclamation 901 please do do so, Madam President, I so my. I'm not moving it yet. I'm just reading it right. Mm hmm. If we just need you to read the proclamation. Thank you. Proclamation 20 0901 Recognizing the service of Razak has been and the Wastewater Management Division Retirees of the city and county of Denver. Whereas Razak has been graduated from the University of Colorado in 1980 with a Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering and began his career at the City of Denver in 1986. And. Whereas, raised his career at the city spans 34 years, beginning under Mayor Pena's administration and spanning the terms of five successive mayors. And. Whereas, Reza became director of Wastewater Management Division in 1995 and led the city department to international acclaim through pioneering new technologies, scrupulous and efficient operational practices with cost impact to taxpayers always in mind, always a sincere ethical advocate of protecting the Enterprise Fund and fostering a growth environment for talented personnel to build institutional knowledge. And. WHEREAS, Reza was involved in acquiring the land and helping design the wastewater building in 1991 and moving the division to the current location in 1993. And. WHEREAS, during his time at the city raising his wife, Clara raised their two children, Alicia and Cameron in Denver. And whereas, raises team provides an essential and often unsung yet vital service to the people of Denver. And we recognize the careers of his team members who are joining him in his retirement this year, including William Berg, quality control manager. Damien so, so classy wastewater quality technician. Louis Chavis Operations Supervisor. Wilbur Henderson. Operations Supervisor. Danny Lopez. Wastewater Video Inspector and Rene Martinez Wastewater Video Inspector. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Council of the City and County of Denver, Section one, that the Council of the City County of Denver recognizes and extends a heartfelt thank you to Razak has me and his team at Wastewater Management Division for their vital service to the people of Denver and their dedicated years of work towards keeping our city safe, sanitary and a global leader in wastewater management that the clerk of the city and county of Denver shall affix the seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation and let a copy be transmitted to Raise Academy in Williamsburg. Damian Stokowski. Lois Chavis. Wilbert Henderson, Danny Lopez and Rene Martinez. Q Councilman Ortega, your motion to adopt. Madam President, I move for the adoption of Proclamation 20 dash 0901. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Council member or I'm sorry, council member Ortega. Please go ahead with your comments. Thank you, Madam President. I am honored to bring this proclamation forward on behalf of RESA and the retiring employees from Waste Water Management Division. I've known Raisa for many years and I can even remember and have known him to be a truly ethical individual that has has cultivated relationships with people across the city and grown that leadership within his own team at Wastewater. And I don't know if you all know this, but wastewater historically did all their own projects. We didn't contract them all out like we do today, and we were able to really keep the costs down for the rate payers. And I would love for us to go back to really doing work the way we used to at wastewater, because I think it's a way of ensuring that we're not spending more money unnecessarily on some of these projects. So he was truly an advocate in protecting that enterprise fund and not spending money needlessly where we didn't need to raise. It was somebody who was always very soft spoken, very kind to everybody, but very effective in the work that he did as the manager over at Wastewater. And for those of you who know him, you know, he was always dressed to a tee and his his suit. Raisa exemplifies the dedication of the other retiring wastewater employees. And I just want to, you know, again, thank each one of them for their service to this city and for that ethical leadership that I think we can all continue to learn from in terms of just ensuring that we protect, you know, the public resources that that are entrusted to us. I want to thank Reserve for his I want to thank his family for having allowed him to do this work. He raised his two children during this time that he worked for the city. And again, I just think we owe a debt of gratitude to him and his employees. And I would ask that you all join me in supporting this proclamation tonight. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. We have Councilman Flynn up next.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega, for doing this. I wanted to highlight Reza's contributions also, but you did that very well. So I want to go down on the list and point out Danny Lopez, a resident in Council District two, long time wastewater employee, dedicated person. And I wanted to say to him, I hope I don't see him in the attendee list, but I wanted to say that I hope that he and his wife enjoy retirement. Monica is a repeat, repeat, repeat champion of the House District one Democrats chili dinner, at which Danny always did the karaoke and backed up my Sinatra renderings , much to everyone's chagrin, I trust. But I hope that they stay involved in the community as they have been in the past now that he's retired and has more time. So congratulations to Danny also. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Flynn. And it sounds like that retiring your next party might have a lot more going on with karaoke and chili and everything else. You're going to have some retirees that are going to be part of that. And so wanting to wish all the retirees happy retirement. Madam Secretary, roll call, please.
Speaker 2: Ortega, I. Sandoval.
Speaker 1: I swear.
Speaker 2: I. Torres.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 2: Like I.
Speaker 0: Said Ibaka.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Clark.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 2: Flynn.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 3: Herndon, i. I. All right.
Speaker 2: Can I? Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced the results. 13/8. Sorry. 12. Okay. Thank you. 12 Eyes Proclamation 901 has been adopted. Councilwoman Torres, I believe we have Rosa in the panelists, and so we'll have 5 minutes for an acceptance. Or take the razor with you and you yourself so you can join us for just a moment. I see that you are on, but we. There you go.
Speaker 4: Hear me now.
Speaker 0: Yes, we can.
Speaker 4: First of all, I want. Good evening to all the city councilman and Councilwoman Ortega. You are so nice to produce and to introduce such a proclamation as the honor, to receive such a proclamation from myself and my team and everybody that works at wastewater and deliver the services on a daily basis. We have no slow season. As Councilwoman Ortega said, I raised my family. I'm grateful to the city to provide such a job for me to be able to raise my family. And in the past 34 years, I've been with the city. I can't thank you enough. My. The job that I have is very rewarding and fun and city made that possible for me and I can't thank you enough. But I left. I left wastewater to good in the hands of good people. And they'll continue the good work. And if then. If they're not, you let me know. I'll call.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Raisa.
Speaker 4: Thank you very much. I can't. I can't thank you enough.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilwoman. Well, we're giving you a round of applause, Reza, for you and the wastewater management employees who are also enjoying their retirement. Thank you for being here with us. And moving on on the agenda. Madam Secretary, please read the bills for introduction.
Speaker 2: Land use, transportation and infrastructure 28 one to a bill for an ordinance relinquishing the easement in its entirety established in the easement agreement recorded with the Denver KROQ and Recorder at reception number 2012002687, located at 82 North Way 20 813.
Speaker 0: A bill.
Speaker 1: For an ordinance changing the zoning.
Speaker 2: Classification for 5560 5101 South Boulevard 5190 7101 Colorado Boulevard in 98 Harrison Street in Cherry Creek 20.
Speaker 1: 815a Bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 50 South Kalama Street 39 South Kalama Street ten South Open.
Speaker 2: Street in.
Speaker 0: 101 South Santa Fe Drive.
Speaker 2: In Baker in 20 819a bill for an ordinance.
Speaker 0: Revoking the revocable.
Speaker 2: Permit granted by Ordinance Number 53 series of 1889.
Speaker 1: To the Secretary of Housing.
Speaker 2: And Urban Development.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Council secretary. Council Members. This is your last opportunity to call out an item. Council Member Sandoval. Will you make the motions for us this evening?
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation recognizing the service of Reza Kazemian and Wastewater Management Division retirees to the City of Denver.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08312020_20-0694
|
Speaker 0: We have three public hearings tonight. Speakers should begin their remarks by telling council their names and cities of residents and if they feel comfortable doing so, their home addresses when called upon. Please wait until our meeting hosts promote you to speaker. When you're promoted, your screen will flash and say, Reconnecting to meeting. Please do not leave the meeting. You will be reconnected and you will need to turn on your camera if you have one. And your microphone. If you're signed up to answer questions, only state your name and note that you are available for questions of counsel. See, speakers will have 3 minutes. There's no yielding of time. 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 council members. Please refrain from profane or obscene speech. Direct your comments to council as a whole and refrain from individual or personal attacks. Council Member Sandoval Will you please put Council Bill 694 on the floor for passage?
Speaker 1: They moved that council bill 20 30694 to be placed upon final consideration and due process.
Speaker 0: Has been moved and seconded. The required public hearing for Council Bill 20 dash 0694 is open. May we please have the staff report?
Speaker 5: Yes. Thank you, Madam President. Scott Robinson with community planning. And. This is a request to resolve the question of space properties from the SUV and I am sorry to Prochaska. The property is located in Council District nine in Globeville neighborhood and is just north of Argo Park. It's just under six acres and is currently vacant. Request is to resign from that which is urban search context, single zoning and I am extreme which is industrial mixed use three storey zoning to OSA, which is open space to. And the request is to rezone it, to convert it into a city park. As I said, property is currently zoned SUV and I am extreme and see how most of it is being just a small portion. I have three offices northeast corner surrounded mostly by sunny industrial up in the northeast and then OSA Argo Park to the south. Here you can see the existing way of use. The subject property is currently vacant, surrounded mostly by single unit residential with a part to the south and then some.
Speaker 4: Industrial uses.
Speaker 5: To the northeast. Here you can see an old photo of property in the bottom. Right. And then photos of some of the surrounding houses. The proposed OSA Zone District is an open space zoning intended for city owned parks and open spaces. It provides flexibility and grants to the manager of Parks and Recreation. The ability to set standards for building form and uses. We just went to a planning board on July 15th, which led to a unanimous recommendation for approval. There was one member of the public spoke with some questions. I went to Rudy on July 21st and has spoken tonight. We received no public comment. This application. In order to approve a resigning the city must find. These five criteria have been met. The first criterion is consistency with adopted plans. There are four plans for the Prime Minister property. The first is comprehensive plan 2040, as described in the staff report. Steps five Because rezoning is consistent with multiple strategies from Complaint 2048, mostly related to improving parks access. In terms of equity, Steph finds the proposed rezoning consistent with the strategy for the equitable, affordable and inclusive vision element. Again, relating to improving access to amenities such as parks and in terms of climate change. Staff finds the proposed rezoning consistent with these two strategies from the environmentally resilient vision element, again relating to increasing open space and parks in some. The second plan is Blueprint Denver. The future complex designation for this property is urban, which calls for a variety of uses and building forms in the context, including things like parks. So the proposed zoning is consistent with that. The future place designation is public park and open space, which again is consistent with the proposed OSA park and open space zoning. Most of the surrounding streets are local streets, except for Lincoln, which is a residential collector on the west side of the property there. Again, all consistent with the proposed OSA zoning. The future growth strategy for the property is for all other areas of the city intended to accommodate 10% of.
Speaker 4: New jobs and 20%.
Speaker 5: Housing, which is appropriate for this area and consistent with the proposed zoning blueprint, also includes a number of strategies and other recommendations, including this recommendation to increase the percentage of residents who are within a ten minute walk of the park. So creating a new park will help meet that strategy. Also for larger rezonings, a blueprint requires an equity analysis on the three equity concepts in the plan. So before we go through those, the first is access to opportunity. This area currently scores as less access to opportunity as defined by the three measures equity index, the proximity to transit and access to certain corridors. However, creating a public park here will should help improve that by improving access to parks, which can help improve health of the residents mental and physical, which will improve the equity index and
Speaker 4: . Access to opportunity.
Speaker 5: The second equity concept is vulnerability to involuntary displacement. This area scores as more vulnerable again based on the measures of median household income per cent of renters in the area and educational attainment of the residents. Denver Parks and Recreation is working with partners in the neighborhood on a cross-sectoral strategy to address any potential impacts of this city investment in the in the neighborhood on involuntary displacement. The third equity concept is housing and jobs diversity first in terms of housing diversity. This scores as moderate diversity. Our staff finds that the proposed rezoning and park will have a limited impact on housing diversity in the area and similar for jobs diversity scores as skewing towards manufacturing. And again, will have a limited impact. So staff finds the proposed rezoning consistent with Blueprint Denver. The third plan is game plan for a healthy city. The city's Parks and Recreation masterplan, it calls out global neighborhood as a high need neighborhood for improving access to parks and says park and programmatic resources should be focused on underserved serve neighborhoods such as Globeville. So the proposed rezoning is consistent with the game plan for a healthy city. And then the fourth plan is the Globeville neighborhood plan. Again, this plan designates the property as a park or open space and calls out specifically platform open space property with a community led vision to transform this into a park for the neighborhood which this proposed rezoning would help. So step five proposed rezoning consistent with global neighborhood plan and the first criteria of MET. The second criterion is uniformity of district regulations that finds the proposed rezoning would result in the uniform application of a zone district. The third criterion is to further the public health, safety and general welfare of the city. Staff finds the proposed rezoning would do so by implementing the city's adaptive plans and facilitating the creation of new park, improving health and welfare in the neighborhoods. The fourth criterion is justifying circumstances. Staff and rezoning is justified by change and changing conditions. One is adoption of new plans in the area, including four never plans specifically calling out this property as a as a park. And that also the city's purchase of the park, the OSA Property Grocery Zone District, only applies to city owned properties . The city has acquired these properties over the last few years and so only now is it appropriate to apply the.
Speaker 4: Lessons of district to them.
Speaker 5: And the fifth criterion is consistency with neighborhood context. The purpose of intent. Stafford's proposed rezoning would result in use and development consistent with the purpose and intent of the Osage District. So that stuff, five or five criteria are met and recommends approval. Words from Parks and Recreation has a few additional information that you would like to go over, so make the hands over to her for just a few slides here.
Speaker 1: Thanks, Scott. As Scott mentioned, my name is worried about. I'm the associate parks planner with Denver Parks and Recreation. And I just wanted to talk a little bit about the history, community engagement and current status of the site. My cat is also deciding now is the time to be really loud. So I'm sorry to have you guys hear that in the background. So a little bit just about the.
Speaker 2: History of the site itself. It is it was located within the Asarco glow plant Superfund boundaries, which left the site with a number of environmental issues, including contaminated soil.
Speaker 1: However.
Speaker 2: She remediated the soils between 1993 and 2011, so that work was completed during that time period. It had become after that and during that it had become a destination for crime and illegal dumping, and at which point the citizens decided to rise up and get involved and make sure it was no longer used for that purpose. So and they.
Speaker 1: Had always felt this kind.
Speaker 2: Of connection to the site. So the history of platform open space is really a community led effort. In 2006, the Globeville residents teamed up with their council men at the time and an organization.
Speaker 1: Called Groundwork.
Speaker 2: Denver in order to develop a vision and a.
Speaker 1: Design for the site.
Speaker 2: For the next ten years. The residents advocated for the development of the site, working with.
Speaker 1: Partners.
Speaker 2: Like the city and county.
Speaker 1: Of Denver.
Speaker 2: To make this vision a reality. And excitingly, in 2019, the city and.
Speaker 1: County of Denver closed on the last property.
Speaker 2: That it needed in order to complete this vision. Just a little bit about the community engagement. The residents really worked very hard on getting the word out to their fellow neighbors, working with pro bono urban planners and environmental experts. A resident steering committee led the vision, planning and community outreach. The overall design process included three community meetings, as well as door to door engagement engagement through organizations like the Neighborhood Association, Recreation Center, churches and schools. And then at the end of this process, the finished product included a full design set that met the goals of the community, which you can see here on the slide. Active living. Connecting kids with nature and demonstrating environmental sustainability. Okay. So I.
Speaker 1: Know this slide is a little hard to see, but.
Speaker 2: If anyone.
Speaker 1: Would like it, I'm happy to provide a.
Speaker 2: Bigger enlarged image. But this is the final concept design for a pop farm open space. As you can see, the most important focus is the trails system that was implemented along.
Speaker 1: With things like native grasses.
Speaker 2: And enhanced crosswalks and as well as like a detention pond for storm.
Speaker 1: So the current status.
Speaker 2: Is that actually the construction has just been completed. It was opened to the public in August 2020. So really soon, really recently. And here you can see two pictures of the finished product. You can see that the grasses in the native are still coming in. But you can see that the trail system has been complete. And we're really excited that the neighbors now have access.
Speaker 1: To this after.
Speaker 2: A ten year advocate for it. So that's it for me. I'm happy to open it up to any questions.
Speaker 0: Thank you to you both. Council has not received any written testimony on Council Bill 694 and we have two individuals signed up to speak this evening. And so first up, we have Jesse Paris. And we'll probably go ahead and ask you to stop sharing your screens for right now. And we'll. Get Jessie on. All right. Go ahead, Jessie.
Speaker 4: He was a counselor. My name is Jess in Paris and I'm represented for Denver Homicide now. Baxter Examiner for Self Defense, Positive Action, MIT for Social Change, as well as the Unity Party of Colorado. My belief in the universality of people's organization in our reside in District eight at the Future.
Speaker 3: Studios.
Speaker 4: 3737 Quebec Street.
Speaker 3: Denver, Colorado.
Speaker 4: I'm saying that the community has been wanting this for.
Speaker 3: Ten years to.
Speaker 4: Maintain Globeville, a very neglected and very gentrified community, saying that the city is finally implementing what they've been wanting for the past ten years. I have no choice but to go with this.
Speaker 3: The only question I.
Speaker 4: Had was it looks like we did enough outreach to the community. It looks like this is what the community wants. When we say sites like this, though, it just hurts me because we get told.
Speaker 3: About.
Speaker 4: Places where there can be tiny villages, but this is where there could be.
Speaker 3: Encampment safe.
Speaker 4: Supervised encampments that there's no open space available for this. And then we find places like this where there is open space. Now, this community been burdened.
Speaker 3: Enough with.
Speaker 4: The tiny little village which they didn't want in the first place. So I'm not suggesting that you should put one near, but when you see open space like this, we need to keep in consideration that these could be areas that people could be occupying that do not have a home that can afford to live in the mile high income city and that you should we take a further consideration in the bay districts for areas like this to be places where our own house neighbors can reside and not be terrorized by DPD.
Speaker 3: So that's all I had. Thank you for giving me a chance to speak.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, we have Silas Eula Barry.
Speaker 4: Am I.
Speaker 0: Right? Go ahead. Silence.
Speaker 4: Oh, can you see me?
Speaker 0: We can't see you, but we can hear you.
Speaker 4: Okay. Sorry. I think you should be able to see me now.
Speaker 0: Now we can go ahead.
Speaker 4: So my name is Jeremy. Silas LaBrie and I. I grew up in Globeville. I also am a public artist, and I've been a part of the global community on many levels. I created one of the murals under I-70 on Lincoln, and I also created all the public art for the new Larimer Housing Development. I owned 4901 Grant.
Speaker 3: Which I've owned for.
Speaker 4: I believe, about five years now. I grew up up the block. My mother still lives up the block on 1595 Grant. I was sent messages last minute, just about maybe 40 minutes ago saying you should tune into this because they're talking about your land. I wasn't made aware of any of the rezoning prior to right now. And I guess my first question is, how does this affect the land that I've worked so hard for and planned on building a home for my family's future? It again, it's 4901 Grant. It's I've seen the construction going on there at the bottom of the hill. Does this does this affect what I own, the property that I owned? Well, can I somehow lose the zoning where I can't build a home on this land?
Speaker 0: So we're not going to answer any of your questions right now. This is your time stylist to to share your perspective. And then one of us can ask that question of the planner. So you go ahead. This is your time. Yeah.
Speaker 4: So that I mean, that's that's it is is that you know, I know myself and and a few other people own property around there. And I didn't realize that my address my address was.
Speaker 3: Was thrown.
Speaker 4: Into the mix of that. So my, my only, you know, the only thing I have to express is that my concerns of somehow losing something that I'm banking on for the future of my family. And, you know, the reason why I did buy this property in Globeville is because I wanted to live in the community that I've worked and grown up in. So the thought of somehow being able to lose that through zoning scares me because, you know, me and a lot of my other friends, that's that was our plan is that when we were grown, we were going to buy houses there and we were going to raise our kids there and we were going to remain in Globeville. So I guess that's that's all that I had to express.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. That concludes our speakers for tonight. Questions from members of council. Councilman CdeBaca.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Madam President, I would like to have the questions answered that Silas asked. I was looking at this property earlier today and realized that there are two properties with the exact same address, Scott. And wondering how this does affect the corner property and the one next to it that both seem to be owned by private owners and not the city of Denver. So if you can explain those two things to me, that would be helpful.
Speaker 5: Yeah, certainly. So the address and can be a little confusing because when a property does not have an official address signed yet, it is given a temporary address, which is the first address of the block on the other side of the street. This service being on the outside of the street and doesn't have a permanent address assigned is given 4901 Grant Street. And so Mr.. Your base property is at the north end of the that block is not included in this rezoning is not being resolved to address that as part of this rezoning. This rezoning only affects the city owned properties. So it's that simple.
Speaker 2: But so it stops at the property right to the south of Mr. You Liveris property.
Speaker 5: Right? Yeah. Those two privately owned properties are not.
Speaker 4: Included in this rezoning.
Speaker 2: So 4901 North Grant will not register entirely as this zoning or how do we make sure? Because we're telling him right now it's a technicality, but I don't want him to be in a position a year down the road if he's trying to reason to build and he's told that it was completely reasoned.
Speaker 5: Yeah. So the, the way the zone district the is used to define.
Speaker 4: Sort or the legal description, the philosophy and the occupation. And in particular.
Speaker 5: Though that has a legal description that defines what is actually about legal description does not include this property. It only includes the city on property.
Speaker 2: Got it. And so those pictures that you showed us are not accurate, right?
Speaker 4: The pictures include.
Speaker 2: The pictures include both his property and his neighbor's property.
Speaker 5: They shouldn't. But if they do, then, yes.
Speaker 4: They're not accurate.
Speaker 2: Got it. I just wanted to make sure that we get that all on record. Thank you. And is it is it possible? Well, we can actually set up a meeting to talk with Mr. Barry after because there are some zoning questions. Can you clarify what his property remains zoned as?
Speaker 5: Yes. His property is the SUV and more for me.
Speaker 2: Awesome. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 5: What?
Speaker 0: All right, Councilman Ortega. Thank you, Madam President. I have a couple of questions for the Parks Department. I want to ask the question about dedicating this park land as is. Is that something that will come later after we complete this rezoning? And is there a reason why we just do it all at the same time?
Speaker 1: Thanks for that question, Councilman.
Speaker 2: Yes, the plan is definitely to designate this park.
Speaker 1: After it is zoned.
Speaker 2: It's not a great answer, but usually it's just typically how it's done. You get a reason and then designate it. However we are, this property actually has made us consider.
Speaker 1: Doing it together and.
Speaker 2: Maybe looking at that in the future. But for now, it's separated and it is plan on getting.
Speaker 0: Idea on the timing of when you guys will bring that piece of it forward.
Speaker 2: That's a great question. I actually my.
Speaker 1: Supervisor, Kathleen, is here tonight and she.
Speaker 2: May have a better answer. Okay.
Speaker 0: Let me go to my next question. Or maybe she might have some response by the time I get done with this next question. And I'm not sure. Maybe it should be the one that I asked this question, because I know you were involved in this project. Does this have any metro wastewater, which is formerly urban drainage and wastewater funds in it?
Speaker 2: Yeah. The Southern half. Madam President, may I? Yeah. So? So the southern portion of this site does have urban drainage funding in it. And I actually. I'm sorry. I know we've had a lot of staff changes, Laurie, and you're a little newer to the project. I actually don't believe that the entire site can be dedicated as a park because there is a significant Excel easement for the powerlines that I believe complicates the dedication. So we may need to double check the answer to Councilwoman Ortega's first question as well. I don't know if the Metro wastewater impacts the ability to dedicate as well, but both have easements involved, particularly the Metro wastewater is on the southern portion of the site below the street. And so I just want to maybe ask the staff to, if they're not 100% sure, perhaps caveat that answer before we proceed.
Speaker 0: Okay. And and then my last question worry. I don't know if you got an answer to that first part, but. My last question is about losing my place here. So was the drainage dedication. So it's a total of six acres. So we need to just clarify if the easements will prevent any portion of that from from being dedicated. But I just lost my place. So anyway, if I if I remember it all chimed back in. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 2: I think it sounds good.
Speaker 0: And then I know we have Kathleen on the line as well. If Laura, you'd like us to bring her up. I think Kathleen's unmuted, so maybe we can get some clarification around the the park designation.
Speaker 1: That would be great. Thanks.
Speaker 2: Thank you. This is Kathleen Leveque and the assistant director of Parks Planning for Denver Parks and Recreation. And as Lori mentioned, a platform open space is a good candidate for a park designation. However, we do typically wait until construction is complete, and any surrounding issues like road improvements or utilities are also complete. We have a a citizen committee that actually looks at potential park designations and works with our staff and in works out issues like are there any remaining title issues, encroachments, easements, other things that come into play as it relates to a park designation? And once it gets vetted through that group, it then goes to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and then to Ludy and then to City Council. So this property is very much on our radar, but we do need to go through and confirm if there are any outstanding issues before we can proceed with designation.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Madam President, I could take my spot if I could just ask that last question. Go ahead. So I just wanted to ask the city attorney. I lusa goes on to just clarify the point that if we have two addresses that have the same exact address, one being in changing the zoning and the other one being in this private property that we have, is there something more we need to do as part of this zoning tonight to ensure that we're not entangle bring this private property into this, you know, this a risk category?
Speaker 3: The Council members council. Yeah, thanks for the question. So as Scott mentioned, the substantive portion of this ordinance is is the text of the ordinance itself and not so much the bill title.
Speaker 0: So the address.
Speaker 3: Right. So so legal description is what is legally enforceable? Does that help?
Speaker 0: Yeah, I think so. I mean, I think making this all part of the record tonight becomes an important part of the clarification as well for this property owner. That's the two property owners whose address is fall within the the listed addresses on tonight's bill just to help them, you know, be assured that they're we're not changing their zoning. You know, I think Scott explain why that address, those two addresses are being used. And I think that was helpful clarification. But I just wanted to have some voice from the city attorney to just kind of assure property owners that they are protected.
Speaker 3: Yeah, absolutely. And when the guys department of CP draws the zoning map boundaries, it'll clearly define the area that's being re zoned should this rezoning pass this evening. And it will exclude the properties in question.
Speaker 0: Great. Thank you. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Hines, you're up.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam President. And and thank you, colleagues who have come before me. I certainly also have the same question. And I, as a person who's not familiar with the city, I would be pretty flustered if my address showed up on the title of the bill. And so thank you for thank you, colleagues. And thank you for city staff for clarifying that the. Are there. Regarding this area, are there people who are currently not 5 minutes from a park who will join the club of people who are 5 minutes from a park? Isn't the reason why I think 5 minutes is. I think that's one of the priorities, one of the goals of the city, if I'm right.
Speaker 1: Yes. So our typical radius is actually a.
Speaker 2: Ten minute walk or roll with a five minute for.
Speaker 1: A downtown core. But you're absolutely right, it's important regardless.
Speaker 2: We did do that.
Speaker 1: Analysis and I would honestly double check because there is a park really.
Speaker 2: Close by. But I do believe that this new trail system does encompass at least a few new homes. But I would need to double check on the exact percentage of people that are getting the ten minute walk access from this park specifically. May I add something, Madam President?
Speaker 0: Go ahead.
Speaker 2: Distance isn't always the only determinant of who can access a park. And one of the things that this park will provide is more direct access for the residents of Linden with developmental disabilities and the users of Laird in who? There is a park immediately south of this location, but there's a railroad track between this park and Argo Park. So that railroad track might as well that park. Argo Park might as well be another two miles away for those residents, particularly with their transportation barriers. So ground work worked really hard to, you know, make this site inclusive to Laird and residents in particular. But there are also habitat homes on that north side, as well as the long term residents that our public speaker talked about. I know his property is not yet residential. It sounds like it's land, but there are other houses that about this area. And, you know, some able bodied folks might be able to cross railroad tracks, but we don't recommend it and we certainly don't, you know, know that everyone can't. So I do think it expands access, particularly for those residents that are on that side.
Speaker 5: But that's important context. And I want to also thank Parks for identifying rock and roll because that includes me. So I do have one other question. Maybe this is for Mr. Robinson that the presentation said that we completed construction on the park and now we are rezoning this to a park. So are we beginning with the end in mind or how does how does this rezoning process work? Because it seems to me like if we say no, we've got this thing, it's all made out to be a park. That is I'm not saying that I'm going to say no. I just I'm just trying to understand the process of do we make it into a park and then rezone it to a park? Is that the typical process? From a zoning standpoint. Yeah, it can go either way. Park users are allowed users in the zone district, the existing zoning. So that's why they're able to build the park on the existing zoning. But for various reasons, we want to zone our parks to park zoning. So we want to build the park. So when you get attorney and law enforcement, why we go for now. But yeah, that's why we even though the park.
Speaker 4: Is.
Speaker 5: Now being construction.
Speaker 4: It's still important to.
Speaker 5: Rezone it at this point. But I like the idea of calling a spade a spade. So I recognize why you'd want to call the park apart. So thank you. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. Scott ordinate and possibly Lori. Also a couple of questions. Following up on what Councilwoman Canete was just talking about. It does concern me that the Burlington Northern New Jersey cut off track cuts through there, and there doesn't appear to be. I've been up there a couple of years ago when I was working on the project, and there doesn't seem to be any barriers or protections to keep people from accessing the railroad tracks. What I was wondering was maybe Lori is the best person to answer this. Are there plans to connect this to Argo Park somehow directly, either under or over the tracks of the tracks run on a berm through there to make this accessible. Accessible, because it's very tempting for people to want to go from one to the other. And we certainly don't want them crossing the Jersey cutoff, even though my recollection is that BNSF doesn't use it all that often. Are there plans to connect the two?
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's a great question.
Speaker 2: I actually if it's okay, I would like to kick it over.
Speaker 1: To.
Speaker 2: Carol. Sure. She is the project manager for the park and the construction itself.
Speaker 1: So she may be a little more.
Speaker 2: Knowledgeable about future plans.
Speaker 4: Great. Thank you, Kathleen.
Speaker 1: Yeah. It could be Cathy or Kara.
Speaker 0: Okay, we've got Kathleen on.
Speaker 2: Hi, Kathleen Leveque. At this time, we do not have plans to go either over or under the railroad tracks there. People can use the on Street Network to cross the tracks. But at this time, there are not plans to connect them directly from park to park.
Speaker 4: There's absolutely no separation of fencing or anything between that link, and I think it's the one on that on the West Side and all the way over to the other end of our park. So it's kind of concerning. I also want to congratulate Groundwork Denver for all of its work on this over over that long period of time. Great project. But does the and maybe Scott, I can answer this with the with the power lines that are still there. We purchased the public service. Well, I'm dating myself Xcel property just last year, last June. All those parcels and their power lines remain on their. Do they remain now? So now they are on our property rather than on their own property. Do they retain an easement? And that might be what is standing in the way, as Lori pointed out of designating it as a park. Or perhaps we could designate everything but the easement strip as a part because power lines will remain correct.
Speaker 5: Yes. That's my understanding is there is an easement for the power lines.
Speaker 4: On the property and those cars will remain. Mm hmm. Okay. And finally, Laurie, maybe you can answer this. I was looking at the staff report on this, and and all the building forms and design standards for OSHA, of course, say not applicable because it's open space. And OSHA is city park. There are folks in Denver who are very concerned that that the manager of Parks in the 2010 citywide rezoning had acquired some ability to to, in effect, rezone and develop part of dedicated city parks. This rezoning doesn't set up any building forms, but I'm wondering, does KPD Scott have a position on what the manager of parks can do in a city park that is designated OSA? Can anything be developed or built on there?
Speaker 5: So there can be going on there or say a lot of our rec centers are also zoned. So let's say things like rec, some of our public park uses for public recreation. This is can be constructed on hillsides.
Speaker 4: I probably would be restricted to a park purpose like a rec center or. Okay.
Speaker 5: Right. So there's a purpose and intent of U.S..
Speaker 4: District, which is for. Okay, I just want. Thank you. I just wanted to get that on the record. Thank you. That's all. Madam President.
Speaker 2: Madam President, I had an answer to Councilman Flynn's question after. No, that's okay. This project has outlived three generations of staff, so. Yes, no, go ahead. Councilman Flynn. There are serious practical issues that would make that very unlikely on this site. So I just don't want anyone listening. The northern portion of the site is capped and that cap would prevent construction activity, freeze and digging without major environmental clearances from the Colorado Department of Health and Environment, who governs this site under a voluntary cleanup agreement and the southern portion of the site because of the drainage issues, it is now a part of the flood control system that connects to the outfall. And so so in both cases, I don't believe that that's likely to be feasible and very much, if any, of this site. There is some further improvements to the site that might occur in a second phase when more funding is secured. But those are like play features and, you know, some some work on the trails and things like that. They are not structures, but I, I can't, you know, we need to get an opinion from the design professionals to be official, but I think it's virtually impossible to disturb either the northern or the southern portion of this site given those two issues. So I just don't want anyone leaving thinking buildings might pop up here for a park's purpose or any other purpose.
Speaker 4: All right. Thank you. And I. I was asking that question simply to to get it the had the common observation that has been made. And we, of course, have that long standing memo from our former legislative counsel, David Broadwell, as far as what the director of parks, the manager of parks could do. But I just wanted to get it on the record about that. I anticipate the parks would build something vertical, even for a park's purpose. But thank you for that. That's all, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Sandoval.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. So I have a question for Scott. Hey, Scott. When the 200 foot notifications go out for any rezonings, do you send them to the house, or do you cut the list where they would get sent to the address? The assessor's record.
Speaker 5: Yes. It's to the property owner.
Speaker 4: Based on your assessment records.
Speaker 1: Based on the assessor assessor's records. Okay. Thank you. Okay.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman CdeBaca.
Speaker 2: Just a quick question for Scott. Do you know why the city sold the other parcel, the other 49. No. One parcel? Because it looks I'm looking at the chain of title and it looks like the city owned it at some point and sold it. But if we've been going through this process for ten years, do you know why that happened?
Speaker 5: No. I do not know the history.
Speaker 4: Of.
Speaker 5: Your friend Mr. Castle. I do not.
Speaker 4: Know. Property for.
Speaker 2: Got it.
Speaker 0: Thank you. All right, Councilwoman Canete for you. Back up for a question. Okay.
Speaker 2: Well, I can't I was I was I can't speak to the specific parcel without a map, but I will say that there were several properties that groundwork Denver had flagged and asked the city to be more assertive in acquiring that were adjacent to the site. And we had some real difficulties with staff changes, reluctance from the city attorney's office at first to engage with a site that was part of a voluntary cleanup. And I know that there were at least one, if not two parcels that we missed the window on. So I can't speak to whether that's the particular parcel that you are speaking to. But in a in a in a situation as long lasting and complex as this one, we had a difficult time sometimes moving in the real estate realm in the way that we might have needed to. The good news is that the major integrity of the site was held together, and I don't think any of those things undermined the huge success that this is for the community. But again, I would have to look at a map to confirm if that parcel is one of them. And when it when it changed hands and, you know, some of the folks who may have that memory on the city site are gone. But it may be that groundwork. Denver might have the history. My former staffer, Tangiers Barnes, is really good at that stuff. So if it's important, we can try to help you dig it up. Thank you. I was just curious about it because the sale happened in 2005. The city sold it to a private owner. And so it just seemed strange that they would have if we went through all the trouble we went through to acquire the other parcels , why we would sell off one that we owned within the same bracket of time that we were trying to do something like this with that. Well, that parcel predates the city's position until 2013 was that this site was not appropriate for an open space. So it wasn't until 2013 that we began to partner to go in this direction. So that explains it predated it. They they did not think that this site was appropriate for that use. Awesome. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. The public hearing for Council Bill 20 dash 0694 is closed. Comments by members of Council. Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Madam President. I just wanted to first thank Groundwork Denver and Councilwoman Kimmich for all their efforts in putting this together. I've had a chance to drive down and see all the improvements that have gone in. Clearly, this neighborhood is an area that floods, and having this storm drainage component that helps address some of the flooding for this neighborhood is really, really important. And this is only part of a whole bunch of other things that need to happen to really get this neighborhood out of the flood zone. And there's this whole process with the Army Corps that's been underway, and a lot of things are in motion to try to keep it out from being designated as a flood zone. But it it this project clearly has beautified the neighborhood by adding more green space. I was going to ask a question, but, you know, eventually this will have connectivity to the park on the other side of Washington Street, which is the Carpio Simonetti Park, which abuts the South Platte River. So having started this little trail and the connection to that park is going to be a really important element and and provide some true benefit to the residents of Globeville and Elyria, because they'll have access through the national western site to be able to get to the river and to the parks and over the hill, through the woods. But, you know, I just happy to support this tonight. I know a lot of work has gone into just finding the funding. And, you know, because it takes time to really stack the funding to be able to make these projects happen. And I just want to thank Councilwoman Kim for her tenacity in just keeping that ball rolling to get the project completed. So thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman Canete.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. If you want to sum up why I ran for a third term, this project, I really wanted to see it through. And, you know, Councilwoman Montero did get us started and was supportive all the way. The following two council people have both also been supportive, and I greatly appreciate all their support. And, you know, we said great work, Denver. You know, Councilman Ortega, thank you for acknowledging them. I just want to be very clear that they contributed a significant amount of funding to this project via dollars that they were due through some environmental justice settlements. And so it's not just that they were advocates. It's not just that they led the design. They they actually did the contract for the original portion of the design and the planning and all of those things. They actually brought significant dollars to the table. And so one quick comment just about that. I mentioned that there was the second phase that we were not able to fund. This was all before we had a parks tax. And I believe that it would be really important for this site to be considered for the phase two improvements to be funded by that source of funding now that it is available, because, you know, we have what is an important asset, but also fairly barebones in this phase. So I do want to acknowledge the criteria that the department has presented, which I believe that this particular site meets those criteria for a rezoning. And I do you know, it is about the different generations of staff, but I want to thank all of them. The folks that are here tonight picked up a mantle from the folks who came before them. And, you know, every successive generation has helped to make this possible. And so so I do think all of the city staff that were involved as well, you know, I think it's rare to see something kind of, you know, this small I mean, as much as it has, you know, I don't I was looking for the list of residents. David Jet Ski is one of the neighboring residents who's been at the table from the beginning. One of the other, major, Margaret Escamilla, I believe, who has moved out of the neighborhood since the beginning. But was there Councilwoman Sandoval may remember some other resident names from her time in that council office. But, you know, these residents really, you know, inspired us and they frankly were so collaborative. Right. They they they held the city's feet to the fire, but as partners in a way that always allowed us to move forward. And so I just want to thank those residents for making this rezoning possible, and I intend to support it. And I urge my colleagues to do the same. Thanks.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman Sandoval.
Speaker 1: And thank you, Madam President. So to sum up what Councilman Ortega and Councilman Canete, thank you so much. I remember joining the city in 2012 and sitting down in Councilman Montero's office and explaining that we were not going to stop pushing to get this land and to get it to the neighborhood. And I remember sitting in meetings with you, Councilwoman Canete, and just how complicated it is because of the Superfund site and how complicated is because of where it's located and yet how much it was needed. I have never heard a community take such ownership of land and really, really want it. So it's been a privilege to be a part of that process and starting as a council late in 2012 and now here I am in 2020 voting on it. And I just sent Councilwoman Monteiro a text saying something you started in 2006 I am voting on tonight. And so talk about legacy and talk about history in that neighborhood. So, Councilman, can you just thank you for pushing. I sat in meetings alongside with you and I remember being told no. And you and Judy were just like, no, we're not taking no for an answer. So thank you for doing that for this community. And with that, too, Councilman, can you just point. It absolutely meet the criteria on here and for people who have questions around that area, if you have any questions on the zoning or what you can be built, feel free to reach out to our office. We're always going to help. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Sandoval. And I'm happy to wrap up the comments on this. I can't believe that it was in 2012 that you all started this process and knowing that this all meets the criteria for this rezoning. But we were starting on that same journey with my former nonprofit Environmental Learning for Kids at the same time. And we're going before the attorney general's office to talk about those natural resource damage funds, which were some of the funding stack for this project. And so happy to support this and happy to see that it get to this place. And, Madam Secretary, roll call, please. See tobacco.
Speaker 2: I Clark.
Speaker 3: All right.
Speaker 0: Flynn, I. Herndon.
Speaker 2: I can't.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 2: Can each I.
Speaker 1: Ortega.
Speaker 0: I seen them all. I swear.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 0: Torres. I.
Speaker 2: Black I.
Speaker 0: Madam President, I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. 12 Eyes. 12 Eyes Council Bill 694 has passed. Next up, Councilmember Sandoval, would you please put council Bill 695 on the floor for passage, please?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 4855, 4856, 4876 and 4900 Sherman Street, 4824 Lincoln Street, 4877, 4901 and 4978 Grant Street, 5000, 5001 and 5021 Logan Street in Globeville.
Approves an official map amendment to rezone property from E-SU-D and I-MX-3 to OS-A (urban edge to open space), located at 4855 Sherman Street, 4824 Lincoln Street, 4876 Sherman Street, 4900 Sherman Street, 4901 Grant Street, 4978 Grant Street, 5001 Logan Street, 5000 Logan Street, 5021 Logan Street, 4877 Grant Street, and 4856 Sherman Street in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 7-21-20.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08312020_20-0695
|
Speaker 0: Madam President, I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. 12 Eyes. 12 Eyes Council Bill 694 has passed. Next up, Councilmember Sandoval, would you please put council Bill 695 on the floor for passage, please?
Speaker 1: I move that those 695 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded the required public hearing for Council Bill 20 dash 0695 is open. Maybe please have the staff report.
Speaker 3: Hello. My name is Edson Ibanez, an associate city planner with CUNY Planning. And I'm here to present an overview of the MAP Amendment four 4846 talks. If the host can allow me to share my screen, I can pull up the PowerPoint. Great. Can you see that? Thank you. So the property is currently located in Council District one. It is in the Regis neighborhood and the request is just north of I-70. It is a property that's over 6000 square feet. It is single unit residential. And they're requesting you, as you see one, the existing zoning is you as you see and it is surrounded by us. You see the existing land use is single unit residential and it is surrounded by single unit residential. Here is a looking at the property here on the top right corner and on the bottom left is just a home across the street. So looking at the process, information and notices sent out in March 2017, 2020 and went before the Planning Board on July 15, 2020, and it was approved unanimously. And it is before you here tonight. As of today, there has been only one comment and it is attached to the staff report. The Denver zoning code has five review criterias, which I'll go over. The first criteria is consistency with adopted plans and there are three plans applicable to the rezoning. And the first one is comprehensive plan 2040, the second one to blueprint Denver, and the third is housing and inclusive Denver. So the rezoning is consistent with several strategies and comprehensive plan 2040, but I would just go over a couple of them. This MAP amendment will promote equity by creating a greater mix of housing options in every neighborhood and will lead to an environmentally resilient Denver by promoting info development where infrastructure and services are already in place. Now when we look at Blueprint Denver, a 2019 plan, the subject property is mapped as part of the urban neighborhood context. This context is described as containing small, multi-unit, residential and mixed use areas that are typically embedded in one unit and two unit residential blocks when we're looking at. We're looking at the future place map designation and the subject property is designated as low residential place type displace type as predominantly single and two unit uses and accessory dwelling units are appropriate. Knox Core is a designated is designated as a local street, which is mostly characterized by residential uses and their growth area and blueprint. Denver's in all is classified and all other areas of the city. These areas are anticipated to see 10% of employment growth and 20% of housing growth by 2040. And then blueprint also includes specific policy recommendations, specifically housing policy number four, that talks about diversifying housing choices through the expansion of accessory dwelling units throughout all residential areas. Next is housing. For an inclusive Denver encourages the expansion, expansion and the development of accessory dwelling units to identify affordable and mixed use housing and as a wealth building tool for low and moderate income homeowners. So therefore, the proposed rezoning is consistent with the recommendations in the Comprehensive Plan Blueprint Denver and Housing and Inclusive Denver because it would expand housing options in order to allow for the development of an accessory dwelling unit. Staff also finds that the requested zoning meets the next two criteria. The zoning will result in a uniformity of district regulations, and it will further the public health and safety welfare of the city by primarily through the implementation of adopted plans. Staff does fine. That the request only meets the justified circumstances. With the newly adopted vision for accessory dwelling units and all residential areas and blueprint Denver. And lastly, the proposed zoning is consistent with the urban neighborhood context residential districts and the intent with for that you as you see one zoned district. So therefore CPD recommends approval based on all findings that are required to have been met. I am available for any questions and the applicant I believe, is also here.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Edson. Council has not received any written testimony on Council Bill 695. And tonight we have one individual signed up to speak and our first and only speaker will be Jesse Paris. And I thought, we have you up.
Speaker 3: There we go.
Speaker 0: All right.
Speaker 4: You're getting emails. The council. My name is Justin Paris. I reside in District eight and councilman for the district and I'm representing for Denver Homicide. Wow. That's a toxic movement for self defense, positive for social change, as well as the Unity Party of Colorado, Mile-High News and Universe People's Organization. I'm actually in favor of this rezoning today. I support it. I think we need to have more energy use throughout the city, especially with the affordability housing crisis that we are currently in. Even though we have a 26,000 vacant luxury apartments in this town, I support this rezoning and that's all I have to say for today. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. That concludes our speakers questions from members of council. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 4: Thank you. I didn't get an opportunity to go up and go past the property prior to the hearing. But I did look at the the online aerial photography and it appears as though there already are about four structures in the backyard here. Can you explain? And from the imagery, it looks like like an aid you may already have been built. Is that just a garage? And what are the other three structures in the backyard? If you know.
Speaker 3: According to the applicant, which doesn't look like he was on, but he's no longer on. I know for a fact that one of the structures is a garage. I do not know for the others.
Speaker 4: Okay. I'm looking at page five of the staff report. It also has that same aerial photo and you can see the two of them appear to be sheds. And then there's a a large structure that on the Ali Street View wasn't there in the earlier photography. The applicant bought this property about a year ago. And do you know, does the applicant live in the house there?
Speaker 3: According to the applicant, he does.
Speaker 4: Okay. All right. And the applicant isn't in the audience. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I am looking again.
Speaker 4: It's just that one day.
Speaker 0: I don't believe. I know. We've got some. If Mr. Day is in the attendees, if you wouldn't mind raising your hand.
Speaker 4: Oh, I again.
Speaker 0: All right. We're going to go ahead and get him promoted into the panelists.
Speaker 4: Kind of like on Star Trek where being beaming him up.
Speaker 0: All right.
Speaker 4: Hello, Mr. De. Hi. What are. What are all the structures in the back yard currently?
Speaker 3: Hi. Hi. Yeah. Yeah. So currently.
Speaker 4: There's actually only one structure at the backyard, and it is a detached two car garage, initially just purchasing property. Oh, can you hear me? Yes. Yes. Initially there were okay, there was time to share what you're seeing from the aerial photography. There were two utility sheds for doing a lot more. Okay. So you cleared them off? Actually, that's old aerial photography. Or, you know, gardening tools, things like that. The only structures government. I'm sorry, Madam President. I know I was cutting out on me. Yeah. What I took from that yesterday is that when you bought the property, those two utility sheds were there, and. And since then, they've been removed. And that's why on the Ali Street View, it's cleared. So the Ali Street View is really the newer view and what your intent is to to add the idea there. So that's the evidence that answered my question. Correct, completely. Thank you so much. Appreciate it. And welcome to Denver. Thank you. Thank you so much.
Speaker 0: Appreciate it. Mr. De, for the public record, would you mind please introducing yourself, though, and you're. Absolutely.
Speaker 4: I'm Joshua J. I'm born. Colorado resident. I just bought eight or six nuts caught.
Speaker 0: All right, great. Thank you. All right. The public hearing for council bill 20 dash 0695 is closed. Comments by members of Council. All right, then. No comments by members of council. Madam Secretary, roll call, please. The end of all. I swear I Tories I black. CdeBaca. I.
Speaker 2: Clark.
Speaker 3: I. Flynn, i.
Speaker 0: Herndon.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 5: Hines All right.
Speaker 2: Can you? I.
Speaker 0: Ortega, I. Madam President, I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. 11 Eyes, 11 eyes council bill 695 has passed. Next up, Councilmember Sandoval. Will you please put council bill seven or eight on the floor for passage?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 4846 Knox Court in Regis.
Approves an official map amendment to rezone property from U-SU-C to U-SU-C1 (allows for an accessory dwelling unit), located at 4846 Knox Court in Council District 1. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 7-21-20.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08312020_20-0708
|
Speaker 1: I'm hoping that Council Bill 0708 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: Has been moved and seconded. The required public hearing for Council Bill 20 Dash 0708 is open. May we have the staff report, please?
Speaker 4: Certainly. Thank you, Madam President. And good evening, city Council. I'm Fran Schaffer, presenting an amendment application for 2521 way and 2901 Broadway rezoning from CMH 807 and CMCs 1607 to CMI 1607. And CMCs eight. Deo seven. The subject properties are located in Council District nine within the Five Points neighborhood. Again, this request is for Cemex eight and Cemex 16, which is urban center neighborhood context mixed use eight and 16 stories of maximum height. Both of these include design overlay seven. The subject properties are currently vacant on the east, with the multi-unit residential project under construction on the West. The total area to be zoned is approximately 20000 to 27000 square feet and the request is to align the zone lots with the recently reconfigured ownership parcels. First, it is analysis. This is a net down zoning, with more area being rezoning to an eight story district versus a 16 story district and the vacant property at 2901 Broadway is real adjacent and has underwent a consent review plan with development services. Impacts to the project based on real proximity will be evaluated as part of the site development plan process. The current zoning on the subject property is BMX eight and CMH 16 with the don't have an overlay zoning to the southwest and east is generally I be you are to which is happy industrial with the port use overlay while the zoning to the north is residential mixed use in the form of army 30 with flavors and conditions. Concurrent with this rezoning, CPD also amended the De Nada Market Design Standards and guidelines. This DSG was approved in 2008 and as you can see in the screenshot, the boundary was not inclusive of the entirety of the subject. Property is an area to be resolved. CPD presented these amendments at a virtual public hearing on July 22nd and received final approval and signature from the CPD executive director and city attorney prior to today's public hearing. Current land users on the site, as they previously mentioned, are vacant and multi-unit residential under construction. Transportation land use is in the form of commercial and commuter rail exist on the southern and eastern edges of the subject site, while industrial and multi-unit residential uses are found to the north and the west. These photos give you a sense of building performance scale in the area with the subject properties on the top left, in the bottom right. The other photos depict the multi-unit residential projects across the waterway. This list comparison table shows the design standard differences between the proposed down districts. As you can see, they are the same except for maximum height in stories and feet. Also, the inclusion of the D7 overlay includes more stringent built to transparency and ground for activation requirements and greater detail. And those standards can be found in the staff report. Speaking to the process. Information on the rest of this application was sent in late November when board voted unanimously to move the application forward at their July 15 meeting. As I previously stated, staff amended the general market design standards and guidelines, and they were adopted on August 17. Notice that tonight's public hearing was set on August 10th and the property was properly noticed as a present. Staff has received two letters of support from nearby red registered neighborhood organizations, and no letters of opposition were received. Now moving on to the criteria. These are the three plans that impact the subject property. The proposed rezoning is consistent with many of the comprehensive plan 2040 strategies, which are organized by a vision element. This rezoning would allow for mixed use development near downtown, which is consistent with the equitable, affordable and inclusive goals and strategies. Similarly, the retaining of the seven overlay will require enhanced building forms and intensity consistent with the desire for an urban, walkable and mixed use community, fitting into many strategies and goals within the strong and authentic neighborhoods. Vision element. Lastly, the land use patterns mentioned are related to a number of strategies in the environmentally resilient element, and therefore staff finds the request to be consistent with Plan 2040. Moving to Blueprint Denver The subject property is mapped as part of the Urban Center Neighborhood context. This context is described as having a high mixed abuses with good street activation, and buildings in this context are usually multistory with a high degree of coverage. So the proposed zone district and overlay allow for a mix of uses and more stringent building forms that contribute to constructive activation. Proposed presenting to an urban center. Neighborhood context is appropriate and consistent with blueprints. Context Map. Future places. MAP designates such a property as high residential area, aspirational characteristics of high residential areas and an urban center neighborhood context include having prevalent commercial uses and tall buildings with high coverage. Consistent with this guidance, the proposed districts and design overlay provide for a mix of uses stringent building firm standards that create active street level presence and or waterway as a local or a designated street. If it does connect to Argo Street, which is classified as a mixed use collector, the street type supports a varied mix of uses , including retail, office, residential and restaurants. Again in the proposed zone districts with the D7 overlay will for mixed residential and commercial uses at an intensity and orientation consistent with the street type designations. Moving to the growth area strategy subject property map is again a high residential area within an urban center neighborhood context. These areas are anticipated to see 15% of new housing growth and 5% of new employment growth by 2040. Of the employment growth in this kind of an area has been determined to be most appropriate. Therefore, the proposed rezoning is consistent with a blueprint of this growth strategy. The third plan is the River North Plan, which was adopted by City Council in 2003. The designated area has residential mixed use and includes specific recommendations for this area, including facilitating the redevelopment of the market area into an exciting mixed use community. The plan recommends residential mixed use zoning, commercial mixed use zoning or a combination of both. The proposed zone districts are consistent with the recommendations of this plan. By allowing residential office and retail uses in a pedestrian friendly form the design and build to requirements of the zone districts in conjunction with the River North Design Overlay would ensure an urban form compatible with new pedestrian oriented development. The proposed rezoning meets the next two criteria, as it will result in the uniform application of zoned district building, form, use and design regulations while also furthering public health, safety and welfare. This will be achieved primarily through the implementation of adopted plans and facilitating density near services and amenities that are close to downtown. Recent physical changes within close proximity to the subject site, including three new apartment buildings in the immediate area and the completion of the reconstruction of Boulevard serve to justify this rezoning. The character of River North and Tanaka Market in particular is rapidly changing, and the rezoning request is justified to recognize the changing conditions. Additionally, the application of supplemental zoning regulations in the form of design overlay seven submitted justifying. Overall, the proposed MAP amendment is consistent with the neighborhood context, district purpose and intent statements for the Max eight, BMX 16 and the design overlay district.
Speaker 5: CPD recommends approval based on planning.
Speaker 4: All review criteria have been met. I'm happy to answer any questions.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Brandon. Council has not received any written testimony on Council Bill 708 and tonight we have nine speakers signed up and our first speaker is Megan Turner. All right. It looks like it's going to be Chase Hill.
Speaker 5: Good evening. Can you hear me?
Speaker 0: Mm hmm. Go ahead, Chase.
Speaker 5: City of members. Thank you for your time. I'll go to the first five or so slides and hand it over to Meghan on a Chase Hill. My address is 2924. Wind up through Denver, Colorado. Two, two, one, one. I am the owner of these parcels in my company. I guess I should say that first foremost, I am going through attachment number 12 that was attached to the agenda. The title of that is Applicant Materials City Council Rezoning Presentation Final. So if you can go along with me, that would be great. I'll try to provide enough color for those of you. So my company, Cyber Solution Advisors was founded in 1995 and we've been active a track record of success in Denver since 27. Multiple projects of fruition across this land in our group market. On slide three shows an overlay of the original back in 2007. For those who can't see, it is found by South River on the North Wright Boulevard on the east, and then downtown to the south. But it's all from Boulevard Brewer. The address of the two parcels, again at 25, 20, right of way, 20 901 North Broadway. Slide four just show you can see it just shows the site plans for these two phases 25, 23, waterways and construction. Now, that's the eight story. It is topped out. And we took both parcels through Rigzone in the summer of 2017, so four years ago, three years ago, and successfully resumed those properties back in 17. Subsequently, we discovered that the we had to do it all after we rezoning. We did a lot line adjustment and we found out that the zone district boundaries do not move with the change in the zone lot boundaries. We tried to handle this administratively, but the only option to have the zone district boundaries marry up with the zone lines is to go through its own process. So some of you were on council back in 2017 and you might remember these reasons. So we did for our site developed permit and building permit on the West. And if I could run away back in 2017 side of open plan is approving 1219 building permits and August 2018 two years ago it was approved in February 2019 and then we broke ground in spring of 2019. And again, that property is now topped out. The next slide. Shows what we're really actually doing, which is taking the green line, which is the current zone white line. And we're marrying it up with the yellow line, which is the zone district boundary is a net reduction in billable area of 62,000 square feet of up and down zone.
Speaker 0: Thank you. That's the time that we have allotted chase. And we do have Megan Turner signed up to speak as well. And so we can go ahead and turn it over to Megan.
Speaker 1: Hello. Good evening. Thank you, Madam President. My name is Megan Turner. I'm with Cami Horner Associates. My address for the record is 1125 17th Street, Suite 1400 Denver 80202 Thank you, Jace. As part of this application, we reached out to a variety of the registered neighborhood organizations and community groups. Our main goal with the outreach was to understand the feedback and provide input from the community as we share the development concept and the design ideas for these parcels. We also wanted to share the sequence and timeline that Chase had mentioned with those groups and those discussions. We have since received four letters of support for the applications before you today. I know Brandon have noted two, but we'll make sure that city staff has all four of those on record as well. With those conversations in mind, we thought it would be valuable to share with you some of the key design elements of the project . So if you're looking at the attachment, Slide seven goes through some of those.
Speaker 2: So open space and a pickleball.
Speaker 1: Court were key design considerations. From the public input, the development team has decided to make that amenity public. Additionally, the street level activation along Tanaka Street and Waterway is lined with public uses of retail and restaurant space, consistent with both the design guidelines and activation and transparency goals. Local art will also thoughtfully be incorporated into both projects. The dam for building will also have large scale pieces by local muralists and the spaces are intended to be used to showcase some of the local artwork, as you may see alongside the state of play in the art galleries there. Additionally, we appreciate the feedback shared by Councilwoman Ortega when we reached out on another project regarding the proximity to the adjacent rail brand and noted that that would be something of a view through that process, which we are already well through and we've reviewed the information and made sure to incorporate the best practices into the project design . In summary, we wanted to share some notes as we wrap up our Alcan portion here starting in 2016 and concluding the summer of 2017. Both the Dam three and Dam four sites for rezone to support the CMC and CMC's 16 zone districts with the initial alignment. The Dam three project is under construction now of course, topping out in the final ESDP processing and building permit for the M4 is currently under review. One thing that we wanted to reinforce tonight is that the zone changes being discussed here are consistent with the original intent, but as own changes back from 2017, the net effect of the applications before you result in a reduction in buildable area of over 60,000 square feet. In wrap up, we appreciate the opportunity to be with you all tonight, as well as the hours and time of dozens of valuable thoughts shared by the community. Thank you, Madam President and Council, for your time and consideration.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, we have Nola Miguel. Go ahead, Nola.
Speaker 2: Okay. Sorry, I thought I got kicked up there. Good evening, councilmembers. I just have to say congratulations on an open space really quick. Which means congratulations on that. I wanted to do public comment tonight because ongoing we feel disappointed about the lack of equity being evaluated in any and all of these reasons especially. There's a lot of them happening in our market right now. And what we're talking about at this site is over 300 units, not a single one of them affordable. It seems like that even though this is being presented as the technicality, this is a need that the developer has and a chance for the city to chime in and apply. Blueprint Denver You know, since Blueprint Denver. Granted, we're looking for these inclusive and diverse communities and just not seeing it here. The city has invested a large amounts of money in Bright Boulevard in the 30th in Lake Station and all the infrastructure around that. And we should get something back. We should be getting affordable housing as part of this. We had a meeting, the global response, a development committee had a meeting August 11th. We had five different groups represented, and not a single one of them is supporting this project. We wrote a letter out to council and that didn't get to CPD but were in opposition because of the lack of affordability and that there's no clear benefit to the community in this project. We didn't. The Pickleball court is not a benefit to Globeville neighbors, especially when it's going to be an exclusive thing just meant for the people that can live in those market rate units. Their reasoning for not having affordability is that it doesn't pencil out and that there's no precedent for that. And right now, they nobody else has to do it. So we're just going to keep developing and keep developing market rate units with no affordable units, because that's the precedent that this is setting. So how can how can we shift this? There's several other rezonings coming up. We were also really disappointed not to get any follow up from from the developer. We had a call with them where we suggested a community benefits agreement. We suggested equitable development, affordable development. Even several different types of retail were discussed. And, you know, that wasn't followed up on it at all. So we were disappointed by that as well. And that's it for tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Nola, thank you for the public record. Would you please reintroduce yourself in your address, please?
Speaker 2: Sure. My name is Nola Miguel. I'm with the Gas Coalition. My address is 4930 Vallejo Street.
Speaker 0: Thank you. We have up next, Matt Vince's team.
Speaker 3: Hello.
Speaker 4: I'm Matt Barnes. Justine. I'm the director of the Pop.
Speaker 3: Art.
Speaker 4: Collective. We're the registered neighborhood organization in the Ballpark District. This project borders the area that. Oh, my address is 2127 Larimer Street resident.
Speaker 5: And business owner. In addition to.
Speaker 4: Working with the ballpark collective.
Speaker 3: And this.
Speaker 4: Project Borders Ballpark District and Rhino District in the Five Points neighborhood. We met with the project design team and we felt the project.
Speaker 3: Was in line with our goals to.
Speaker 4: Protect, improve the safety, health, welfare and quality of life in.
Speaker 5: The neighborhood.
Speaker 4: And is in line with other projects and our board. From our perspective, we.
Speaker 5: Supported it and so.
Speaker 4: I'm not going to go to the three fourths for 3 minutes, I guess.
Speaker 0: All right. Great. Thank you, Matt. Up next, Alfonso Espino. We'll get Alfonzo. You unmuted here.
Speaker 3: Little City Council. My name, for the record is on Point Ospina. I am a member of the GC Coalition and my address is 4716 Gaillard Street and Radio 216. I'm here as a member of my coalition and globally responsive, which is right outside and borders the Five Points neighborhood where this proposed rezoning development is. And I am here to suggest city council and urge and challenge City Council to change the narrative of development, to actually focus on adopting equitable practices when it comes to development. As my colleagues in the College Food Coalition have already pointed out, there is no affordability in the units that are being proposed here. And there was very staunch opposition and a lot of questions posed to the developer, and we are very disappointed that we wouldn't even get an answer back. No follow up. So so that shows that there was actually no community input, despite the fact that we may not be inside of five points on that call that night on August 11th, that was reference to there was a five points. I know. And they are also an agreement that we should reject this proposed rezoning. And I would also just like to say that earlier today or earlier in the presentation, this project is being cited as complying with Blueprint Denver. And I would just like to say that that is false. That is incorrect. And that is a very big stretch, as is outlined in Blueprint Denver on page three. This rezoning request would actually fail to improve access to opportunity in terms of creating more equitable access to quality of life, amenities, health and quality education. And it absolutely fails to address reducing vulnerability to displacement for the surrounding populations and would actually, in fact increase displacement pressures in the surrounding areas. The developer's proposal fails to expand housing diversity, which blueprint Denver correctly points out as important in order to enable more inclusive and actually diverse communities. We do not need more of the homogenous housing stock that has been proposed in the bill and Rachel for the past decade that is has been targeted and has only successfully attracted middle to upper class white individuals. And if the city wants to finally change the narrative on equity, if it finally wants to do something for those that have been left behind when it comes to development, then put a message out tonight and let the developers know that Denver needs to move towards affordability and they need to move away from suggesting that our development should only be concerned about its profits. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Alfonso. Up next, we have Vanessa Quintanilla. And then in the meantime of us getting Vanessa promoted to panelists, we also had Angela Garcia and Gail LaRue, who were signed up. And so I know that we have a couple just phone numbers in the attendees. So if that is either one of you, Angela Garcia or Gail. LaRue, please raise your hand. And up next, we have Vanessa Quinton of.
Speaker 2: I mean, my name is Vanessa, but I'm a resident of District nine. My address is that's one East 31st Avenue. I'm also the president of the of Reclaim the Eastside R.A., which represents the five points. I submitted a letter of opposition on behalf of Reclaim the items of this project, because the proposed projects intends to accelerate involuntary displacement by creating homogeneous high income communities and cultivating a culture of exclusion with its retail proposition. It has been demonstrated that Marc housing creates forces to displace low income residents and our neighbors of color. It has also been demonstrated that this area's retail market rate rental properties caters to homogenous population as coincidentally white and affluent, and excludes the rest of us who are brown, black and poor. Therefore, creating this culture of exclusion, right policing based off of culture and who belongs unknowing, our state is experiencing a housing crisis. It is absurd to continue this trend of approving market rate rents without thought or consideration for the Democrats regarding the poor. Please do something for us. The developers and those among the project's supporters are willfully ignorant to racial and economic equity and willfully blind to the humanity of the poor to participate in support of this project on alignment of documents while void of equity in the vision for a Denver inclusive of all people, including those of us with less means and darker skin, is absolutely appalling. This project does not enhance our lives, create a healthy community, or increase opportunities for all people, especially, again, those who are marginalized by oppressive policies and decisions by elected officials. Therefore, I call upon Denver City Council to deny this zoning change and please find the moral courage to actually begin serving the poor. Thank you. You're your.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Vanessa. That wraps up our public speakers tonight. And sorry, we had one more. Jesse Paris. Hi, Jesse. Go ahead.
Speaker 4: Hey, don't forget about me.
Speaker 0: Never. Never.
Speaker 4: I reside in District eight, Christopher and his district, and I'm represented for Denver Homicide Low Black Star Action Movement for self-defense by their backs to commemorate for social change, as well as the party of Colorado. Now, I know in the Universe African People Organization. The newspapers have summed up everything that I was going to say. This is not inclusive. This is not equality. Especially who you want to build housing that is not affordable. Any of the units are not affordable. That is not what we need right now. We have a housing crisis. We are on the verge of having upwards of 200,000 people on the streets. So for you to sit up here and pass this resounding tonight is appalling. Absurd. I suggest this.
Speaker 3: Not pass.
Speaker 5: This.
Speaker 4: Even though it meets the so-called criteria on paper, it is not inclusive. It does not include the community. Jesus is correct in their violence that they are being excluded from this. It's appalling that the owner did not reach out to his position and I would add shoot tonight to not approve this. If you have any kind of morality, any kind of sense of character, you will not pass the story. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Jesse. That concludes our speakers questions from members of council.
Speaker 2: Councilwoman Black Actually, I think Gail LaRue is still in queue. I'm trying to.
Speaker 0: See.
Speaker 2: Which one her name is showing up.
Speaker 0: Okay. We can go ahead. We haven't closed the. Hearing yet.
Speaker 2: On 1/2. I'm trying to get her to see what her name says.
Speaker 0: If we could have her just raise her hand in the attendees.
Speaker 2: I don't know how they do that if they're on the phone. I do. We see anybody? There's a problem, Martinez.
Speaker 0: No. I'm asking staff to look, but we might need to just go ahead and move along. Thank you for for bringing me, councilwoman. And so questions from members of council Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. I have some questions for Nate Lucero, our zoning attorney.
Speaker 0: All right. Go ahead, Nate. Go ahead, Councilwoman. We've got Nate off mute. He's ready to go.
Speaker 2: Hi, Nate. So a lot of the speakers talked about the need for affordable housing.
Speaker 1: And I think everyone here.
Speaker 2: Agrees that we do have a need for affordable housing. But can you tell us a little bit about the criteria we have for a rezoning and if affordable housing is one of those criteria?
Speaker 3: Good evening. Members of Council. Nate Lucero, assistant city attorney. Thank you, Councilwoman Black. There is no requirement for affordable housing within the zoning criteria. And from a legal perspective, any city or county cannot require affordable housing through zoning, as it would be in violation of the rent control statute and the Telluride case. So, no, there is there is no zoning criterion that specifically addresses affordable housing.
Speaker 2: So under state law, if we were going to require that in order to approve this rezoning, we would be violating state law.
Speaker 3: Um, I guess I would, I would say if you, if council were to use the lack of affordable housing as a basis of denial for the rezoning, it would not be consistent with state law. And you may be subjecting yourself to a challenge if that were to happen.
Speaker 2: All right. And then can you remind all of us a few years ago, Councilman, can each and the mayor's office led an effort to institute a linkage fee on all new development, and that was to go into affordable housing fund. Can you remind us a little bit about that and then if this developer would be required to pay into that fund?
Speaker 3: Yeah, I am not the affordable housing expert, but what I can say about that is that all developments that are going to build housing and I think even in for a commercial development, those developers are required to pay into the linkage fee. So I hope that answers your question. If not, maybe there's someone else on the phone that could better answer that question.
Speaker 2: I don't know who else is on on this call, but I guess the developer could talk about how much they. If they're planning on paying the linkage fee or building units. And I think we learned that they're planning on paying the fee and how much that would be. If they're still in the meeting.
Speaker 0: We should be able to get either CHACE Hill or Megan Turner. If you wouldn't mind raising your hand.
Speaker 5: Then you have me.
Speaker 0: In. There you go. Mm hmm. Go ahead.
Speaker 3: Taste it.
Speaker 5: All. Yes, this this this project would be subject to the affordable linkage fee, and it's estimated about $480,000 on the phase four. And if I could, I'd like to quickly just say that we respectfully like to respond to the no follow up, no input from Noel, and just say that we very much see this as an ongoing discussion. Our conversation with other stations within the day have dealt more with scenario six, which is a block away. The letter that they since we've today had the 3225 ten Argo address, which is the M6. So we saw the denial in that letter being more in relation to that rezoning, which is a clear up zone, whereas this is an administrative law and we are very much planning to continue the dialog with them on the up zone down the road and we are not at all ignoring them and we have much more substance to have at them related to that.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman Sandoval.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. So I have several questions for a community planning and development paper and. Can you explain to me? This is almost four acres. It's just right under four acres. How come this didn't go? I know. For the large development review process. It's technically five acres. But how come this site was this site even thought about going through the large development review process?
Speaker 4: Thank you for the question. And it was not. I am having trouble pulling up the staff report right now. But first to produce analysis. The actual area to be down here is 27,000 square feet so far under the five acre plaza and everything again.
Speaker 1: So on your staff report, it says the area of the property is 3.91 acres. Is that not true? So 2520. We want to weigh in. 2901 Broadway. The summary of the rezoning request. If you go down to. The area of the property, it's 170,000 square feet.
Speaker 4: I just. I just found the staff report. You're correct. So that is the total land area of the properties. But the actual area to be zoned is 27,000 square feet.
Speaker 1: And where do you see court?
Speaker 4: Where does that.
Speaker 1: Where is that in the stuff?
Speaker 4: I believe it's once again, I have to go back.
Speaker 1: No problem. It's hard with it in virtual. So I'm I'm confused. If you go to the staff report and you go to page one and you put summary of rezoning request and you go to bullet point five, the northwest area of 13,730 square feet. Currently zoned axiom x 16 would be reason to see x eight. Is that true?
Speaker 4: Yes, that's correct, sir. When looking at those reports, those post descriptions of the actual property area to be resolved.
Speaker 1: Okay. And then concurrently, this southeast area of 13,278 square feet would be reserved from Cemex. Hate to seem 12. So we're we're we're adding entitlement from 8 to 16.
Speaker 4: No, you are adding some entitlement from 8 to 16, but you're down spending more from 16 to 8.
Speaker 1: So the difference is like 13,736 and then 13,278. That's why I'm not understanding how you get those numbers.
Speaker 4: Yes. So if you add those numbers up, they equal 27,000 square feet. That is the actual area to be zoned, more of which is being down zoned to CMC's eight.
Speaker 1: 500 square feet. Oh, my God. I thought you were talking about, like, way more. No, you're talking about 500 square feet. So you're taking one apple to another apple and it's 500 square feet different. Just so we're clear, right?
Speaker 4: That's correct, yes.
Speaker 1: Okay. So in your packet, I only see two letters of support from the for the ballpark collective R.A. and then the Reno art district and Meg in reference to other letters. There's something missing from the staff report.
Speaker 4: I believe so. I was only sent two letters. Maybe it was if there might be half an hour, including the other two, but we can figure that out.
Speaker 1: Okay. So, Megan, can we get Megan or. I can't remember his name. Sorry. No, his last name.
Speaker 0: So Chase will either get Megan Turner or Chase Hell back in.
Speaker 1: Hi there. I'm back on here now. And yes, that is correct. We did receive four letters of support. So I can pull up those names and we can be sure that those are in the staff report records. Did you send those to Denver City Council and the planner? We did, but those did come in late, so we realized that it might not have made it into the stack or in time. When did you get them?
Speaker 2: I will follow up on the.
Speaker 1: Exact dates those groups, though, were right now ESG, the ballpark collective. And you can so we'll make sure that you have all of those. So that's 3%. So you have the RINO art district. You do the Rhino West, the rhino. Our district is a ballpark collective and you can wear the four letters of support that we have received.
Speaker 4: Okay.
Speaker 1: And as ever again electronically. Right now, you do have dates on those. 1/2, I can get those dates. And while you're looking at those dates, I have a couple more questions. You talked a lot about community and you talked a lot about community feedback. Do you have a website that's collecting community feedback? Do you have confirmation of said community feedback that they wanted a pickleball court? We do not have a website for this particular project. We did reach out to all the registered neighborhood organizations. There were ten groups that we had reached out to. We scheduled several meetings, several of which we didn't have follow up with, which did orchestrate those letters of support for the project. We tried to make sure to incorporate that feedback into the design as best as we could. You can have like hard documentation from communities saying that they want a pickleball court. Like we're going in reasoning processes when you say you have community feedback. I would hope that you have documentation that backs up that says specifically from this community that they would like a pickleball court. Do you have that? So what we can.
Speaker 2: Do is we can chat.
Speaker 1: About the pickleball court specifically that was referenced as amenity that could be used by others during different times of the day. It could be used as an educational facility in chief. And then you can maybe speak to that a little bit better and have the dates for the letters of support. Yes, Ballpark Collective was August 3rd, right now was December 2019. Eastbay was August 21st and you can was today 831. Okay. And for the pickleball court, how is it decided that that's a community benefit? I'd really I'd like to understand that a little bit more for sure. So that was an amenity that is in place.
Speaker 2: And what we had.
Speaker 1: Decided originally in the design concept, it was a resident amenity. However, through the discussions, we realized that there was a need within the neighborhood and that need could be shared and that facility made public and have the opportunity to share that facility with the folks within the community. Okay. And then when in one last question, you talked about active street use as being community benefit, but how is it a community benefit when it's required? It's a requirement. You have a design overlay that actually designing overlay seven. Actually, within that design overlay, it's required to have a certain amount of active street use. Explain how that's a community benefit when it's actually in a requirement. Yeah. Thank you for the question. So we do go above and beyond the actual requirement. And a couple other parts of this, too, is that we do know that both the retail and the restaurant facilities.
Speaker 2: Would be used.
Speaker 1: By the community. And there's a couple of things I think that Chase might be able to touch on as well with some of that input. But just for just for clarity, for the record, for the requirement, correct? You're not you don't have to go above and beyond. You can choose to. But it's a requirement just to be clear. Correct. It is a requirement that we have chosen to go above and beyond. Okay. Those are all my questions. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 2: All right.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Ortega. Thank you, Madam President. My first question is for Mr. Hill. If you can send yourself. So how many times did you meet with the various neighborhood groups?
Speaker 5: Yes. Thank you for the question. Councilman Ortega with the River North, our district on three occasions and we met with the ECB twice and the other ones once.
Speaker 0: The other ones meaning.
Speaker 5: The other ones you can we had a call with GSA. We talked about that within the ballpark once. Obviously, it's tough. It's challenging environment to sit down and meet the people. So as more calls and emails and so a lot of a lot of immunity to provider above and beyond what's required based on direct conversations with primarily for our district who's the primary target of that scenario. But other well, our our our plans have changed. We have done we've you know, we included local art, a mural in a garage, things like that. Most conversations Councilman Ortega that we had related to DeMarco six 3225 an hour ago, which you'll be seeing come across your counter soon, that's more substantial. Upsell. The most conversation we had there focused on that one because we're going from one square industrial to 12 storey mixed use, whereas this was obviously, you know, a net reduction in 62,000 square feet.
Speaker 0: Technically, two separate projects. So I think not not fair to bring that one into this conversation, given that it's a separate project.
Speaker 5: Correct. But in an effort to be efficient with these various organizations times, we know it's time to discuss both at the same time because they're going through the reason at the same time.
Speaker 0: So so let me just ask, in your conversations with any of the groups, did the issue of a community benefit agreement come up? And what were some of those suggestions that were recommended to include in the project?
Speaker 5: Yes, great question. So we have to date signed two agreements with Harris, three agreeing with Harris, the one down the road a block away would be the fourth agreement, if you're referring specifically to a formal housing agreement. That conversation certainly did come up not just with other organizations. So, you know, we tried to be on the leading edge of what a private, non subsidized developer or project can do in a city. So we signed three voluntary agreements, two on evidence in Kendrick, LAX, District one down the road. And we're working on a fourth one, which is agreements that we will sign.
Speaker 0: So help me understand, are those directly tied to this project?
Speaker 5: No, they're not. What I'm trying to what I guess my point is, when we're when we're up zoning a property and we're asking for more than what the base and it's allowed for, we clearly want to want to give something in exchange. And usually that takes the form of a host agreement as well as a development agreement and an agreement which we sign the good neighbor agreement and a developer agreement and a host agreement that our rezoning efforts on this particular zone, because it is an administrative law line adjustment order to try to get the zone district boundaries to marry up on a net reduction of 60,000 buildable square feet. Those conversations have happened, led to a host agreement here, as they have on the other projects.
Speaker 0: But you could technically build whatever you wanted to build with the zoning that was already on the property. Correct.
Speaker 5: That's right. But going to the SDP press, even though he resumed the properties in 2017, just a few months ago, going through the building permit process of this phase four on the right hand side, on the east side, that's when the connect came up that your zone district boundaries don't line up with through zone lines and the building protocol. And so we thought we could handle that administratively. We couldn't. So one of these products is already built and topped out. The other one.
Speaker 0: Is that the just to be clear is that the difference between the 500 feet.
Speaker 5: Well, and it's actually just to clarify that earlier, it's a thousand men, not 500, but exactly 1000 square feet, not 500. And keep in mind that over half and it's in my presentation on the screen, over half of the land that we're up, zoning from 8 to 16 is covered by Denver water wastewater and Denver water easement area at all. So the difference, we're actually down zoning a couple square feet of 6 to 8 and all technically up zoning 6000 square feet from 8 to 16. So it's a more substantial down zone than we might have made clear.
Speaker 0: So I want to move on to Nola McGill for just a minute. Are you still around? If we can. You find yourself. We'll need to get her back and the panelists here. So just give us a moment up here. We've got her. Go ahead, Miguel. Go ahead, Councilman. No. Can you tell me if you can? Is part of the GDS coalition and were they part of the letter that was submitted to us that came in today?
Speaker 2: No, they weren't part of that letter. And you'd have to ask Armando Piana about that. I'm not sure. They were they weren't part of the call either.
Speaker 0: Okay. And as you can do, they have a large membership as well? Some of the other groups.
Speaker 2: I, I honestly, I haven't heard from them for a while. I'm not really sure how many people are in that group. The groups that were part of our letter were Global First, which is very active grouping Globeville right now, the Elyria, Swansea Neighborhood Association and the D.C. Coalition, EADS and Partners, and then the Community Building Network was also part of that.
Speaker 0: Okay. And so did you guys present anything specific as far as a specific CBA? To the development team when you guys met and talked to them.
Speaker 2: We really didn't get into those details. I think there was a lot of frustration that that came off at first. And by the time by the end of the call, we started talking about some of those things and hope, hoping that there would be follow up or next steps with some of our suggestions. Oh. How many.
Speaker 0: Letters? How many meetings did you all have with the developer?
Speaker 2: Just that one. It's just one call.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 5: Yeah. And we're still. We're still very much actively.
Speaker 0: I'm sorry, Mr.. Mr.. Here. I'll get back to you in just a minute. I'm specifically putting my questions to Ms.. Ms.. McGill. No, that was all I had for you. I do want to get back to you, Mr. Hill, with my final question. And I can't remember if it was you or Megan Turner who talked about that. You guys are going to look at best practices because you are within a close proximity to rail. And I just wanted to get an idea of what some of those ideas entail.
Speaker 5: But I can speak to that.
Speaker 0: To addressing the truly addressing the public health and safety of the community that's going to be placed to be sent to those rail lines.
Speaker 2: Yes, certainly, Councilwoman Ortega, some of those considerations that we have in mind is.
Speaker 1: We're citing of the building as the first part of that.
Speaker 2: Step. What we've done and what you can see with the demand.
Speaker 1: For site development plan approach is we are offset from our southern property line about 35 feet. So we've got horizontal separation there as well as the first five levels of the structure are not occupied. You'll see the structured parking and that's where we've got the local muralists work on the rear.
Speaker 2: Of the building. Some of those.
Speaker 1: Considerations as well as the architectural design and approach with that help with some of those best practices and the proximity to rail.
Speaker 2: Like some of the other things, we.
Speaker 0: Don't get to that level of detail. And given that when you check off the box that you're within a close proximity to rail, that's the first point that CPD is supposed to be having the conversation with people coming in asking for rezonings, and then obviously it's built into the design in the development review process. So I just wanted.
Speaker 4: To.
Speaker 0: Know, you know, as far as the thinking how, how much you all had had really been looking at that. So I appreciate that you're even that's even on your radar.
Speaker 1: Yes. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Those are all my questions for right now. Thank you, Madam President. All right. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. Brandon, maybe you can address this. As I looked over the staff report on presentation earlier before the meeting. It struck me that this appears to be a rezoning that is simply rearranging the entitlement areas to align them with the property line or there's actually the zone lot boundaries that. Correct. Yes, Councilman, that is correct. This is a rezoning to align the ownership parcels with the actual rezoning boundary. Is this mine? Yes. Okay. So we resolve this or council did in 2017 excuse me, in 2017. And the boundaries were sort of a zag the way I see it on the map. And but the zone lot boundary is straight. So what we're being asked to do is just flip them. And the result is it's a net loss of about that's somewhat a little loss in density allowable because the 16 storey area will move to a smaller footprint and the eight story area will move to a slightly larger footprint . Correct. But that's exactly correct. Okay. So I have a question that boggles my mind that because of an issue I had in my district about five years ago. Why don't we just change the zone lot boundary and not go through this brain damage? That's a great question. I'm not sure if the developer wants to speak to why they chose this path. It seems they chose it because during the site development plan review, somebody in an agency of the city said, Oh, this doesn't match the zone. Like you have to go through a rezoning. I'm wondering, did anybody and maybe the developer can answer. Didn't anybody say, Well, why don't we just rearranges our lot boundary to match the zoning?
Speaker 5: Yes. Councilman Flynn, great question. And you are correct. We will, through the step process on phase four, that there is no other process, administrative or otherwise, that we could go through to have these zone district boundaries map the zone lot line. So, yes, it's frustrating. It has been four months on it. Well, into design, we're in for a building permit and we were told this is our only recourse or only option.
Speaker 4: So. Okay. So you're following the agency's advice on how to how to fix this this zig zag and the boundary. Yes, sir. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. That's all. Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Hines.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam President, I. I want to give Mr. Hill a whack at the old pickleball question, so to speak, there. There's a pickleball association in Denver. I don't know its exact name, but several the officers are in District ten and there's a lot of opposition to Pickleball because it's noisy. And I tried to do some Googling to figure out exactly what the excuse me, searching on the Internet, using some search engine, didn't want to drop the name necessarily. But, you know, to figure out what the exact decibel.
Speaker 2: Level is.
Speaker 5: For pickleball. But I know that that we have a lot of opposition in our neighborhoods because of the proximity of pickleball courts, existing pickleball courts to residences. And so I just want to make sure like. If if they're going to be co-located with, you know, 16 stories of residents that I. Did you ask the community? And they said, that's what we want and we don't care about the noise. Or I guess I'm I'm just trying to this is one way to help me understand the neighborhood engagement. And this this just doesn't add up to me so far, but please help me out it. Yeah. You think you can sometimes. So the pickleball court, first of all, it came up in meeting with with our district that they have some kind of activated greenspace, just landscaping. We try to do a tennis court with the basketball. We just don't have the size. So it's a pick up of a basketball goal. The good news is in your district where there's high density everywhere, the only neighbor we have is the rail lines we have known on the east as a dog park on the west just eastward project. But to the south is nothing but the airline to the airport. So we don't have any media neighbors other than our own. And our first residential level is 50 feet above the Super Bowl. We removed since it was going to be a kind of affinity for the residents. Obviously, it's open to the public. We've talked to you can about their ability to use it during school hours to take students to their reading. That's a fantastic idea it's the most you can and river north art district specifically voice support of a portable court and expressed interest in. So my next question is to Mr. Shaver. I am trying to recollect in my mind and you are way better at zoning than I am, at least I hope, because because I could use some, some additional studying the idea of moving and it fits from one plot to another. Is that like a benefits transfer or something like that? I know that we've we've considered that in some of the urban you know, the urban core, where if, say, there's a church and they're zoned for 12 storeys, they could take the that unused zoning and give that to another plot for them to to have additional height. Is that am I making any.
Speaker 3: Sense at all?
Speaker 4: I think so. To answer your question, that that is called a transfer of development rights. The issue at hand here is solely to align the ownership parcels with the zone, and that is some sort of a tricky Denver zoning thing that we use this thing called zoning laws and they don't align with the ownership for assessor parcels . So that is what.
Speaker 5: The.
Speaker 4: Rezoning is for. If that makes sense. I don't know if you have another question about the transfer of development rights, but that's another thing. But it's not applicable to this case. I say.
Speaker 5: Well, I know where I was going, but the question is, why hasn't that why wasn't that used here? But you're saying that's not applicable. So that's that's a pretty good reason why. And then the. I'd like to miss Miguel, you're still up in the analyst section. I have a question for you as well about. Arnaud's. Are you familiar with Eastbay? Do you interact with them in your or. No. Two The two Arnaud's interact.
Speaker 2: We occasionally get an email from them, but usually not. We don't necessarily like touch base about something like this.
Speaker 5: Because they're the and I use that same Internet search engine that will remain nameless and found who they are. They're a very responsive global business association. So it seems a little different, I guess, if there are nano. There are nano. But it seems a little interesting to reach out to a business association to to get guidance on residential housing. But but I figure maybe I mean, if there are nano, we have you know, maybe there's a good reason for that. So you don't interact with them much.
Speaker 2: I'm here and there. I mean, there are big business association. You know, they've they've had some of the big ones in the area.
Speaker 3: Like, you know, Pepsi and Coca-Cola.
Speaker 2: I'm not there. They're big business association. They reached out to us about our food program recently. Little things like that.
Speaker 5: Okay. I guess the last question that I have would just just be to open it up for any any one who might be in the audience, who is part of GBA, because it I believe it was mentioned that they submitted their letter of support on August 21st. So ten days ago. And I'm just curious as to because it didn't make it into our our packet, just wanted to chat with them.
Speaker 0: All right. I'm not seeing anyone raise their hands. And if you are on the phone, you can use Star nine to raise your hand.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman. Not seen anybody there. So we will move on to Councilman Sandoval.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. So I have a question. Is Navy service still on the line?
Speaker 0: We can. Get him back in here. Oh, there we go. Go ahead.
Speaker 1: Vinnie, how are you?
Speaker 3: I'm well, thank you. How are you?
Speaker 1: Good. So isn't it true that it's common and it's not like common? Common. But I have it in northwest Denver, where zone lock and zone lock boundaries and zone parcels don't match up.
Speaker 3: That does happen. Yes.
Speaker 1: And so when you amend the zone, like don't you have to get set to match the boundary of who the owner is that you usually get a sign off and the other people within the zone, that boundary. It's called a zone amendment. You know what I'm talking about?
Speaker 3: Yes. If you go through the zone amendment process in our ward, there is more than one owner or more than one or within one zone lot. And then all the owners within that zone lot have to sign off on the zone law amendment. However, if you have multiple zone laws within a single parcel, it may not work the same way. The city does try to get folks to to have their parcel boundaries align with their zone boundaries. I'm not sure. Is that answering your question or is there more?
Speaker 1: And so basically so I have like four right now that I'm working on in Council District one. So I have a zone my boundary and I have three property owners within that zone, my boundary. And when property owner wants to have entitlements, but he can't because the other properties have certain entitlement. So, so their, their houses are taking up some of his entitlements or trying to go through the zoning amendment process. It's I'm I'm seriously confused on why we're going through a rezoning process instead of sending them through the zone amendment process like all my constituents are sent through.
Speaker 3: Okay. And I'm not sure the details of the site development plan that was submitted, but it could be and maybe the applicant can answer this better. But it could be that they were trying to develop part of one of these parcels to the zone lot or the zone district standards for one zone district that they didn't have in town for. Yeah. Oh, it was, it was it made more sense to, to change. Just while zoning for those sections of the of the zone might.
Speaker 1: Go to swap the zoning for the for the zone lot because they're not necessarily they couldn't go to this amendment because they couldn't come in agreement with the other parcel owners. It's super confusing. Like there's no boundaries and then there's the parcels. But just to be clear, all the people, all the owners in the boundary who own parcels have to sign off on it. Correct. If you want to go through the zone amendment process, just so I'm clear.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's correct. But here I think the same owner owns both parcels.
Speaker 5: Or both script.
Speaker 1: That's why I'm confused on why we're using rezoning to fix that. Like.
Speaker 5: I sure I share the confusion.
Speaker 0: Mr. Hill, we would really like you to hold up chiming in. We are in the middle of a legal hearing and we will call on you, sir. Go ahead, Councilman Sandoval.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. So, Brandon, do you have that? As you say, I'll quit using acronyms. Do you have the site development plan where it calls out for this process to be fixed through the rezoning process? In your experience, have you seen this before?
Speaker 4: This is the first time I've seen one of these come through, and I was not privy to any of the conversations that happened between planning services and development services to come to the conclusion to go through this process.
Speaker 5: Okay.
Speaker 1: Because I've seen I've been watching these earnings for a long time and I have been studying this one, and I can't find any other examples of something like this before. I know Zuma amendments, so I'm not part like boundary amendments to match the parcel. You know what I'm saying? I'm so sorry. Geeking out on zoning, but I've never in my time since 2010 have seen a rezoning to fix that. So thank you, Madam President. No further questions.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman CdeBaca. Can you hear me? Go ahead now. You can.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. I just wanted to ask a question of Mr. Hill about the Elyria. Swansea, a global business association. My former profit was is a member of their group. And if that letter was sent within the last ten days, I don't recall getting.
Speaker 1: Any information.
Speaker 2: Regarding a vote that took place on this development. Can you explain to me a little bit about how that letter of support was secured?
Speaker 0: Go ahead, Mr. Hill.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Yes, we had a meeting with them back in early July, and they they sent a letter of approval on August 21st. We did. You and Brandon, all four signed letters for. We sat down with them at their office. Used to be to create a plan. Now it's proximate to that. And we sat down with. There were four other four scba members in the room and there were another three or four on a zoom call. And we walked through our projects and I can't speak to how they're on another approval process. And it's a phone. Is it a board that decides? I'm not sure. But they did issue a letter of support.
Speaker 2: That's concerning. Thank you very much for that information. And for our colleagues in CPD and counsel, NOLA mentioned a letter that they sent that had five organizations on it. And Vanessa Quintana that spoke tonight represented a sixth organization. And so just to make sure it's on the record, I will dig.
Speaker 1: Through my emails and make.
Speaker 2: Sure that it was sent direct, that it gets sent directly to council members and CPD to get uploaded, so that it is reflected that it was six individual organizations that wrote letters of opposition to this project. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. I have a question. I'm not sure if it's for Brandon or maybe the property owner, but if this doesn't pass, can the development still move forward as planned?
Speaker 4: I would defer to Chase for that question if he's available.
Speaker 5: Yes, to that question. So again, we're we have basically asked if you prepare for building, the drawings are complete and cannoli. Councilman Black, we will be in a very tough spot. We've been working on this done for four years and only recently was a slot lighting issue raised by the city. This is an administrative cleanup and it's a significant reduction in built area. And we also have support of CPD in many of the major arteries in the area. So this would be very troublesome. And I can't tell you today what our next steps would be if this law is not approved. But we would be left in a very bad spot.
Speaker 3: To say the least.
Speaker 2: So were you misled by the city? That got you to the point you are today. I mean, it's really, you know, a net zero. Gain or loss for a you. Right. You're just it's just technical. And so now why is it here this very kind of heated political issue? Did. Did the city not give you good advice at some point along the line, or how did we get to this point?
Speaker 5: No, councilman asked. I don't want apply to be ever deceived or led astray by anyone at CPD or anybody else in the city. What happened was and shame on me to a certain extent, but I did not realize that when you give a lot one adjustment in your zone change. I had no idea that there's a zone district boundaries separate from the zone laws that don't move with them. So when we submitted for our building permit, it was a comet and it was the initial round of comments, but it was a comment that surfaced. Didn't come up on August three, but it came up a few months ago on August four. And that was the first in this whole conversation, this whole confusion surfaced. And I very much share Councilman Sandoval's confusion. And so I was unaware that these are two different things that married up. The city flagged it right away through the process, but it was after after the first zone, after fully permitting the tiling, the first phase. And then it was a second project where it surfaced. And and that was back in March, I want to say. And then we started the reasoning process and it was slowed down because that's where we are now.
Speaker 2: So without throwing anyone under the bus, it does sound like you. Weren't given as much information as you should have been given.
Speaker 5: Thus. Sarah, I wish we had been given this information when we submitted for permit on the first days and it never came up. But we did it. And, and then it came up on the second and I might have a different view or believe it was. And maybe it got past the first review in the second, but it was brought to our attention four months ago and we were flabbergasted, to be honest. We were not aware that we had this issue.
Speaker 0: And Councilwoman Nate Lucero also has his hand raised. I think he would like to chime in if you're okay. Hearing from Nate.
Speaker 1: I would be great. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President, and thank you, Councilwoman Black. So if looking at the staff report and what is what is occurring with the staff and it's clear that the zone law amendment would not solve the problem and address the needs for these two parcels. A zone law amendment. You would still have you would still have two different zone districts on the same zone lot. So it wouldn't it wouldn't help solve the problem that that the developer is currently facing. Does that make sense? I mean, if you look at. Page five of the staff report. It kind of shows you the conundrum. And I think this may have been the page that Councilman Flynn was referring to earlier.
Speaker 2: Okay. But but, Nate, is it the city's fault that they are in this conundrum or is it their fault?
Speaker 3: I, I don't know that it's anyone's fault. I would say that it could have been an oversight, maybe on the part of the developer and the city that the zone district boundaries were a little funky for this for these two properties. But it's certainly an issue that I think the developer and the city are working to address so that the zone districts mountains match the zone lot boundaries.
Speaker 2: Okay. But the bottom line is that there is considerably less. Area that can be developed. According to something I'm reading right now, there's 62,000 square feet, a net reduction in buildable area. Is that your understanding to.
Speaker 3: Is that what's provided in the staff report?
Speaker 2: This is in the report from the director. But Brandon, you were talking about this earlier. And if you think about it that way, it's actually not an up zoning, right. If you look at the big picture of it.
Speaker 4: Yes. I'm not certain what the net buildable area reduction is, but as far as just land area, more of this land is going to be down, zoned, zoned.
Speaker 2: All right. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Right. Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Torres. Madam President.
Speaker 2: I just want to be clear what I'm hearing. Chase, a question for you. Have you already started building something on either of the lots?
Speaker 5: Yes. The Story project is top down and midway through construction. The 16 story. We were hoping to break ground around this time now, but it's been delayed for four or five months on account of rezoning. So we have not started building on the second phase, but the first.
Speaker 4: Phase has topped out.
Speaker 2: So were you not planning to build on.
Speaker 0: That triangular section that's.
Speaker 2: Being zoned from 8 to 16?
Speaker 5: So the majority of that time U.S. that we are up zoning is the Denver wastewater and Denver water easement area we cannot build over that never intended to. There's a small section of our garage that does encroach outside of that. So we do have some building on this side, which is why we couldn't move forward with the project. Not a reason.
Speaker 2: Okay. That was my other question.
Speaker 0: What did you built your plans for? And it sounds like it was.
Speaker 2: For the property lines as opposed to the zone. The zone lots?
Speaker 5: Yes, ma'am.
Speaker 2: So had you not. There are two separate buildings, right?
Speaker 5: Yes, ma'am.
Speaker 0: So had you not noticed.
Speaker 2: That your zoning was different?
Speaker 5: So again, we were looking at our zone lot lines, the green line and the. Representation we provided, but without our boundary, property, boundary or zone lots that the zoning carried with the zone lots. But there's actually this other line, this zone district boundary that separate entirely from the zone like and in many cities and there's a one that same in Denver, there's two different things. And so yes, we were designing our building and basing it on the zone lots, not the zone district boundary.
Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you, Chase. Nate. What fixes this for them if it's not fixing this zoning designation.
Speaker 3: I. We would have to perhaps evaluate that and speak with the folks in planning services and development services to see if there's some other solution. But but for me, at this point in time, what is what is being requested makes the most sense.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Madam President. All right. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Hines and then Councilman Ortega. And we're starting our our second round of questions, so go ahead, Councilman Hines.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam President. And these questions are based on quick responses from after I ask the first set of questions. So I think Mr. Rosario, I think you just said this already, but I want to make sure that I understand you. You've previously said the developer and the city are working to address this issue. You're saying. Are you are you saying the developer and city are working to address this issue? Using the process that we're discussing right now is that I just want to make sure that I'm not misunderstanding or making a logical conclusion or jump. That's incorrect.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's correct. And the developer came in with the site plan. The city recognized that there would be complications with moving forward, with building permits. And so the city staff recommended this rezoning process. And so that's that's what I mean by the developer and the city are working together.
Speaker 5: Okay. All right. Thank you. And then, Mr. Hill, if you were zoned for 16 storeys and you built eight. Why if I if I might I mean, not a lot of developers are willing to. Top out at half of their allowable rates. What? Why did you build only eight stories with, in this part, your resume for 16? You're on mute. Yes. Yes. Again, it comes back to the the whole zone lot versus zone district boundary conversation. Not only we did not realize the stupid things and most cities and even most of the time in Denver, that was line up . We didn't really realize that we have 16 sort of zoning on part of the east side. And so that just came to our realization when we went through to the second phase building process. So yes, we could have built twice as tall as we did. No, we didn't because we were going off of the zone, lock zone, not to sound district boundaries. So you might have had you known you might have built 16 stories where you are currently top down at eight. We could have I'm not sure what we would have would have, but we could have. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Ortega. Thank you. Madam President, I just have one last question, and this is for Mr. Hill. So it was 2017, right, when the the overlay zoning for this area went into place, that sort of uptown, the whole the whole area that included the. In an article market. Correct. Or was that a separate process that you all went to?
Speaker 5: That separate process. Council nor category. The original target market was be zoned before my time back in 2009 and as a master plan GDP. And then this land was purchased in results. Partizan partizan 16 results.
Speaker 0: Okay. So you make reference to a number of four and that's that's a project yet to come before us, correct.
Speaker 5: Sorry, it's confusing. I should clarify. So within these two projects, I keep saying there's one or two, but there's one with the one that's topped out. It's eight stories. That's phase three of the overall development. And then phase four is the six stories that we're in for permanent four.
Speaker 0: Okay. So you kept talking about you're going to come back to do an up zoning.
Speaker 5: Yes. That that's that is.
Speaker 0: Actually a particular parcel.
Speaker 5: That's actually a block away. We call that the inaugural phase six.
Speaker 0: So that's a whole different parcel.
Speaker 3: I didn't have.
Speaker 5: Our first planning board is October ludy November and it's city council in December. So that's the one we continue to actively dialog and hope to continue at that time. That's enough. I'm from one story industrial 12 story mixed use.
Speaker 0: Okay. And was that part of parcel that was part of that overlay of zoning that took place? Or was this.
Speaker 5: So separate altogether? We don't even know. We're under contract on that site. We do not currently own it. Okay.
Speaker 0: Okay. What? I was kidding. I was just trying to understand if you were looking to make up the difference of what you're losing in zoning on this site by trying to up zone the other side, I mean, understanding there are two completely different separate projects. And I'm the one that asked you not to talk about the two projects, but you've brought that up a couple times, and I just wanted to clarify that point.
Speaker 5: Yeah. No, we're looking at them entirely independent from one another. We own this land that we're talking about today, both phases at a 33, 25 ton Argo, and that's what the coalition issued a letter against. So we have pulled out of there and we're going to do a lot of things to get community support there. And we we hope to get it, but that'll be a conversation for another day. And today we're just talking about the land that we owned.
Speaker 0: So I would just strongly encourage that when you get ready to begin that process that, you know, historically, this part of what's known as Rhino has always been part of the Globeville community boundaries. And oftentimes a lot of the development in that area did not necessarily include input from the geese communities. And so I would just ask that you do the same outreach with them as you've done with the other groups that you have met with and secure your support from that.
Speaker 4: You certainly will.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman and Councilwoman CdeBaca.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. Just a quick clarification from Mr. Hill. So I'm looking at the slices and we're down zoning one slice from 16 down to eight, and we're zoning one slice from 8 to 16, and it basically cancels each other out. But you said that you weren't sure if you would if this didn't pass today, if you would be moving forward if there's no net loss or no net gain. What would what would prevent you from moving forward?
Speaker 5: Yes. Counsel, thank you for your question. So we have the building completely design submitted for building permanent. We're effectively through SDP in this zoning issue. The building that is designed goes over the zoning district boundary, within the zoning alignment over the zoning district boundary outside of respondent arteries. And and so we have to you know, we can we have to totally redesign our building, start all over, you know, page one rewrite. And and you have to design a different building that's eight and 16 storeys.
Speaker 2: And. That makes sense. Thank you.
Speaker 5: Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Are you good, Councilman?
Speaker 1: I thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Great. Thank you. All right. The public hearing for Council Bill 20, dash zero seven.
Speaker 2: Did we lose council president? No. Hello? Can you hear me?
Speaker 0: Hi. Hi. I don't know. Somebody was doing something with the host settings, and so it went down, so. Not sure where we cut off, but I had bang the gavel the public hearing for council bill 20 dash 0708 is closed. Comments by members of Council Council Woman Black.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. I am going to support this rezoning. I understand the desires of all of us and of the community members to increase our affordable housing. However, as we all know, having affordable housing is not one of the criteria for approving a rezoning. This does meet the criteria. The owner is complying with the law that the City Council passed a few years ago and they will be paying a linkage fee. Also of note is it's not a net gain in entitlements. It's actually a loss. And I feel very strongly that the reason the developer is in the position they are right now is because they. Didn't get the right kind of advice and the right kind of information that they should have gotten from the city. And they are working at the city's recommendation to try and fix it through a rezoning by bringing it to us, which, of course, is a very political way to resolve the issue, is really to correct an anomaly that we have in this city. So I do think in this situation, this is a rezoning.
Speaker 1: That the criteria.
Speaker 2: Does meet and.
Speaker 1: That we should be supporting.
Speaker 2: It. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Black. Councilwoman CdeBaca.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. Just want to make sure that we understand that when we say something is in alignment with the criteria, we have five different criterion that are much more vague than we would like. In fact, number one is consistency with adopted plans. And we know that the two main plans that we use, Blueprint, Denver and Comprehensive Plan 2040, are very explicit about equity goals. And when we when we have frustration with CPD is because CPD has not figured out how to measure how we achieve equity. But it doesn't mean that our interpretation of a project cannot be inconsistent with a adopted with an adopted plan if it does not meet our our interpretation of an equity goal. And so I believe that it is not consistent with comprehensive plan and blueprint. Denver. Equity Goals. I also believe that in numbers three of the criterion furthering public health, safety and welfare. That is another area where we have a lot of room for interpretation about what is public health, what is safety, what is welfare of a community. We recently declared racism a public health crisis. We understand public health in a very different way in 2020. We talk a lot about social determinants of health, and we know that the affordability overlay just blocks away at 38 simply do not work. And so whether or not this was a mistake on the city's behalf or the developer's behalf, I think it's coming in front of us in 2020 for a reason. And it might be a moment for for the developer to be able to rethink this plan. There are six organizations in this immediate area that are opposed to this change. And as the community representative for this community, I have to stand with our community and encourage my colleagues not to support this change in our district and really listen to what the people in our community are asking for. Whether that's a restart because of a technicality or for a better interpretation of the five criterion. They are asking us to do something, and I hope you all will listen. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Torres.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. I was ready to step in for you when we.
Speaker 0: Lost you for half a second. So just for I. Thank you. Thank you. Turns out I. Turns out I must have gotten demoted.
Speaker 4: So I.
Speaker 0: Got promoted. I didn't write about it.
Speaker 2: All right.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 2: So my comments on this one, I recognize this is an awkward space and I have a hard time accepting that this is the path.
Speaker 0: Of least.
Speaker 2: Resistance for fixing this particular issue. Because what it asks me to do, not having been here when this was resolved last time, but it asks me to judge based on all the things that we typically judge a rezoning on. And I will continue to struggle with comp plan 2020.
Speaker 0: Vision element of equitable, affordable and inclusive when a plan doesn't demonstrate that.
Speaker 2: And for that reason.
Speaker 0: I'll be a no tonight. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Sawyer.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. I appreciate Councilwoman Torres's point. I think she makes a really good point. And I have been reading this 119 page staff report all day in between meetings and all other things happening. And I think what is a little bit concerning to me is as I'm reading the staff report, you know. As it's going through the different criteria we're supposed to be looking at uniform uniformity of district regulations and restrictions. It's one sentence. The proposed rezoning will result in the uniform application of zoning district building form. Saying that something is going to do something that it's supposed to do is not a justifying circumstance for doing it. That's a circular argument. That's that is not actually filling out the staff report appropriately. The proposed official MAP Amendment furthering public health, safety and welfare through the implementation of the city's adopted land use plan, is not filling out the staff report and showing us how it is going to further the health, safety and welfare of our community . So I just as I'm as I'm sitting here and I'm going through this, I'm really seeing some pretty big gaps in the work that should have been done to really justify this rezoning. And I am concerned that that is because whether that is because. This was taken for granted. For whatever reason, because it was just a relatively whether they were told by the city that this was relatively straightforward swap kind of a situation or whether it was because there's a lack of understanding from the developer of what needed to be done here, I'm not sure, but I'm concerned either way. And so I think this clearly does not meet the criteria based on what I'm seeing here in the staff report. And so I'll be in tonight as well. Thanks.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Hines.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. I. Man.
Speaker 5: This is this is a difficult one as far as we know, as we sit on council. We get all the difficult questions, all the easy ones are already solved before they come to us. And that's why we get paid the million bucks or whatever to try to make calls like this. This. This one's strange to me because it's it's a net downstream, yet there's still controversy. And I'm not sure that I really feel comfortable with the questions that I or the answers to the questions that are asked. It it's a little interesting that we're to this point in the process, which is a long process and is meant to have many steps forward before us. And we're just learning. Tonight or whatever that that the developer could theoretically have done up to 16 storeys in a development where they they're topping out at sea. And but that's not an inability to answer simple questions. That's not going to fly criteria. So and I'm not trying to. That sounds maybe a little more blunt than I should be. But but but the five criteria isn't predicated on the intimacy of wisdom or education, not wisdom. But if the knowledge of this particular plot and what we are considering before us and the ultimate decision that we have to make. I would certainly encourage our applicants to engage with the community surrounding it. I mean, engaging the community is a.
Speaker 3: Critical.
Speaker 5: Component of getting something that works for everyone and and ensure we have a symbiotic relationship with residents who live in the city and, um, and preparing for residents that are coming to our city tomorrow. And frankly, we've got hundreds of people living in tents in my district, and they would like homes, too. And and so but I would say sometimes a conversation with neighbors and more than just one attempt can get something that's good for developers and good for community. And and so I'm a little bit frustrated with that. Not sure exactly how that fits into the five criteria either. But but certainly I could be way more comfortable if, if we had more people in support and and fewer people coming to us testifying today saying that it's not not what they want it or that they're frustrated by the process. 300 units with zero affordable is also frustrating, but that, as Councilmember Black drove home, is not something that we can use to judge because of the Telluride decision. I think city attorney also mentioned Telluride. I would encourage all of us, everyone watching and listening and members of council and the media. I know all of us to reach out to our state legislator and to modify the Telluride decision. Until that changes is made, we can't use the housing affordability or lack thereof excuse me, affordable housing or lack thereof, as a as one of the ways that we vote no. So this is really difficult because 300 units is better than no units. And the people living in tents would say any home is better than no home. The people and homes that are they pick out their front window and they see people living in tents. They say the same thing. They would much rather have housing for for for people in the availability of housing than not. So I'm still trying to I'll listen. It looks like at least a couple more my colleagues are are going to make comments. That's how difficult our decisions are, is that I have not totally made up my mind even right now. So thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Ortega. Q Madam President. Tonight's discussion really reiterates why. We should be getting the level of detail that City Council used to get on rezoning applications, because with this form based zoning, all we're getting is information about the scale of what we're approving. We see no real details on the actual projects that that are going to be built on these sites. And, you know, that's a different conversation, but it comes up over and over and over again. And, you know, some of us have talked about what changes we would want to see made. Working with CPD, we've we've broached that subject with them, but we have made no headway in that in that arena. And I think it's it's time that we really roll up our sleeves and make that happen so that we know exactly what we're voting on. And it ensures that developers have to spend a little bit more money by putting more detail together. And most developers hire attorneys. They're hiring architects who pay attention to that level of detail that they have to bring before us so that when they are filing an application, all those T's have been crossed and the eyes have been dotted so that we're not seeing the kind of mistake that happened with this one tonight. And, you know, I'm not going to place blame or fault anywhere. It's a situation that has has warranted this particular application to land on our maps for us to make a final decision. I am a little disturbed that there was only one conversation with the GSA community whose boundaries this falls within. Clearly, you know, equity issues can be had and there are things that can be done that go that are different from affordable housing, which, again, we all know we can't mandate unless there's local government financing in the project . And I haven't heard that to be the case with this particular project. So I guess, you know. My my concern is that I would I would like to see a situation where, you know, we could we could see that happen in terms of some of the some of the benefits in a communication that I got today that just came through, it said part of the conversation was about allowing wi fi in the coffee shop available to people from the community. From the yes community. Well, that would be available to anybody that's that utilizing that public space. So that's not really considered a benefit per se. But these are conversations that get down to the issues of what blueprint Denver And you know, some of our other plans have spoken to more recently about equity and inclusion, about how we need to move forward as a city. Because if we keep building all market rate housing because we haven't fixed Telluride, all we're doing is continuing to exacerbate the housing challenges that we have in the city. And we need to find a way to get our developer partners in the city to roll up their sleeves and be part of the solution and not add to the challenges and the problems that we have with affordability, knowing that's not one of the issues that we're dealing with here tonight. You know, I'm I'm torn. But I think that in this particular situation. I'm going to support it moving forward. But I just want to say with the next one coming forward, I want to see more homework done and I want to see us really take that mantle and move forward with the changes that need to happen towards that goal. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Sandoval.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. So often times we talk about in city council, we talk about precedent and we talk about how the city council president and we can set new standards and we can set new ways. And I really enjoy learning about land use. This one, I am so confused. I have never had the time, I think, to innovate. And it's come to somebodies attention that as rezoning has to fix things. So my concern is about setting precedent. And to my other colleagues, concern is I have heard more about fixing the lot lines and the boundaries than I have any other conversation. And so when we talk about the health, safety and welfare and other adopted plans that are that were used in the presentation to bring forward this application, I didn't hear any of that in the presentation. I didn't talk I didn't ask any questions about affordable housing. I asked about flat line and boundaries and the precedent that this would set for other offers in the future to have come before our body to fix this instead of understanding what their boundaries are and looking extensively at them. So with that, I do understand how this meeting meets the criteria of the what we have set in front of us when we're talking about boundaries and lines. I have never seen one of the boundaries in one thing, one other criteria in the Denver zoning code, and that's what a lot of the letters of support talk about . And they talk about the values of the developer and the values that the developer had with the registered or neighborhood organizations. And to be honest, I have never seen that either. So with that, I'm going to abstain from this one because I just I don't understand it. I just think it's I don't understand it. I've never seen it, and I can't quite figure it out. So thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. Were this to be a from scratch rezoning on a site that was asking where the owner was asking for entitlements from something much less dense to eight and 16 stories. A lot of this discussion would have been much more up to the point, but it seems to me that this rezoning application is more in the way of a correction of an error that occurred three years ago, and an error that, on balance from what I've heard, sounds like it's more on the city's side of the ledger. When we work with applicants to to map these applications out, you know, the applicants don't just come in and plop some application down and the staff says, okay, we'll run with us. They work together and they develop it and they come up with something that they can then bring to us as a coherent whole. It's this sort of reminds me of the movie Animal House after the road trip, when when Otter says to flounder, you messed up. You trusted us. And the the owner probably feels like he's the he's poor flounder sitting there having trusted the process. So this is in the way of correcting an error that's mostly on our side of the ledger. And for that reason, I do believe that it does meet the criteria, met the criteria three years ago. And for that reason, I'll be supporting it. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Clark.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. I won't reiterate. I think that what my colleagues have said before me better. I think Councilman Flynn took some of the words out of my mouth right here. And and Councilwoman Ortega. And I think that.
Speaker 3: We we need to.
Speaker 5: I think.
Speaker 3: This this whole process of getting to.
Speaker 4: This clerical fix in this spot is forcing other conversations.
Speaker 5: That are bubbling that.
Speaker 3: We need to tackle to come up into this.
Speaker 4: Conversation. But I think at the end of the day, when we strip down to what are we actually doing in this, it meets the criteria. As Councilman Flynn said, it's correcting an error. And for those reasons, I will be supporting it tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Clark. I will go ahead and chime in. You know, I've had the presentation the entire time and on slide three, it talks about that this is a fix for approximately 27,000 square feet or 0.62 acres. And it's the rezoning to align zone lots with ownership parcels. This is an administrative fix and this should have been fixed internally within CPD. I am. It's mind boggling that we have spent this much time talking about something that should have been fixed internally. But I think that this is very helpful, especially because the developer was here with us and there are huge lack, there's huge gaps in engagement of the community of of being authentic in that engagement and the intentionality around. Is the community really want to pickleball core or is this to sell units? And what is that community benefit? And so I will be a yes on this tonight because this is clearly an administrative fix. But the writing is on the wall for additional rezonings that are coming through. The bar is set much higher for what we want to see. And I know that we can't we can't mandate the affordable housing piece, but there's also those community benefit agreements and how you're working with the community and the neighbors in the area as well. And so I do hope that Mr. Hill and Mr. Turner heard that loud and clear tonight as well from the community, but then also from city council. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 2: CDEBACA No. Clark.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 2: Flynn.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 0: Herndon.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 1: Hines.
Speaker 5: Hi.
Speaker 2: Can each.
Speaker 1: I. Ortega.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: Sandoval sent.
Speaker 0: Sawyer.
Speaker 2: No.
Speaker 0: Torres. No. Whack.
Speaker 2: I. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close of Iranian announce the results.
Speaker 2: One abstention, three nays. Eight eyes.
Speaker 0: Eight Eyes Council Bill 708 has passed. On Monday, September 28, the Council will hold the required public hearing on Council Bill 813, changing the zoning classification for 5560 5101 South Colorado Boulevard, 5197 101 Colorado Boulevard and 98 Harrison Street in Cherry Creek and a required public hearing on Council Bill 815 Changing the Zoning Classification for 50 South Kalama Street 39 South Kalama Street. Ten south of Pan Street and 101 South Santa Fe Drive in Baker. Any protests against council bills? 813 or 815 must be filed with the council offices no later than noon on Monday, September 21st. There being no further business before this body. This meeting is adjourned. Oh.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 2520 Wewatta Way and 2901 Broadway in Five Points.
Approves an official map amendment to rezone property from C-MX-16, DO-7 and C-MX-8, DO-7 to C-MX-8, DO-7 and C-MX-16, DO-7 (aligns urban center zoning with surrounding districts), located at 2520 Wewatta Way and 2901 North Broadway Street in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 7-21-20.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08172020_20-0767
|
Speaker 2: All right. Doing one last look. All right. No hands raised. Next up, Council Resolution 767. Councilman, clerk, will you please put Council Resolution 767 on the floor for adoption?
Speaker 3: Yes, Madam President, I move the council resolution seven, six, seven to be adopted.
Speaker 2: It has been moved and.
Speaker 0: Again.
Speaker 2: Seconded. Thank you. Comments by members of Council on Resolution 767. Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam President. I call this out because this is a $10 million contract, and we've been working on our revised MWB ordinance for almost three years. It's already been adopted. Agencies all knew that it was coming forward, and part of that commitment was that we were going to break down contracts so that we would create the opportunity for more small businesses across our city to be able to participate and do business with the city. And this one doesn't do that. So I called it out to vote no. I don't know that Sky wants to address this and explain why we did not break this out. I know some of these. You know, it takes a while to go through the whole RFP process. But, you know, we've had a few that we've been told, oh, this was in the works before the ordinance came forward. But the fact that we've been working on the ordinance for three years and everybody knew it was coming forward. Some of the projects actually factor that in to the RFP and to the the contracting process. So I would just ask why this one was not broken out.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilwoman, I believe we have Elizabeth Hughes who's on the phone to you.
Speaker 1: This is Elizabeth Hughes. I am a procurement analyst for the city and county of Denver. Part of this as this is a goods only master purchase order. Our contract with the established aggregate of being over $10 million, it did not qualify for the defined pool or or gold program. And in this.
Speaker 5: Instance, say not because I know we have minority businesses and that that could have participated in the process and small businesses who own and manage parking lots that could have, you know, the option of this. So I guess I don't understand that thinking.
Speaker 1: This this is for a janitorial goods only is not for services it's just to supply the goods.
Speaker 5: Up with the parking one.
Speaker 1: Sorry earlier conversation.
Speaker 5: I had with Jason, but you're right. So it's the supplier would.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: And we did this because if we did that, there will be significant price increases in the products that we currently buy. And also the logistics of breaking a 100 plus items would be extremely difficult to manage and to administer all of those contracts.
Speaker 5: Do we know what kind of price savings we get by.
Speaker 1: Doing.
Speaker 5: This as one contract as opposed to breaking it out?
Speaker 1: Off the top of my head. I do not know the actual pricing the difference. I do know that we are receiving aggressive pricing because of our volume. And our volume is being. Combined with the state of Colorado's agreement.
Speaker 5: Okay. Thanks for the explanation. I appreciate it.
Speaker 1: You're welcome. I have no other questions.
Speaker 2: All right. Thank you, Councilwoman. See no other questions from members of council. Madam Secretary, roll call on resolution 767.
Speaker 1: Ortega? No. Sandoval. Yes. Sawyer. Yes. Torres, I. Black Eye CdeBaca. I. Clark.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 1: Flynn. I Herndon. I Hines.
Speaker 3: Hi.
Speaker 1: Cashman.
Speaker 0: I can each. I.
Speaker 1: Madam President.
Speaker 2: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 1: 12 eyes. One day.
Speaker 2: 12 eyes. Resolution 767 has been adopted. The next items up are council resolutions 844 and 845. Council Member Clark, will you please put Council Resolutions 844 and 845 on the floor for adoption?
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Master Purchase Order between the City and County of Denver and Western Paper Distributors, Inc. for janitorial supplies for City facilities.
Approves a master purchase order with Western Paper Distributors, Inc. for $10,500,000 and through 7-31-22, with a possible one-year optional renewal, for janitorial supplies for City facilities (SC-00004934). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 8-31-20. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 8-4-20.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08172020_20-0844
|
Speaker 2: 12 eyes. Resolution 767 has been adopted. The next items up are council resolutions 844 and 845. Council Member Clark, will you please put Council Resolutions 844 and 845 on the floor for adoption?
Speaker 3: Yes, Madam President. And with the Council Resolution eight four, four and 845 be adopted.
Speaker 2: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded comments by members of Council on Resolutions 844 and 845. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 5: If you are president, these are two of our our claims. And I was not around when the explanation was provided, which typically happened in mayor council. So I have no background knowledge on either one of these. So I'm going to abstain from the vote.
Speaker 2: All right. Thank you, Councilwoman. Madam Secretary, roll call on resolutions 844 and 845, please.
Speaker 1: Ortega.
Speaker 5: Abstain.
Speaker 1: Sandoval asked Sawyer.
Speaker 0: Same.
Speaker 1: Torres, I. Black. I see tobacco. No. Clark.
Speaker 3: All right.
Speaker 1: Flynn, I. Herndon, I.
Speaker 3: Hines abstained.
Speaker 1: Cashman.
Speaker 3: Hi.
Speaker 1: I Ortega. Sorry. I mean Sandoval. I. Madam President.
Speaker 2: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 0: Three abstentions. One nay. Nine eyes.
Speaker 2: Nine eyes. Resolutions 844 and 845 have been adopted. The next item up is Council Resolution 829. Councilmember Hines, please go ahead with your questions on council resolution 829.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. So this is a direct file. So the Senate Budget Committee and I. I just have a few questions about the panel of arbiters and or arbitrators. Excuse me. And considering we are just wrapping up the DPA contract, I want to be particularly cautious because I believe so. My first question is this panel of arbitrators would theoretically arbitrate should city council not approve the tentative agreement between the Denver Police Protective Association and the city? Is that right?
Speaker 0: Madam President, I am happy to speak on behalf of our committee. We actually didn't designate which one of us would do that, so I don't know, unless one of my colleagues wants to speak to it how we went about selecting this and how it works.
Speaker 2: Sure, you all can choose. And then we also have Emily lapel on the line as well. So if there's no objections from the other two, councilwoman. Go ahead, Councilwoman Canete.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam President. And thank you, Councilman Haines. The way that this works is that the panel of five is presented to the parties in a dispute that could be the sheriff's office or the police department. And then each party strikes a name until they get down to one name. So the panel does not sit like a panel in the appeals court where they all hear the case. It is a process of elimination until one is selected. And so we made the decision last year that we felt like three was probably not robust enough and decided to go with five. We had we must have at least three, but we chose to go up to five to include some more diversity of experience and backgrounds. And then this would be only this individual and it would only be one individual who would be retained if this process were needed is retained by that process. So this panel may these individuals may never be selected. And if they if they do, it would be through that process.
Speaker 3: I think you are the arbitrators, but the cop. Well, I guess the one arbitrator who was selected. Is that person compensated?
Speaker 0: Yes, they are. And, you know, fees are in an inner range per hour, plus travel. This is a pretty specialized area of labor law. And we do not have very robust public sector unions in the state of Colorado. So we look to ensure that we have a balance where we could find individuals with local experience in the West or the state of Colorado, but also folks who would have public sector arbitration experience and also where possible, public safety experience. So those were some of the factors that we look to, to recruit. And I just want to acknowledge I mentioned them specifically, but this was Councilwoman Black, Councilwoman Zeta Baca. As your boards and commissions subcommittee of the council that did this process along with Emily Lapel doing all the hard work for us.
Speaker 3: Yep. And thank you for your hard work. I notice that none of them are in Denver and to or from the East Coast, like not even in Colorado. Is that was that on purpose or can you help me understand?
Speaker 0: Yeah. Again, you will find the most qualified labor lawyers and the most qualified labor arbitrators in markets with more strength in larger public sector unions. We don't have a lot of public sector unions in the state of Colorado, which means we have fewer people practicing in this area. Generally speaking, arbitrators come from careers of backgrounds in this specialized area of law, maybe either working for management or unions, and then they graduate into arbitration. So it tends to be those who are later in their careers. We did a very robust recruitment looking in the state of Colorado. If you can imagine, you also can't have anyone who has any conflicts of interest, right? So anyone who's represented the city or represented our unions would not be a good candidate for this position. So Emily can answer, but because we don't have a very robust labor protections in the West here, there are fewer people who practice in this area. So we aired on the side of doing a heavy recruitment for both experience as well as geographic trying to get folks who may be in the vicinity. And so but but we again, we just don't have a large pool of these people in the state of Colorado because there are not that many public sector unions here.
Speaker 3: And that's a really good point about the conflict of interest and how probably anyone who practiced in this field in Denver is probably conflicted. So. Okay, I don't have any other questions. Thank you. For the additional context. I just wanted to make sure that it just seemed little. That timing seemed a little interesting. So that's why I figured I'd ask that. Thank you for your help. And thank you for to the to the committee, to the panel, for for your hard work. No other questions. Madam President.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam President. I just wanted to add a few things. We actually discussed this at last October's financing governance meeting. And it's this small group that Councilwoman CdeBaca and councilmen, Councilwoman and I are on. It is quite a lot of work, and we've been working very hard to get people appointed to boards and commissions, and this one just took a little bit longer. So that's the reason why it's coming to you now is see, the fact that it is at the same time as we're having other discussion is purely coincidental. And I also wanted to add and add that we were looking for some more diversity among the arbitrators. And so that was one of the things that we were looking at. And lastly, for those of you who maybe didn't see the email, Emily Lapel sent a very detailed email last Monday with all of their resumes and a little description of the process. So if you have further questions, you can look there or feel free to ask any of us. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman. Looks like we're good on that one. Next item up is Council Bill 759. Councilmember Hines, go ahead with your questions on Council Bill 759, please.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 3: So this, I think, is related to another conversation that we'll have later tonight, and it's certainly related to the movement that we have nationally and internationally. I see that this contract appears to be. It's about mental health and substance abuse assistance. I'm sorry. Oh, so substance abuse and mental health assistance in our jail. And, um, and I want to. I guess I'm curious about this and not necessarily concerned, but but it seems like if we're authorizing more money for addiction and mental health treatment ennerdale, we are further intertwining those two instead of separating. I mean, you know, our our sheriff's deputies. But that isn't really their wheelhouse because they're trying to be sheriff's deputies on addiction or social worker mental health counselors. I'm just trying to get some more context about this. This particular contract.
Speaker 2: Wonderful. We've got Kerry Stanley here to answer your questions. Go ahead, Kerry.
Speaker 0: Absolutely. And thank you for the opportunity to speak with you all tonight. I absolutely understand the curiosity around continuing to enhance our services inside of the jail. We are subcontracting the substance use disorder treatment with the empowerment program and the mile high behavioral health care agency in order to ensure that we are providing these services with licensed counselors. So while the uniform part of the sheriff's department is absolutely critical for us continuing to do our work surrounding mental health.
Speaker 1: And substance use addiction.
Speaker 0: Counseling, it's really to provide that security and operations of the jail. So as the director of inmate programs, my team, as well as all of our subcontractors, are ensuring that we have the expertize and.
Speaker 1: The education and the licensure.
Speaker 0: To continue to provide those services. And I will say in regards to continuing to intertwine the services with people in the jail, I certainly have concern for those people that are in custody to make sure that their need to be met while they're here, even if that's on a short term basis. One of these programs, the device program.
Speaker 1: Recovery in a school environment.
Speaker 0: Both male and female units requires only a 30 day stay. If somebody isn't staying with us that long, we have substance use education classes. If somebody is interested, we have plans. We have interactive journal programs. We have individual counseling. We really want to try to meet people where they're at in regards to their services and what they need. And sometimes when they come into our care and custody, they're ready to have those conversations. And we want to make sure that we're here to meet them and meet that need.
Speaker 3: Yeah, but I guess we can't revolutionize the world overnight. Yeah, but. But I would. I would love for us to provide that funding or addiction and mental health funding to divert someone entirely from. From incarceration so that we can treat before we. Earlier in the process. Then after they're incarcerated. And. But. But I suppose we are where we are today. So. So I will continue to push for additional funding and moving our money to up the. I don't know what the right phrase is up the supply chain. That's not really a good phrase, but closer to the source as opposed to I just really I don't want our sheriff's deputies to be set up for failure when they're having to be around a population. They just don't have training to be around. And they weren't meant to provide addiction and mental health treatment. So that's that's all I have. Thank you. Madam President.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to add that Councilman Cashman, Councilwoman CdeBaca and I serve on the Crime Prevention and Control Commission. This was a body that was created after it was actually a result of the the vote that went before the people to create the funding for the justice center that's downtown. And after the first try, when they when the city tried to put it down at 625, there was a lot of conversation among the community about making sure that we had programs and resources that were focused on preventing people from being in the jail system. And so the body that we serve on has resources that is providing programs that works toward keeping people out of the jail. And so I wanted you, Councilman Hines, because sometimes history matters for folks to know and understand, you know, sort of where those resources came from, that the PCC has the ability to delve out. Some of that is administered within various city agencies, including our our DA's office. But it's all focused on trying to reduce jail bed time for people in the jail system and figuring out which are programs like our reentry program, for example, is one of those. And as you know, we've we have voted on that contract where that program is across the street in the same building that our post office is in, and that's providing services to people who come out of the jail system, making sure that they have access to being able to do the resume again, accessing other resources, for example . So we wanted folks to to just know that so that they're there. There are ongoing efforts and programs that are are doing some of this very work that you're talking about. So thank you. I just wanted to make sure folks were aware of that.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Ortega. All right. See no other questions on Council Bill 759. We're going to move ahead. The next item up is Council Bill 836. Councilman Clark, will you please put Council Bill 836 on the floor for publishing?
|
Resolution
|
A resolution authorizing and approving the expenditure and payment from the appropriation account designated “liability claims,” the total sum of One-Hundred Sixty Thousand Dollars ($160,000.00) to be issued as follows: Forty Eight Thousand Dollars and Zero Cents ($48,000.00) made payable to the Denver Probate Court and One Hundred and Twelve Thousand Dollars and Zero Cents ($112,000.00) made payable to Killmer, Lane & Newman COLTAF Client Trust Account, in full payment and satisfaction of all claims in Civil Action No. 19-cv-02437 in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado.
Settles a claim with the Denver Sheriff Department. This item was approved for filing at the Mayor-Council meeting on 8-11-20.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08172020_20-0836
|
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Ortega. All right. See no other questions on Council Bill 759. We're going to move ahead. The next item up is Council Bill 836. Councilman Clark, will you please put Council Bill 836 on the floor for publishing?
Speaker 3: Yes, Madam President. I move. That counts. 836 be ordered published.
Speaker 2: Thank you. It has been moved. And can I get a second?
Speaker 0: Can.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council member say the baka your motion to amend.
Speaker 0: The spill. There was some confusion about potential conflicts with another bill that we sent to the ballot. And I just wanted to make sure that everybody knew we were. These are designed to work together. They're not designed to conflict with each other. And so there is a section in, I believe it's sea for where there are 30 days identified between the time of a vacation of the city attorney, city attorney seat and the task of nominating a minimum of three individuals to the mayor for appointment. And I would like to amend that to be within a reasonable time to pair with Councilwoman Sawyer's bill that we got on the ballot. And there are that one sentence later. There's also a point where that 30 day time frame is alluded to. And I'd like to also change that to within a reasonable time.
Speaker 2: And. Q Councilwoman, do you have the exact language that we need read into the record if you want to go ahead and read that in? That would be great.
Speaker 0: Okay. It is under C one and second sentence. This list, the list shall be submitted within a reasonable time after the removal, death, retirement, tender, or resignation of the city attorney. If the Mayor shall fail to make appointment from such list within the 15 days from from the time it is submitted to the Mayor, the appointment shall be made by the City Council from the same list within the next 15 days.
Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you. I want to check with our council secretary. That's not exactly what I'm seeing up on the Strip. So I just want to make sure that we're at the right place.
Speaker 0: I don't see it in my script. Let me check. Yeah, we do want that.
Speaker 1: Informal motion on the floor, please.
Speaker 0: Got it. I move that council bill 20 dash 0836 be amended in the following particulars on page two line ten strike. The list shall be submitted not later than 30 days, and replaced with the list shall be submitted within a reasonable time and timely manner after the removal, death, retirement, or tender of resignation of the city attorney . Line 11. Strike after the removal. Death. Retirement. Tender of resignation of the city attorney. Line 18. If that strike if the and replace with if the nomination commission has not presented its nominations under this subsection to the mayor in a reasonable and timely manner, the mayor may thereafter fill such vacancy on the mayor's own motion, applying the standard set forth in this subsection and strike lines 19 through 21.
Speaker 2: Right on. Thank you. It has been moved. May we get a second, please?
Speaker 0: I can.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Questions or comments by members of Council on the Amendment? Councilwoman CdeBaca.
Speaker 0: Sorry. I think I did my comments first.
Speaker 2: Oh, okay. We got we got that. So the purpose of the amendment is to eliminate the rigid deadline and allow for future flexibility by submitting potential nominees to the mayor. Councilman Sawyer, you're up for a question.
Speaker 0: Thanks. I just wanted to check with the city attorney's office regarding the phrasing of the council approval of mayoral appointees. Bill says, I can't remember the exact wording, but I believe it is appointed by and nominated and appointed by the mayor and approved by council. So I just want to double check with the city attorney's office that that that this doesn't. Can you just can we just talk really quickly about the dovetailing of these two to ensure how that works together? They might be getting upgraded.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think we're getting them on. All right. We have Jonathan Griffin up to answer.
Speaker 5: You need to mute yourself, Jennifer.
Speaker 3: Huh?
Speaker 1: There you go. There is no video either.
Speaker 3: I just practiced all this so I would be ready to go. So we do not believe that there would be a direct conflict between these two bills. I was pointing out initially that we are on the amendment still not the bill itself. So but just to expedite, just to say, because this nomination commission creates a list of nominees for the mayor to choose from, and then the mayor of Portland nominates and appoints from that list that there is not a direct conflict between these two.
Speaker 0: Okay. And John, can you just really quickly on this amendment, this then clears up any conflict that there is between the two that initially proposed wording and the wording for the for what has already been referred on the council approval of mayoral appointees. Yes.
Speaker 3: Yes, absolutely. And so the bill that was passed by city council regarding council appointments or council consent to appointments uses this reasonable time frame. So this also matches that.
Speaker 0: Well, okay, so we can talk about the whole bill later. But I just wanted to reconfirm on that one right now for the. Okay. Thank you. Thanks, Madam President.
Speaker 2: All right. Thank you, Councilwoman. See no other questions from council members. Madam Secretary, roll call on the amendment for 836, please.
Speaker 1: CdeBaca, I.
Speaker 3: CLARKE All right. Flynn Oh.
Speaker 1: Herndon? No.
Speaker 3: Hence I.
Speaker 1: Cashman.
Speaker 0: I can h i.
Speaker 1: Ortega i. Sandoval. I. Sawyer. I. Torres. I. Black. Hi. Madam President.
Speaker 2: I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 0: Two nays. 11.
Speaker 2: 11 eyes. The amendment to council Bill 836 has passed. Councilmember Clark, we need a new motion to order published.
Speaker 3: Yes. Madam President, I move that council bill 836 be ordered as amended.
Speaker 2: Thank you. It has been moved. May we get a second?
Speaker 0: Second.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 836 Council Member Flynn.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. I don't believe the amendment fixes the ultimate conflict here. The sponsor of this had agreed to the council approval of the mayoral appointments, and that should have settled the matter. What this does is it introduces, frankly, a rather goofy and ill advised process for selecting the city attorney. It puts it in the hands of people outside the city family. When I go to select a lawyer for my personal interests, or when the city selects a lawyer to represent its corporate interests there, it's there's no reason to go to an outside group to say, who should we hire? This should be a choice of the counsel, the administration, the auditor and the clerk, the independent agencies that are represented by the city attorney who is now selected only by the mayor. If were I to craft an amendment to the charter that would solve this problem, I think that Councilwoman Ortega will I will agree with this. We should have an amendment in the charter that permits the city council to hire its own separate legal counsel, separate from the city attorney's office. The second level of of approaching this issue should be that when the mayor selects the city attorney candidate for that the cabinet, that that position would be selected by a committee, a screening committee that consists of the mayor. The President of Council with the advice and consent and consultation of the body, the auditor and the clerk. But farming this out to an outside committee of just anybody is frankly goofy and ill advised. And and the final problem with this, of course, is that this had been scheduled for committee twice. It should have been hashed out in committee. But the sponsor pulled it from the agenda and it had never been discussed in committee. And here we are making sausage at the last minute. This is not how we amend the charter. There is no urgency to this. The city attorney right now, as far as we know, isn't going anywhere for two years perhaps. And this is something that can be more intentionally planned and discussed over the next year. There's a ballot next year that this could go on. And frankly, I would push to have the city council, the auditor and the mayor join in the selection of the city attorney and have a stake in that. Or, as Councilwoman Ortega has talked about for years, have the city council with its own with its own attorney and council. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Flynn. We've got Councilman Herndon up next and then I see other hands raised in the queue. Go ahead.
Speaker 3: Councilman Herndon impressing with the members who signed up to speak. I would refer to him. I'll be voting no on this. Thank you.
Speaker 2: All right. Thank you, Councilman Black.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam President. This was discussed at the December nine Charter Review Committee, and I went back and watched the committee. And I was very intrigued by the idea of the council being involved in selecting the city attorney, because we are the clients of the city attorney and I still really like that idea and I'd like to spend some more time talking about it and thinking about it. Unfortunately, we do have a process and we set up the Charter Review Committee and the next step was to come to finance and governance. This was scheduled for July 21st and then was canceled. And I really believe that amending the charter is a pretty weighty matter and we should follow the process. We should fully understand items before we send them on to the voters. I feel like we owe it to our constituents and to the general public that we follow the process and make sure we've gotten an analysis and we've gotten feedback from the community. So I'm not going to be supporting it tonight, but I'm very open to future discussions about this. And I agree with what Councilman Flynn said, that we're probably not going to have a vacancy in this job any time soon. So that that'll give us the time we need to have a more thorough discussion of it. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman Sawyer.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam President. I think based on the fact that I was the one who referred the council approval of mayoral appointees Bill and did all of the research on it, I am the most supportive person of this, you know, of any council member out there. I, I think 100% that this is something we need to discuss further. And when I did the research for the Appointments Bill, I know that there are other strong mayors, cities out there who have a nominating committees for a number of other positions. I don't know the specifics of those because I wasn't doing the research on specifically on the nominating commission. So I would but I would like to know more. And I think those are the kinds of questions that I have that I would have asked had this gone to committee. And I would like to know what has worked in other cities? Why? Who sits on those boards? Why those people sit on those boards? What other what unintended consequences have come because of the people who sit on those boards? What best practices have other cities who use nominating commissions, you know, have come? Why? You know, there I have a lot of questions that I think need to be answered when we are talking about changing the charter of the city and county of Denver, the single most important governing document we have in our city, we can't do it lightly. And even though we want immediate action and I mean, I get it because I am a an imperfect action is always better than perfect inaction person myself. That is a mantra I live by. I think that sometimes, as frustrating as it might be and as desperately as we might want to move quickly, it is better to slow down and be more thoughtful about how we approach this. And this is one of those situations because we don't want to change the charter of the city and county of Denver lately. And I see that having spent hundreds of hours on research and conversation with my mayoral appointments, charter referral and and when we got to the end of that process, it went through on consent because even the, the, the council members who are not going to sit down and vote for it on their own ballots at the end of the day agreed that that enough conversation and enough research had been done, that the people of the city of Denver deserved to sit down and be able to vote on it because it was researched enough and had had enough conversation and enough questions and had gone through the process. So I think as much as I do support this and as much as I do believe that there is a conversation that needs to happen here, the conversation hasn't been had yet and so it needs to be had. And so I will not be supporting this tonight, but I absolutely support this moving forward. And I look forward to having this conversation and hearing about research as it is done and and referring this to another ballot, because the people deserve to vote on this. And and so I look forward to doing this work. But tonight's not that night. Thank you.
Speaker 2: And. Q Councilman Hines.
Speaker 3: I think you've been a President while I respect our current city attorney. This is televised and recorded. After all, our last class had at least two clear examples of disagreement between the council and the Mayor. The examples made it clear that there are limitations to the current system, particularly when it comes to the council's legal representation. There was a sexting incident and there was the Great Hall Project where council wanted to retain its own council for analysis. And and so I see that there definitely is a limitation to the current current situation. I like the idea. And, and when last Thursday afternoon, Councilmember CdeBaca and I talked about this, I said, I like the idea of having someone that's 100% on state and city council side as opposed to someone who has to weigh or somehow be neutral. If if there is a great hall conversation or, you know. Impropriety conversation. And so, you know, I wonder I mean, just based on the some of the people comment to some of the people that I've already weighed in, I wonder if the body would support referring this to back to committee so that we can have a larger conversation and so that this this can move forward sooner rather than. Rather than kill it and and then redo this or restart the conversation at some point in the future. I don't know what. Madam President, if I should make a motion. But I'm happy to do that.
Speaker 2: We have a few more up in the queue and so maybe we'll get through them and then we we have that out there. You haven't officially made the motion yet, but we'll we'll entertain that. Councilman, say the block. I see you up in the queue. But because you're the sponsor of this, I'm going to go ahead to the other council members and we'll we'll let you circle up the group. So, councilwoman, can each.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam President. I believe that this is not quite the right proposal to solve the concerns. I actually don't think nominating committees are the right approach for this is an internal facing position. It's not an external facing position. You know, the Monitor, for example, has a nominating process in the city code for that because it's very accountable to the people. And the city attorney in this case mostly advises agencies. And so I did not go back like Councilman Black and watch the video, but I recall talking about the idea of a selection committee that council would participate in directly. I'm frankly not interested in having someone from the community who's not going to be working with this person day to day to be the one to select them. I believe that it's council ourselves who would want a seat at the table. So I believe there are multiple paths to getting there. That could be through an agreement with the administration. It could be through a charter amendment. I'm open to talking about ways to address the challenge, but for me, this is just not the right solution for this position. I just don't believe in nominating committee is the right approach for this position. I believe having the council in the clients, right. So the auditor and I in my in this case, I would say it's it's not quite the same list of people either that are in the nominating committee list. It's it's those independently elected agencies that that I think are the direct clients. So and I believe in terms of the monitor, that's a separate issue that requires separate discussion. So so I am very supportive of continuing conversations about the city attorney's selection. But in my opinion, I would not support re referring this to committee because this is not the right approach. I would support a start over where we go back to the conversation that we were having, where all those ideas get vetted and and the pros and cons get discussed. But of course, I will wait and see what the motion is.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman. Councilman Flynn. You kick your back up in the queue.
Speaker 4: Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to respond to Councilman Sawyer because I was the member she was talking about that had the questions about the council approval, and we had a full and robust discussion about that. I just want to tell her that I am going to vote yes on it. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman. Next up, we have Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam President. So I just want to remind you that we started the work of the Charter Review Committee last year to be geared up and to allow the opportunity for us to have the issues sort of vetted through the charter committee. And then we had a deadline of having them all done by. I can't even remember what that deadline is right now so that they could move through the Finance and Governance Committee, because that was the referring committee that would then move them to the full council. And what we were doing with all of the bills that were coming before us or the proposals was to either say, yes, they are answering all our questions or no, they're not. In some cases, some of the issues were not going to be solved through the charter. They were issues that could be done through through reviewing the I mean, through changes to the municipal code. And so a couple of them were referred back to the appropriate committee to deal with some of those issues. This particular issue ended up Councilwoman CdeBaca did bring the a couple of proposals to the Charter Review Committee, and this is one that was withdrawn because it got folded into the work of Councilwoman Sawyer's committee. And so, you know, we all learned last week that this bill got filed. I did have a conversation with Councilwoman CdeBaca about what this would do. I share some of the concerns that we have not really had the opportunity to thoroughly digest how how this would work and to understand how it works in other cities and where we could be even more successful in having something that gives us more voice. And I've been vocal going back to when I served as a district councilperson, really working to. Have Council, City Council have its own legal council. And that's where I started with with my original conversations about, you know, and this was on the heels of, you know, what we experienced with the Great Hall, where some of us pulled our resources, tried to make sure we had a thorough look at that contract and were slapped on the hands and told we couldn't do that, that we didn't have the authority to even use our own resources. And so that's part of why I brought my bill forward that allows us to hire professional services. And that will be before the the voters in November. So that in our day to day work, we will be able to hire the professional services that we need at any given time. And that does not mean we're hiring somebody to represent us. But if we happen to hire somebody that has a legal background but brings the expertize we need to help us in our work, whether it's doing investigations, whether it's looking at contracts and helping to, you know, ensure that we have crossed all the T's and dot at all the I's, like with the Great Hall contract that would allow us to do that. I really believe that this one needs further discussion so that we could have the ability to. Be able to clearly explain it all to the voters and make sure that it does exactly what we're wanting to do. So I would I would suggest that I don't know that somebody actually move this. Councilman Hines, I think you you talked about referring it back, but I would suggest that we look at the November 2021 ballot time frame and really give us the time to dove into this and be able to discuss it more thoroughly. So I supported the amendment, but I'm not supporting the bill moving forward tonight because of those concerns.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman. And just to clarify, this has been moved and seconded. And a reminder that there's no way to re refer it and still make the deadlines if we referred it back to committee. Just wanted to to put that out there, Councilwoman Torres.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Just hearing, I think, some of the commentary and.
Speaker 2: Interest that some of my.
Speaker 0: Colleagues have, I'm actually also a I don't feel like.
Speaker 1: There's a requirement, like we're not.
Speaker 0: Pressured into.
Speaker 1: Making sure that this gets on the November ballot. Explicitly, I think there are future ballots that we can consider because I would want to weigh. Councilwoman Ortega's initiative around this one and whether or not either or both or if there's some contradiction between the two, because I don't want to lose sight of the one that Councilman Ortega has been has been interested in and working on. So because of that, I think I'll also be voting.
Speaker 0: No on this one, but wanting to see it raised up again.
Speaker 2: Before the spring election. Okay. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman CdeBaca.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam President. So it's clear that many of you have not actually read this because it does many of the things that you all just asked for, specifically, Councilman Flynn. It does not choose an outside body. The point of this, it's a seven member commission.
Speaker 1: All of the.
Speaker 0: Members on this commission are designed. It's designed to have those independently elected, also represented by the city attorney bodies at the table. So there are there is an appointment by the mayor or himself. The and this flexibility was asked for. That's why it doesn't say the mayor. But one member appointed by the mayor, one member appointed by the clerk and recorder, one by the auditor, one to by the city council and two by the independent monitor. This is more important now than it ever has been before, because we have a situation where you have a city attorney that represents the cops, the mayor, city council and the independent monitor. For example, right now we have a situation and I would have loved to bring her on. I do have a witness available on the call if possible, but we have somebody who has direct experience having castigated cases and then got punished for those investigations. And so we have no neutrality in the way that we're being represented as independently elected bodies and separate but equal branches of government. We have no transparency in how decisions are being made, and there are hundreds of investigations that are happening right now of police brutality and abuse. We do not have a system to deal with this. I would love to see our city attorney appointed by council or anybody else but the executive branch, but that's right. Now that's not the reality. And so what this was trying to do was at least give us input at the front end. Debbie's is here. I mean, Councilwoman Ortega's is hiring outside extra counsel in addition to our city attorney. If we if we were to to do that, it's we still have to take the advice of our city attorney. And this panel makes the most sense, because the city attorney doesn't just represent city council. It doesn't just represent the mayor. It represents all of us the clerk, the auditor, the independent monitor. And so that is why we should have a panel. It's not a unique thing. This is actually how we do our judicial appointments in the city of Denver. And so there is a model that we already use in our attempts to get a neutral judge appointed to serve the citizens of Denver. The one thing the one seat that might allow an outsider is the two appointed by the independent monitor. In theory, it would be the monitor, plus someone from the Citizen Oversight Board. And while I understand that the city attorney's job is to represent the agencies within the city, there is also a perception of a duty to the citizens of Denver. And so this creates a seat at the table for all of the people who are represented by the city attorney. It doesn't take away the mayor's appointment power. It doesn't give city council any appointment power. This simply gives us a seat at the table in vetting the nominees that go to the mayor for him to choose from , and then hopefully for us to confirm if Councilwoman Sawyer's bill passes. This is not complicated. This does not interfere with anything. This is actually, in a lot of ways, what we do with our are searches for a chief of police, our search for the sheriff. We create these ad hoc community groups. But because we because we think that they are the ones who are the stakeholders that should be at that table. There are no other people who should be the stakeholders besides the seven that are here. And I moved to this conclusion from an original space of wanting an elected city attorney because other cities have elected city attorneys. And we talked about this in charter committee, and I integrated all of the feedback that you provided, including yours, Councilman Flynn. And that is what is should be in front of you. But it's clear to me that it hasn't been read, and I'm still asking for this to be put forward. If it goes back to committee, it won't make the ballot. And I just think that's a disservice to the city right now. We're telling them that they don't deserve to.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. Councilwoman, I did read it and there was plenty of opportunity to discuss this at the two meetings of Fingers Committee before you pulled them off the agenda and at the three appointments that you and I had to discuss this the last one today that got canceled an hour before we were going to meet . I did read it. It doesn't say that the nominating committee is consists of the clients. We are the clients. It says that we appoint somebody and those are outsiders. The a city attorney is not a neutral party. The city attorney is our legal counsel and we rely on them for advice. This whole structure makes sense when we're selecting, as you said, a police chief or a sheriff or if the manager of public works. We would want a selection committee consisting of people with backgrounds in street maintenance, in mobility and bicycle infrastructure, things like that. That would make sense. But when we're hiring a lawyer, I don't form that out. And there's nothing in your language, which I did read, that says that you have to appoint people who are with your agency, like would we appoint the president of the council? That would make more sense. And in fact, that's what I would advocate as one of the two alternatives to this, that the city attorney only those candidates are selected by president of council auditor, clerk and mayor and that and then we approve them through councilwoman Sawyers amendment should have passed but the way it's set up here I did read I understood it. It came to Councilwoman Ortega's committee in December. And we haven't heard of people that since, until it got a direct file. And that's just not that's just not fair to the to the citizens of Denver to do it that way. Thank.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 5: The only thing I want to add here is that there are so many different areas that the city attorney is responsible for looking at. Yes, a lot of the claims that come to our safety department end up, you know, being reviewed by the city attorney and many of those end up, you know, before us or for settling some of those. But the contracting process is one that is still, I think, warrants some major issues of changes. I work with a a small nonprofit in trying to get a small $50,000 contract that took four months, which is ridiculous. And as we're talking about having a we roll out grants to, you know, small organizations in our community. Many of them don't have the the you know, the the technical capacity to deal with something that just drags out that long. So we've got the issue with labor disputes that happen with some of our employees. That's that's part of the process. So it's far more broad and engaging than just interface with our our units of safety. And that's where for me, I want to see, you know, how we can loop the conversation in to deal with a lot of those other issues and categories. And if you guys remember, some of you were on the council when we were asked to vote to forego one week of our review of of the bills and do them only on one reading instead of two readings, which we used to have. And that was to make the contracting process quicker. It still takes the same amount of time with the agencies. It just shortchanged city council and the amount of time we actually have to look at the bills. And as you know, many of us spend the weekend looking at things that get filed because it's all too often. And Councilman Flynn and I have talked about this and have been working on trying to ensure that we have the contracts actually come to committee so we can see the details of what we're voting on before they move to the floor of council. And the clock starts ticking at the time they get filed, not when they bring us the contracts to committee. So it's all those kinds of things that I think need to be folded into that conversation. And that's part of why I would like us to have the time to really be able to have a much more thorough conversation about this. So that's why I'm going to be voting no to that. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman. And I'm going to go ahead and weigh in and then we can bring in Councilwoman CdeBaca back up. Anybody who knows me knows that I like to have all my information in front of me. I like to have time to look through it. I want to always ensure that the constituency that I represent has time to thoroughly understand what this really means. And although on first blush, it looks simple, I don't want to disrespect my community. I don't want to do something out of bounds when I am their elected official. And even if I personally feel like this makes good sense, they deserve to have that voice and that saying it and so wanting to honor that and to as well with it and let Councilwoman CdeBaca come back up. And then we need to determine if we're going to go ahead and vote on this as it stands or if, Councilman Hines, we want to entertain a referral back to committee, but knowing that it will not make the the ballot deadline. If we do that. Councilman CdeBaca, you're back up.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam President. Just wanted to again address the fact that this followed the process that was set out for it. Of course, you haven't heard a peep since December about it. There are kind of been a couple of things that have been at the forefront of our jobs lately. And so it's not it's not that anything was being hidden from anyone. It's not that anything new pops up. It's the same it's the same thing we were proposing in December. And the fact that this committee thing structure keeps getting weaponized and it's not a solid, solidified process. It's not spelled out anywhere. It's not required. It is problematic to me because we are supposed to be workshopping things. I have been in committees where I have asked specifically those who do not agree with the wording, how would they workshop it, how would they make it different? And I have been denied any support. And so here we are today. Councilman Flynn has an issue that could be amended by striking out two words and putting a semicolon. And that is what we're that is where we're at. You have we have council members who have said over and over that the stakeholders represented by the city attorney should be the ones to appoint. It says to members appointed by the city council to members from the city council. These amendments could be put forward. And it's not it's not acceptable to say that we didn't have time to see. This was filed on a Thursday. Everything that comes to us on Monday is typically filed on a Thursday. We have the weekend to review it. And so I don't I don't accept that this process can continue to be weaponized against me. I have an email right here. The day before I was supposed to be in committee, we canceled city council. We canceled it in operations that day. I asked specifically what was next for my committee, and I found out that night that we two of our proposals that were supposed to be in committee didn't even get included on the calendar because they didn't go through charter committee. When there are links to the videos of me presenting in charter committee. And then when we get rescheduled, we get rescheduled on the day that we don't have enough votes to get it out of committee.
Speaker 1: I asked on.
Speaker 0: The day before, I asked Kendra, I said, are we are we actually workshopping this proposal or are you setting it up? Her response to me at the very end of her email was, Our rules do not allow us to kill bills in committee. We can only move to the full council or delayed to a date certain. Should committee members vote down a bill we'd have to delay to a date certain. Alternatively, the sponsor could direct file. Let me know what you decide. If I know that I don't have the votes in committee to get my bill out of committee that day. Why would I waste anybody's time when I'm trying to have the same opportunity? Everybody on this body has had to have my bills heard in front of the body. It doesn't make any sense. And I'm sure on the next proposal you're going to have some way to weaponize the process. And that is that to me is unacceptable. We have direct filed multiple things over the last five months, multiple things with multiple with hundreds of millions of dollars associated with them, with huge impacts associated with them . And there's never been a problem. There's never been a question. And so vote how you wish. But it's becoming very apparent that the rules change for some council members and there is a double standard and it's very clear.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 4: Madam President, the only thing I want to say to the body is that no one is weaponizing process here. Every other charter amendment that is headed to the ballot went through that process very easily and followed the process. What we're seeing here is weaponising of chaos. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 0: Since I was mentioned. I just want to clarify that this was scheduled for July 21st to come to committee, and I received an email from a consultant to see the Baucus aide, Lisa Calderon, on June 20th that said, Thank you for your patience. After conversations with various stakeholders, Councilwoman CdeBaca has decided to pull her three proposals from the Fingers of Committee for tomorrow and instead will be direct final filing at a to be determined date in the next several weeks. We appreciate your consideration in scheduling accommodations, accommodations and and so I guess you were counting votes and didn't think you were going to have the votes. I don't I don't know if that would be true or not, but we weren't given the opportunity to spend that hour and a half. I actually made it a two and a half hour meeting to make sure we could talk about all three of your proposals. Everyone agreed to stay for an extra hour, and we really needed that time to discuss it. And when you refer to bills that we have direct filed in 2020, almost all of them were emergency measures related to COVID and getting money out into our community to help people during this crisis. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman CdeBaca, we'll have you back up and then we'll go ahead and do the vote. Unless, Councilman Hines, you have an appetite to refer, but knowing that it won't make the ballot deadline.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam President. I just want to point out that the four people that are in committee, Deby was out sick. The two people who called my bill out tonight, Flynn and Herndon. The person that told that chairs the committee and told me that my bills didn't even go through charter committee was you. How could I not be counting votes? How could I not understand that you were going to that you didn't even look at the fact that I presented this. So it's not okay to say that we passed all those or introduced all those other things on direct file because it's an emergency, is it not an emergency that we have hundreds of investigations of police brutality and excessive force and no neutral so far. That is an emergency. That is an emergency. And what we're telling the public is that it's not and that's not okay, because there are two emergencies right now. It is the racism in our city and what our police are doing. And it is culprit.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Hines.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Madam President, I would like to move to refer this to your committee.
Speaker 1: Second or.
Speaker 2: Okay. We have a motion and a second. To re refer Council Bill 836 to committee. Madam Secretary, roll call, please.
Speaker 3: Quick point of clarification, Madam President. Wasn't there already a motion on the floor for it? Do we need to do something with that motion to allow for this motion? I thought that we had to take action on that motion first.
Speaker 2: But no, we can have the Madam Secretary clarified, but they were telling me that we could proceed either direction. But we'll go ahead and let her chime in.
Speaker 1: Well, we do have the emotion on the floor to order published as amended.
Speaker 0: In the motion to refer is actually secondary. And so it will just take precedence. So we don't need to withdraw. We just needed the new motion made so we can go ahead and move forward if.
Speaker 1: That's what you would like to do.
Speaker 2: Okay. So we're going to re refer this to committee and. Madam Secretary, roll call comments.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 2: Oh, sorry. Sorry about that. We're getting a lot of text messaging then back and forth. So on process. So, Councilwoman, can each.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam President, I. I heard some openness to changes that could be made to this. So based on that information, I am comfortable I will be voting to re refer. If the bill were not to change significantly, I could not support it, but wanted to clarify that the dialog has influenced my decision to support the referral
Speaker 3: . Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Hines.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. So I'm going to, as I mentioned previously in the comments, there are good reasons for us to to change the way our process works now, as in the representation process to council members said about this point. While we have a process of going through committee, I mean, really what I want is I want to be transparent, accountable to the people who elected me actually, and to the people who didn't elect me. You know, I want to be transparent, accountable to everyone in District ten. And and so I think that through an abundance of caution and and ensuring that that we can have a conversation that potentially we can get additional votes, because it sounds pretty clear that this won't pass, as is that if we can if we can have a conversation to to quote Hamilton dying as a young man living charter to paraphrase that quote grandstanding is easy, easy. Governing is harder. I mean, I want to make sure that what we do is we have a conversation, we have the process, and we have an opportunity to get more of our colleagues on board. We we are a bi, we're a body, we're not individuals. So having one person continue to move the same thing forward without that isn't palatable to the rest of the council, just doesn't it's that that doesn't move things forward. So I hope that we can re refer so that we can get more people on board through maybe a couple of words and a semicolon or maybe a little bit more. I don't know. But, but I'm looking forward to creating change so that we do have better representation on council. Legal representation. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Clark.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. I just want to I think, you know, heard a lot of different concerns. I have concerns as well. And I don't think that the re referring this to committee is the right step. I'll be in no for that. There is nothing stopping us from writing a new bill and introducing it in committee any day. But I think that Councilman Ortega's point about looking at the calendar and the map to 2021, since this does not appear to be ready for 2020, would be important. And just referring it doesn't do that. And I think we should take a look at that and plot it out on its.
Speaker 4: Course for.
Speaker 3: 2021 appropriately. And so albeit a no for referral and no, I'm not. Should it should it not be referred? Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Clark. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 4: I think that you're also a on referral. This needs to be scrapped and refiled as a bill that we can actually work with. Thank you. And that's an easy that's an easy process.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman. All right. Looking for any other questions? All right, Madam Secretary, roll call on the referral, please.
Speaker 0: Hynes.
Speaker 3: All right.
Speaker 1: Cashman. Now can each.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: Ortega. I see the ball. I want Sawyer.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: Torres. I black. No. CdeBaca. I, Clark.
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 1: Fun.
Speaker 4: Now.
Speaker 1: Herndon now. Madam President?
Speaker 2: No. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 1: Six days. Seven days.
Speaker 2: Six nays, seven I's Council Bill 836 will be referred to committee. Moving on to. Our next item. Is Council Bill 837. Councilmember Clark, will you please put Council Bill 837 on the floor for publishing?
|
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 3, 2020, a proposed amendment to the Charter of the City and County of Denver to create a nominating commission for the City Attorney.
Creates a provision in Charter for a nominating commission for the City Attorney. Councilmember CdeBaca approved direct filing this item on 8-13-20.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08172020_20-0837
|
Speaker 2: Six nays, seven I's Council Bill 836 will be referred to committee. Moving on to. Our next item. Is Council Bill 837. Councilmember Clark, will you please put Council Bill 837 on the floor for publishing?
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President, and will be accountable. 837 The Order Books.
Speaker 2: It has been moved and I get a second second. Thank you. Comments by members of Council on Bill 837. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 4: Here we go. Thank you, Madam Chair. Many of the same comments I would have on this one as well. This came to committee October over the November 28th. Last year was ten months ago. So it's November. October. And we haven't heard from it since. And it was scheduled for committee and it was pulled. And far from weaponizing process, what we have is weaponizing chaos again. The independent monitor isn't going anywhere anytime soon. There's no need for urgency or to rush something to the ballot that doesn't receive adequate vetting by committee and not here on the floor on a monday night. Several things that are problematic with this is that it's changed from when it was in committee in October. And I was there and I did read the bill. The at the time, there was a process to remove the independent monitor, and that's been changed. I had asked that the Screening Committee for Independent Monitor, which was then five individuals and is now seven, that we retain the list of qualifications because the people who are screening candidates for independent monitor should have some qualifications for choosing that person. They should have some life experience. They should have some background in how police brutality is investigated. But there is none of that in the bill. And this is, again, not something that needs to be rushed to the ballot. Nick Mitchell isn't going anywhere. There's one thing in here that I do like and that is and even that's not done the way I would prefer to see it. And that is putting the independent monitors, some of his 13 employees within the career service system because they are not right now. And although I don't believe that everyone should be other than the monitor, I think the monitors should have the freedom to appoint, as does the clerk, and the auditor should have the freedom to appoint deputies that will serve, especially policy director, so that if a new monitor comes in, that person has the freedom to choose policy direction without having to use the career service person that's been there the whole time. So there's many, many changes that need to happen at this before this would be even ready to consider for the ballot and doing it on a monday night, the week before we have to act on final is just not the place to do that . Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Herndon is up next and then we'll go to the queue.
Speaker 3: Madam President, I have no comment.
Speaker 2: All right. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Sawyer.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam President. So, Councilman CdeBaca, I guess this question is for you. The wording of the charter change in the in the actual charter versus what is. The ordinance that actually sort of sets out what is specifically the the wording that that sort of governs the monitor itself. Would you be willing to go back to committee, both through committee, to discuss the changes in ordinance? If we were to refer the charter changed tonight or published the charter to commission, I refer it next week. And if so, what is what would the specific charter change wording be versus the ordinance? So one this does it should have a companion ordinance. And the history of how the monitors offices started was started is important because it was first started by ordinance in the code and then it was moved into charter to make it permanent. This does not deal with any of the things that Council Member Flynn mentioned. This charter change changes the appointing authority to city council. It doesn't change the qualifications. It doesn't change any of those things. It bumps out the monitor from underneath the mayor to city council appointing. Nobody here wants to change who the monitor is. But it's important to understand the structure that we're working with in this current emergency that the mayor is the independent monitors boss and the chief of police, his boss and the sheriff's boss. And so we don't the Monitor is investigating two other people who are appointees of the mayor. There is no. Leeway. There is no independence that is embedded into the independent monitors office. And so we need this not to change who the monitor is, to change whether the monitors boss is. And that is critical right now. If we want just investigations, if we want just outcomes related to what's happening in our city right now. And so absolutely, I would happily go through if and when this passes, I would happily do the companion ordinance that I think does take a lot more time and it's multiple changes within that ordinance that do need to happen. And I think there's a lot of feedback that we can get from the monitor after these investigations are completed that could inform the ordinance change. But this is simply changing the charter to make sure that.
Speaker 1: The.
Speaker 0: The boss is different, the appointing authority is different. So just to clarify, because I want to make sure I've got this very, very clear. This is like a two sentence change. It moves the monitor out from underneath the mayor as the appointing authority. And moves the independent monitor to a city council is the appointing authority. And that's it? Correct. It looks like a lot of pages, because what it does when you change the charter, you move the section. When you change the appointing body in the charter, you move the whole section with that with the person. The only thing being changed in this are the strikethrough, the new added language, our underline. It is not a significant change. It's just that the appointing authority and pumping it all into our city council section. So if we were willing to support you in that change, in that one structural change, then would you be willing to agree to go to committee with the ordinance for the Independent Monitor before the vote this November to do the work on the discussions that need to happen around the structural other things with the independent monitors office in committee, and have the in-depth discussions that need to happen there as well. Of course, and we had a draft and I would love to take more of the Monitor's time to be able to build this out. But considering what he's dealing with and what size staffing has and funding he has, I have been reluctant to also add that on top of this, but I would happily do that. Okay. So give it. Thank you for that. I really appreciate it. So given the given everything that the Monitor is dealing with right now and given the importance of that focus, do you and given that there is another ballot in November of 2021. Do you think it makes more sense then for us to hold on this as well until the Monitor can really focus on this and give us his undivided attention in and back that and and ensure that the outcomes are there before we refer something like this to the ballot. You're frozen, and I can't tell if it's me or you. I don't. I don't know. Did I unfreeze? Can you hear me now? Okay. I don't know when I stop. Now I stop talking. You're good now. Okay. I absolutely think this is critical right now. We are not working with a similar timeline for an ordinance change that can happen at any point over the over any size period. And so I think this is critical because we have a duty right now to make sure that we are creating the independence that we need right now to get these investigations done appropriately. Okay. Thanks. I appreciate your thoughts on that. Thanks, Madam President.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman Sandoval.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam President. So, Councilman CdeBaca, how did you come to the point where the Independent Monitor needs only career service employees? Don't you feel that it would be nice to have a hybrid similar to the auditor's office, similar to I think you and DIA has appointing power so that if a new auditor comes in, they can create their own team. Because sometimes you get left with a legacy team. It doesn't work necessarily very well. So what was his outcome and what was his suggestions? And who in his office and prior to working in his office have you talked to to discuss those points? I have worked directly with the Monitor on this proposal, and I believe the Monitor is on the call, able to have him answer any questions. This is a protection we what we're doing is offering his employees job security. And when you're a compliance officer or when you're doing investigations, it is critical to have that, because if you do something that you're if if right now, his employees do something that is not liked by higher ups, they have no career protection. And so they deserve that protection. And this removes the exemption from that. So they're not appointed by the monitor. They're appointed by the mayor? Yes, if you look so if you look down at the section that's stricken out, it says any employee appointed to serve at the pleasure of the mayor for the purpose of monitoring internal investigations and disciplinary actions in the Department of Safety and any employees appointed by the Monitor to serve at the pleasure of the Monitor. The appointment of any monitor by the Mayor pursuant to this or any other provision of this Charter, shall require confirmation by the City Council. It replaces that section to just say, the head of the Office of the Independent Monitor. So once again to the committee, did you feel like you didn't have the votes to bring this forward out of committee either? Is that why you didn't go to committees? Because you felt the similar to your other discussion. You didn't have even the votes just to move it forward. I really don't feel like this one should be a problem at all. What my what? My hesitation was on the other one is the blockage of the other two. I wanted these three to all come in a package and I kept getting resistance with them. Coming in a package. These things are designed to work together. So I understand the want, the need and desire to have things come as a package. I honestly I really do. Yet at the same time, I also feel like the need to have information given to me in a timely fashion, it's really challenging. Like you said in your own statement, given how many things City Council's working on and our caseload right now and everything to have things come last minute. And so if it would have worked as a package, if they all got on the ballot together so.
Speaker 1: That the fact.
Speaker 0: That this hasn't come to committee and I've got the language at the last minute and haven't been able to do the own outreach for my community that I represent is really challenging. I just need to say that again, and I know that it's challenging to go through the committee process and I hear that you feel weaponized and that's unfortunate really. It is super unfortunate that you feel that way because I think that that you would find that if you came through committee, there would be people who are there to support you, too, that see these changes needing to be made throughout Denver and throughout our structure and are just as anxious and wanting to work on these matters as important processes. But yet when you when they're not able to come through committee and we're not I'm not able to give the time that I is needed to for me to do outreach to the monitor and to other employees and how they feel. It's super challenging. So with that, that's all my question. Thank you. Council President.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilman.
Speaker 0: On the call, would it be helpful for him to respond?
Speaker 2: I know that we brought him in. Councilman Sandoval, would you like to have the monitor respond?
Speaker 0: I'm good, thank you.
Speaker 2: Okay, great. Thank you.
Speaker 1: We do have him available.
Speaker 2: Here, though, Councilman Torres.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam President. So two questions. One, has H.R. given any input.
Speaker 1: On how years of service would be calculated for.
Speaker 0: Folks becoming new CSA employees who weren't before? What I believe would happen is depending on if they had already had been employed with the city, that it would just depend on what pay grade they were before. If they were not, then they would start over like anybody else. How is it dependent on pay grade? If their career service. Can you read your question? Yeah. So the staff of the Monitor's office becoming career service employees, if they've been there for five years or more, if there were regular CSA employees, they'd be.
Speaker 1: Vetted or bested. Excuse me. What happens for these folks once they.
Speaker 0: Convert to CSA? Did you want to bring the monitor on?
Speaker 1: Anybody who has an answer to that would be great.
Speaker 2: Go ahead, Nick.
Speaker 0: I don't see him there.
Speaker 2: We've got him unmuted. Nick, are you there?
Speaker 3: I'm here. My video does not appear to be worth it. Hang on. Sorry. Hello there.
Speaker 1: Hi, Nick.
Speaker 3: So the question I think had to do with if I understood properly a vesting and time of service and then maybe inappropriate question for the employment lawyers at the city attorney's office. I'm not sure if that was vesting. I think of it in a sort of pension context. So I'm not sure that I'm the right person to speak to vesting issues. I can't say that I am supportive of the idea of creating career service protection for subordinate employees of the Monitor, his office. They have very difficult jobs. I'm incredibly lucky to have a very talented staff who have a lot of responsibility on their shoulders. And almost every other category, almost every other type of city employee has career service protection. And I ask we ask a lot of my employees to to work on these investigations, to take sometimes very controversial positions on cases. And I think it would do a world of good to help build in sustainability into the office for those subordinate employees to have those protections. So if there's anything on that point that it would be helpful for me to speak to, I'm happy to speak to anything on that point.
Speaker 1: I appreciate that. Nick, some of the question has.
Speaker 0: Been around whether these.
Speaker 1: Folks, how many staff are in the Monitor's office?
Speaker 3: 13 right now.
Speaker 0: Are they do they serve at the pleasure of.
Speaker 1: You or the mayor?
Speaker 3: They. I hire them, and they serve at the pleasure of the monitor.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. The second question that I have actually to that point, Councilwoman.
Speaker 1: Sandoval.
Speaker 0: Made a suggestion of a hybrid. Have you had you considered that already in terms of some that would be appointed in your shop and others like your deputies, for example, and others that would be career service protected or categorized.
Speaker 3: Yeah. I think that, um, I think it's certainly worth considering. I think there are reasons why it could make sense to have a small number of appointees. And, you know, given the size of the staff that we're talking about, probably to who would who would serve at the pleasure of the monitor? You know, I think that that's really something I would consider. I think the bill, you know, works as is or at least that, you know, that portion of the bill, from my perspective, works as is. But to the extent there's there's interest in, you know, having a select number of employees who remain at will, I think there's I think there's potential American idea.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you so much, Nick. Councilman CdeBaca, the other question that I have.
Speaker 0: The section that's stricken. Section eight.
Speaker 1: Of. Eight. Any employee appointed to serve at the.
Speaker 2: Pleasure of the mayor for the.
Speaker 0: Purpose of monitoring internal investigations and disciplinary actions in the Department of Safety. Why is that section stricken?
Speaker 1: Does it apply to anyone else other than staff in the Monitor's office?
Speaker 0: So this so Kirsten can help explain this.
Speaker 1: This is.
Speaker 0: Doing it because it's in the this is in the careers section of the charter, which is not necessarily under the department's or under city council. It's its own separate section in the employment. And so this is where there is an expansion. If you read at the top of this, it says Career service shall comprise all employees of the city and their positions except one. And so this is removing them from that. It's removing the exemption. It's not it's not necessarily removing the possibility for him to have a hybrid. Is here's some able on how that works. And I think to.
Speaker 1: Clarify it, whereas Chris Kirsten's coming on.
Speaker 0: My question isn't about because I would like actually.
Speaker 1: For a consideration of.
Speaker 0: A hybrid for Nick. I totally get what.
Speaker 1: Councilman Sandoval is.
Speaker 0: Saying in terms of the lack of flexibility sometimes when, if and when.
Speaker 1: Hopefully decades from now, Nick leaves the Monitor's office.
Speaker 0: That Legacy offices can be can be incredibly challenging.
Speaker 1: Particularly for those where.
Speaker 0: New.
Speaker 1: Leadership.
Speaker 0: Really needs to set.
Speaker 1: A tone. So I would like to consider a hybrid, even if it's offering language tonight. But this language seems to speak to.
Speaker 0: Individuals separate.
Speaker 1: From the monitors office to the Department.
Speaker 0: Of Safety.
Speaker 1: Are there any other people who would fall under this? Any employee appointed to serve at the pleasure of the mayor for the purpose of monitoring.
Speaker 0: Internal.
Speaker 1: Investigations and.
Speaker 0: Disciplinary actions.
Speaker 1: And I'm wondering if, you know, maybe the new Public Integrity Office.
Speaker 0: Or Public Integrity Division.
Speaker 1: Have mayoral appointees. This would then this then apply to them.
Speaker 0: Kirsten, can you explain if this was the if this was put in there intended for the monitor when they move the monitor to the charter? If she's on.
Speaker 2: She is. We'll get her unmuted. Okay. Go ahead. Kirsten, you should be.
Speaker 0: All right. So, Kirsten Crawford, Legislative Council. I actually would kick this to John first, since he's the primary drafter. And also because I dropped the call temporarily. So why don't we have you ask your question again, let John take a stab at it and then I can catch up with you all. John, my question is about the stricken Section eight. Any employee appointed to.
Speaker 1: Serve at the pleasure of the.
Speaker 0: Mayor for the purpose of monitoring internal investigations and disciplinary actions in the Department of Safety. Would that refer to anyone.
Speaker 1: Else other than the staff in the Monitor's office?
Speaker 0: For example, the Public Integrity Division, which was created after.
Speaker 1: This section was put into charter.
Speaker 3: I was under the impression this would only apply to the Monitor when I made the drafting decision. And certainly Kirsten's on the line. If there's other people that can speak to this, I'd like to know whether that was the intent. Yeah. That this would still make sure that the monitor was not under career service, but all of their all the employees of the Monitor word subject.
Speaker 0: Yeah. And I will just chime in now that I hear you repeat the question, Councilman, I do think it's a good point that, you know, there's some open ended language in the in the current language, not the reach that we have here that would allow for or maybe contemplate more than one particular individual. However, the current charter language, which appears earlier in the draft, does contemplate only one head of the office. So if you wanted to capture more than just the the current head of the office, then then you might need to make some changes. And to that.
Speaker 1: Point, if we.
Speaker 0: Were discussing any option of potentially two appointments that Nick could make.
Speaker 1: Or the Monitor could make.
Speaker 0: That remain.
Speaker 1: At serving at the pleasure of the monitor, would that be in this section?
Speaker 3: This is John I can speak to. I mean, if you look to the section right below it, there's a thing about the clerk of recorder I like. You can carve out a number of employees, as has happened in this section of the charter.
Speaker 1: Thank you both.
Speaker 2: Councilman Torres, we did have someone from H.R. to talk about the vesting piece. I think we might need to get Kala back up into the queue. But we'll try to do that. As well. And in that interim, trying to get Carla back up into the queue. If it's okay with you, Councilwoman Torres, I'm going to go to Councilwoman. Can each next step into the queue and we can come back. Councilwoman can meet.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Madam President, I think this is a really important discussion. And like many areas of monitoring, it gets to where you have actual issues, perceived issues, or the potential of mitigating future issues. Right. So we've had two pretty robust monitors under the process that we've had. But the concern about what that might look like in the future and the structural issues, so I take it really seriously. I too struggle with the timeline in terms of the ability to check in back with stakeholders. I don't know, for example, if we have anyone from the Citizen Oversight Board who is interested in talking about their perspective, have they had a chance to weigh the pros versus cons of career service for the entire department versus for having a few appointees in terms of their desire to ensure that the office is truly independent under whoever is appointed. So I would invite, if there is a member, I see someone's raising their hands and the attendees, if they've had time to vet and discuss this and take a position or whether they need more time, that's of interest to me. So I see it looks like the brand new chair, Al Gardner, is raising his hand. Would it be appropriate to promote him, Madam President?
Speaker 2: Yes, we will go ahead and get now promoted.
Speaker 0: And as he comes on the. The CLB worked in partnership with us to craft this.
Speaker 2: All right. Go ahead, Mr. Gardner.
Speaker 3: Okay. Hello. Thank you all tonight. Well, I don't I probably won't provide much context on a lot of the technical pieces to it. What I will to do is speak to the broader consideration of expanding the arms, sharing the independence of the independent monitor. I can tell you that the sea lobby is absolutely in support of creating a situation that would put the independent monitor in best position to be to have to have most independence as possible, especially when doing the performing of different investigations. The goal of independence is what we're looking for. And actually, as we go down the road of beginning to talk about police reform and the different ideas that will come to play as we look at these different options, although it doesn't seem like it's something urgent tonight we are entering new territory where that level of independence will be a lot different than potentially the what it looks like now. So we're definitely in support of the deal and providing more independence there. On the other piece, when it comes to the staffing, being able to move that under a situation where they will have excuse me, career appointment, that will seem like it will be more beneficial as well. As we head toward a more independent.
Speaker 0: Thank you. May I just ask a follow up question? Mr. Gardner, did you all take a position on both pieces of the bill then as a board? So as written both pieces the board supports, correct?
Speaker 3: Correct. As well as written both. We had a couple of changes in in wording. I mean, I've had it here. I don't have it in front of me, but most of it revolved around moving the IOM, the O&M and still be from Article two of the administration to Article three, which moves it under the city council. And that was one that we sent back to Calgary.
Speaker 0: And then you.
Speaker 1: Oh, but I'm. Hello.
Speaker 0: I think our legislative council there is.
Speaker 3: Okay. Hopefully they answered the question so those two minor changes. But for the most part, yes.
Speaker 0: Right. And so, you know, we're doing what's clearly committee work on the floor here. And so the next question I have is, is one about termination. So we have a I understand that there is a I understand that there is a intention to have a companion ordinance. But we have this interesting situation where we already have an ordinance that creates a very particular procedure for termination of the monitor. And I was wondering if either the sponsor or legislative counsel has done any analysis, because I have to refer this night without knowing whether or how the ordinance will change, which is part of the problem with this timeline in terms of ensuring that things work together. And so, you know, so so what analysis is there about how this charter change with and comport with the termination procedures that are outlined in the ordinance?
Speaker 3: And I wouldn't be able to speak to you tonight.
Speaker 0: I'm sorry. I'm sorry. That wasn't for you, Mr. Cook. I didn't mean to make you feel like you're on the spot. Thank you very much for your participation, though. Thank you. That was probably for either the sponsor or the the. And you are probably looking for a legal response, but I don't personally believe that it interferes with that.
Speaker 3: So. Jonathan Griffin, deputy legislative counsel we I think his counsel would, like I said earlier, there would need to be a change.
Speaker 4: To.
Speaker 3: The code at some point if this went through regardless. So we haven't fully analyzed the effects of this change beyond the knowledge that we would, depending on what went through both tonight and if it went through and was approved by voters, what would need to change to conform to these changes that are inside of this charter amendment
Speaker 0: ? Yeah. I guess I will just speak to what I see in the ordinance, which is that it gives very specific procedures to the mayor, which would make no sense. So we would have a charter that has a council as the appointing authority, and then we have an ordinance that has the termination procedures and conditions being pointed towards the mayor. And so I do see a conflict. And again, these are not things that couldn't be surmounted. They're things that require time. And I guess, you know, with any charter referral I have, I have two concerns. Always one. Well, three. One is is what I'm doing legal and everything fits together. And I'm giving the voters something that they truthfully can vote up or down without fear of issues, or at least I know what those issues are. So that's one. The second is, you know, is it is it a policy that's consistent? You know, I can't vote against my values, even if, you know, I mean, that's just my personal philosophy. Others may feel differently, but I can't reverse something that, you know, I personally don't feel like represents the best that the city can do , because that's what I was elected to do, is to make that initial evaluation. And then the third issue is, am I setting up, you know, for success in terms of the ability to succeed with the voters and so on this point, I'm concerned. I, you know, I feel like the voters already are seeing that there are process concerns and timing concerns. I don't know if those are going to be seized by a no campaign. I don't know if a no campaign is going to seize on the conflicts that's in the ordinance. So I what I do not want to do is have this go to the voters and have it fail and have a set behind this goal that the S.O.B. has had and the community has had for a while. So so that does concern me in terms of the, you know, the intention of succeeding and having all of these questions not answered. And then I will just appreciate the conversation from my colleagues about the appointments as Nick, it's I'm glad you have such a great staff and I'm glad that you feel so comfortable with them. But I, I do not believe we can have a truly independent monitor without several deputies that you get to pick. These are folks who might go to very high level officer involved shootings in your dead. You have to feel 100% confident in them for this system to work. And so I would obviously need to see at least one, if not two appointees that come with this, because I think it's essential for your office to function independently, do not have to be relying on legacy positions for your left and right hands. So that change would be necessary as well. So so I'll just leave it there and listen to the rest of the debate. Thank you, Madam President. I think you.
Speaker 1: Respond to that.
Speaker 2: We've got four more council members up in the queue, Councilwoman. So if it's a very brief response, go ahead.
Speaker 0: Yes. The section.
Speaker 1: Of the board.
Speaker 0: That talks about the removal, it says that appointment, the monitor shall serve at the pleasure of the mayor prior to any remarks by the mayor, the.
Speaker 1: City council.
Speaker 0: And the board regarding his or her intention to remove the monitor. And so I think that if that's vague enough that it says if there were if there was an issue, they would still have to consult with council. And if this passes, then council is the appointing body. So if the mayor decided to fire the the monitor under that. Under that section. What would prevent us from re appointing the monitor ourselves?
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman. Go ahead. Go ahead, Councilwoman.
Speaker 0: I wasn't sure if that was kind of a rhetorical question or whether you were asking it back to me. Councilwoman, I'm sorry. It's not a question. I think the answer is there would be nothing preventing us from reappointing him ourselves once we have that appointment authority.
Speaker 2: All right. Thank you, Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. I thought. I thought there were others ahead of me. Is monitor Mitchell still here?
Speaker 3: Yes. Yes, yes. Yes.
Speaker 4: A monitor. I'd like to ask you just one question. You've been monitor for eight years, correct? Has there ever been an occasion when the mayor has reached out to you and tried to influence you on any of your investigations?
Speaker 3: No.
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Councilman Hines.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. I have questions for the monitor as well. Do you monitor? Do you support changing who appoints you? You know, so I was pretty clear in my in expressing my support for the career service portion of this bill. To some extent, I feel that it's a little bit of a conflict for me to opine on who should be, who should have the power to appoint, to monitor and remove the monitor, given that I'm the incumbent in that position. So I think my response is that I'll sort of let the two branches of government sort of hash that out, and we'll sort of reserve my comments regarding the second portion of the bill. Would you support having the Citizen Oversight Board have the authority to appoint the independent monitor? I you know, I can see lots of it. I think I would support. Sound public policy choices that will enshrine the independence of the office now and long into the future. What does it look like as it relates to the appointment and removal of the monitor? I don't think I'm going to opine on specific proposals at this point in time, but clearly we need to have strong faith in the system. Community members needs to need to feel that there is an independent voice in the process and changes that we can make as a city to ensure that that trust is there. I will be generally supportive of those kinds of changes. Well, I would agree. I my goal is also for maximum autonomy of the monitor. And so the monitor has the resources to perform its mission. So, I mean, I guess how about I ask the same question of Mr. Gardner and you, because that's your job here. So would you support the idea of having the Citizen Oversight Board appoint the monitor? Because then, I mean, the reason why it's like the question is then it's it's not a branch of government at all. It's, you know, that's one more layer of independence away from us, slightly politicians or whatever. I don't think it's slimy, but you get the generalization.
Speaker 0: First and might also be able to speak to this because Kirsten and John, we we discussed this as one of the options. And so they might be able to talk a little bit about the appointment power and who has appointment power so.
Speaker 1: That Mr. Gardner.
Speaker 0: Doesn't necessarily have to speak on that.
Speaker 3: Well, I am asking him, so I would like to hear his answer. Okay. Thank you. My answer is yes. The answer from the CLB is yes. It just in the short term. Absolutely. Because there again, just to reiterate that point of making sure that and I know the question was asked, had the mayor ever gotten involved in something like it, it's more of a broader question of ensuring that something like that never occurs. And from the community perspective, of which is the reason why each of us are on that board, that's really our only drivers to make sure that that type of independence is enshrined in that office. So, yes. And I mean, I would say you're right. You don't want to have that opportunity where someone might ask you for a favor and make you feel uncomfortable. Also, I don't want a position where the monitor even could potentially feel uncomfortable. I want I want there to be a total check and balance. And and so that's I mean, that's what I thought of the idea. But since Councilmember CdeBaca mentioned it, just Miss Crawford or I don't know, do you.
Speaker 2: And it probably be John. Go ahead, John.
Speaker 3: Jonathan Griffin, can you repeat the question? The question is so I ask that copy are that if they would support having authority to appoint the independent monitor instead of the mayor instead of city council, having a citizen oversight board appoints the independent monitor. I. I'm sorry. I don't. I don't understand how that applies to me.
Speaker 0: And we discussed this if the CLB would have appointment power to do that. For a. An appointee of the city.
Speaker 3: Is your. So I'm sorry. Here, I'm maybe struggling to understand. This is your question. Can the CEO be appoint the independent monitor.
Speaker 0: As does the CLP have the authority to appoint the independent monitor?
Speaker 3: I would not believe so for the same reasons that we've talked about before, about how the mayor in a strong mayor system is ultimately the person who makes all administrative appointments unless otherwise granted. The CLB. Would not. I mean, I think the way that we have it right now, where there's a nominating commission that gives the answer or, you know, that that is involved in that point. But I don't think that would be able to be a charter. But I, I think that would need to be in code and in a similar function to the way it is right now, since the copy itself, I don't believe is in Charter Club. I, I need to look more into the question as the easy answer. So more research monitor is also saying, I think certainly worth considering. I just. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam President. And Council and Hines, just to remind you that the c0b is appointed by the council and the mayor. We appoint some, he appoint some, and then we have some joint. Like the bill before this. I'm very open to the idea and I would love to talk about it more. I think it's great that the s.O.B. Worked with Councilman CdeBaca to draft the bill, but unfortunately we weren't given that same opportunity to talk about what was going to be in it. And that's what we're doing now. And so it's like right now we're having a committee meeting on the floor when we're deciding whether to put something very important on the charter for voters to vote for. And I just don't think this is the way we should do it. All of the questions demonstrate that the bill's not ready to move forward. We're talking about new ideas, and it's a great, robust conversation. But we really all need to sit down and talk about it at a committee meeting or at several committee meetings. So I just want to reiterate the importance of the council process as well as a public process. And moving forward. I am 100% on board for talking about this further.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Clark.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. And thank you, Councilmember CdeBaca, for bringing this forward. I think that this one is really important, and I think that there's a lot a lot to like in here. But again, I think the conversations that we're having are also really important. And I think we're discussing some really important things that we want to get right. Referring something to the charter, then enshrines it in their only voters can change it. And I think that is incumbent upon us to make sure that we have fully vetted and worked all these questions out. As a couple of councilmembers have mentioned, you know, our independent monitor isn't going anywhere. We have another election next year. And I think that this is something that warrants that full conversation that we should be having in committee. And I look forward to that conversation and getting this right so that we can get it to voters. And that's right when we get it there. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman. Clerk. Councilwoman, can I have Councilman Cashman up? Is it okay if I pop over to him and then I'll get back to you back in the queue, Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. Yeah, I just.
Speaker 1: Would.
Speaker 3: Echo what a few of my colleagues have already said. I think there's more than a nugget of good things to be gained from taking this proposal through the process. I mean, 100% fan of the structure that creates the independent monitor and enshrined it in the charter. And I happen to think we've got an excellent person in Mr. Mitchell filling that post, and anything we can do to strengthen the independence of that office is something that I look very forward to working on. But I do think that, as has been said, this needs more time to bake and I think we're going to come up with something truly excellent. And I thank the councilwoman for bringing this forward.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Canete.
Speaker 0: Thank you. So, another one of these. Oh, sorry. My dogs are here. Another one of these committees on the floor questions. So I just am thinking about unintended consequences that I didn't have time to think through. So one of the things I feel like we've talked about before is our inability or our lack of ability to direct . And I want to be very clear. H.R. has been very supportive of the council in the search for our executive director and has always been accommodating. But I may I feel like there's some nagging thing in my brain about the question of running a search like this? And is there a difference in terms of our ability to say, sorry? You must help us with this search and conduct a national search? I just want to make sure there's no unintended consequences hiding in here in terms of our ability to fulfill our function. So if we take this on, as if, to my knowledge, the only employees that we appoint now are those that are under our direct control, unless I'm forgetting anybody. So if I'm forgetting anyone, please let me know. But I just want to clarify. There's a whole infrastructure for hiring that is accessible to the mayor because that's who does that. And so we've leveraged it for our own offices. But is there any issue or is there any limits on what they can do for us and or our ability to make, make, make sure that they are there to give us that infrastructure? This, for example, there's cost involved. So, for example, running a nationwide search for a position like this, I'm assuming you want a search firm of some sort. You know, there's some cost involved. So just talk me through anything about any unintended consequences we may be missing here. And I guess, again, for the sponsor or alleged counsel and if no one has an answer, that's okay. But I'm putting it out there because I just want to make sure that we're prepared for this passing. If it if it were to be referred.
Speaker 1: Perfect.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 0: I think that H.R., I think, is also on the call. But if we if it's something that we take under our wing, I think it's something like anything else that we would plan for in our budget.
Speaker 2: And we had Carla Pearce who had called in. And I'm asking the staff if we have another representative from our.
Speaker 0: Carla Pearce is with the employment unit of the city attorney's office, which is a little different because they would handle problems. They wouldn't me I mean, maybe they wouldn't necessarily handle an administrative function like a search that would be an employee, not a city attorney's employee.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: I don't believe we have anyone for an hour here. So. But to your point, again, those follow up nagging questions before we refer something.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Sawyer.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam President. So I think with that's probably a great Segway. Clearly, there are questions that are left and based on the comments of a lot of my other council members. I would like to move to. We refer this to.
Speaker 2: All right.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 2: Thank you. All right. We have a motion on the floor. We have a second. Madam Secretary, or any conversation. Excuse me, Councilwoman. Can each is your hand?
Speaker 0: Thank you. I just. I want to be clear that I probably would be ready to vote in support of this tonight. But if it's referred to committee, I'm committed to continuing to support and help make sure that it gets so whichever path ends up happening. I am very committed to working with the community and the sponsor on ensuring that this continues to proceed. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam President. So just hearing all of the comments and concerns by council. You know, when we do something that we put in the charter. You know, this is serious and this is where details matter. And there's a lot of details that are not that still need some clarity and some answers. And so it's why I supported the motion of sending it back to committee so that we can do the appropriate work in the committee process and be able to thoroughly discuss what kinds of changes people would want to see made that allow us to be able to have a bill that we can all explain, that we all support, that we want to move forward to the voters. So that's that's where I'm at on this. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam Chair. That's a better move than they're moving us forward tonight, obviously, because I agree with Councilwoman Kimmich's earlier remarks that to have. Imprecision and confusion and lack of clarity over the ordinance that would implement this. That, for me is highly problematic going to the voters and saying, we'd like to appoint this person, but we don't know yet how we're going to go about doing that or or how all this works that it would that if it were to lose at the ballot, that would be a much worse outcome. So I'll vote no on re referring to me because it's just as easy to file a new bill, the election as the other election as a year away. And as long as this comes to committee and stays on the agenda and has a robust discussion, I support the concept of us appointing the independent monitor completely. What I don't support is all is what was in the draft bill that implements all that. Remember when we changed the Citizen Oversight Board to have more city council appointments in the screening committee, etc. that I actually wanted to do an amendment that didn't have support to have the CEO be appointed entirely by council and not by the administration, to have each of the 13 of us appoint one member. And so I do support us appointing the independent monitor, but I don't think it's ready to go to the ballot, obviously, and referring it would would would would see to that. But it's just as easy to appoint or to to let it die tonight and then file a new bill as the process moves along at a much better pace. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Torres.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Just an interest. If this doesn't get re referred to committee, I'd be interested.
Speaker 1: In adding an amendment to allow for the monitor to have to appointed positions within that language. So I'll see where things go from here.
Speaker 2: All right. Thank you, Councilwoman. See? No other questions. Madam Secretary, roll call on Bill 837 being referred to committee.
Speaker 0: Is there not a is is councilman Tory is not offering an amendment.
Speaker 2: We have a motion already on the floor to re refer it to committee. And counsel. Oh, go ahead.
Speaker 1: Thank. Sawyer.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: Torres? No. Black I. CdeBaca. Pass.
Speaker 3: CLARKE All right. Flynn Now.
Speaker 1: Herndon. At times.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 1: Cashman. I can each pass. Ortega, I. Sandoval.
Speaker 0: Sorry. No.
Speaker 1: Seelbach. Abstain.
Speaker 0: Can I?
Speaker 1: Madam President.
Speaker 2: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 1: One abstention.
Speaker 0: Three names. Nine eyes.
Speaker 2: Nine eyes. Council Bill 837 is referred to committee. Moving on. The next item up is Council Bill 842. Councilmember Clark, will you please put Council Bill 842 on the floor for publishing?
|
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 3, 2020, a proposed amendment to the Charter of the City and County of Denver granting the Denver City Council appointment power over the Independent Monitor and to remove an exception from Career Service for Monitor employees.
Gives City Council the appointment power over the Independent Monitor and no longer excepts Monitor employees from Career Service. Councilmember CdeBaca approved direct filing this item on 8-13-20.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08172020_20-0842
|
Speaker 2: Nine eyes. Council Bill 837 is referred to committee. Moving on. The next item up is Council Bill 842. Councilmember Clark, will you please put Council Bill 842 on the floor for publishing?
Speaker 3: Yes, Madam President, I move that council bill 840 to be ordered published.
Speaker 2: It has been moved. Thank you for the second comments by members of Council on Bill 842. Councilmember Flynn.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. My window and all over my screen. And I couldn't find it. This is what I want to say about this bill is that this presents us with a classic false dilemma that if we don't eliminate the Denver Police Department, that must mean that we support systemic racism and oppression. And of course, that's an utter fallacy. We don't have just two choices. This proposal disrespects the broader community that has already been organizing on this issue, and it lacks any transparency. It's fundamentally flawed. As I've read the version that was given us over the weekend, both from a constitutional, legal and a practical standpoint in the first six months of 2020. January two through June, there were 367,550 calls for service made to and responded to by Denver police. Leaving most of those calls unanswered in a time of rising crime is simply not an option. We saw eight individuals shot yesterday around federal and alameda. Two deceased. The Denver Police Department is filled with dedicated officers who serve with integrity and the false narrative that the only function of the police department is to harass and oppress our bipoc communities is simply untrue. Denver police have been in the forefront of adopting progressive policies of de-escalation, alternate co responders and now even the non-police response to social services types of calls that some of our speakers in public comment before this meeting referred to the Dasher and the Cahoots. We started that in June, and that was underway well before the spring protests. We've already defunded and frankly, spend less money per capita and have fewer officers per capita than many cities that are behind our curve. Many have held up the example, for instance, of Camden, New Jersey, where I lived 40 years ago as one that we should follow. In 2013, Camden completely dismantled its police department and fired every officer in chief. They reconstituted as the Camden County Police Agency and actually rehired most of the officers after going through a rigorous process. But they instituted numerous reforms, including de-escalation, strong use of force, continuum and community policing. The murder rate and the crime rate in Camden, which was the highest crime city in New Jersey at the time, and by all reports now there's a healthy relationship between the police who now patrolling Camden and the community. And so folks have asked me, why can't we be like Camden? And my answer is, well, because we're already ahead of them. Despite all these reforms and calls for defunding police departments, the fact is that in Camden, the police budget is more than two and a half times that of Denver on a per capita basis, and they have five and a half police officers per 1000 residents, compared with Denver's 2.1 officers per thousand. Many of the emails we've been receiving have said that Denver spends $588 million on policing, but only 7.7 million on social safety net programs. I don't know who wrote that canned email that we were getting many copies of, but I'd be very concerned myself if that imbalance were true. But it is. Our police budget is $254 million and Denver right now this year is investing more than 400 million in social safety net programs, even counting the sheriff's $151 million budget. It is not nearly as mismatched as people are being led to believe. A number of people have also asked us to commit to implementing the eight can't wait reforms for safer and better policing. And my answer is we already have and we already have defunded from police through extensive civilian possession of such things as crash reporting technicians and other duties that are required of the city but do not require a sworn officer. I believe that's why we spend less per capita than cities like Camden that are lauded as great examples. I look forward to working with the entire community on this continuing effort. But I cannot support a last minute, ill conceived and legally questionable proposal that hijacks the broader community's work already underway. This proposal completely lacks transparency and engagement, and the manner, frankly, in which it was brought to us is a clear indication that it wasn't even meant to be taken at face value. But as political theater meant to continue the false dilemma narrative by claiming we're against reform if we don't choose this, too many in the public all across the political spectrum, all persuasions. Frankly, this body already looks like a clown circus car pulling up. And if we hope to salvage any shred of credibility that might still be stirring, we have to say no. There are others who want to be at the table to help shape the future. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Over.
Speaker 2: About that. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Herndon.
Speaker 3: Madam President, I don't have any comments right now.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Seen no one else in the queue to make comments. Say Sayed Abarca.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Council President. Just want to respond to that and kind of explain to you a little bit about this and where it came from. Councilman Flynn is right. This body does look like a clown circus. We often do things, very bad things. We often do things very backwards. We're unresponsive to the needs of our citizens. And then they get frustrated and they make citizen led ballot initiatives. Then we campaign against them like we did with 300 because they weren't good policy, because somebody like us didn't write them. And then we let the people tell us they that we want them. They they vote, they support it. Like the green groups. It passes. And then we still change it. We wait until initiatives are on the ballot and then we decide we want to help just because we want to say once we see, it gets enough signatures to get on the ballot like Democracy for the People initiative. And then we still tell people that we want them to participate and expect them to believe it. We've had unprecedented engagement on this proposed bill, and no, the engagement did not conform to our standards. It was not on your terms. And to be frank, nothing has been traditional in 2020. For months we've had protests, riots, marches, thousands of emails, multiple petitions, petitions, hours of testimony. We've had community meetings, all of those broader community meetings. I think that Councilman Flynn is referring to. I was at community vigils, council meetings, council briefings, council letters, and even passed a proclamation declaring racism a public health crisis. We've worn the BLM masks. We've shared public condolences and moments of silence for lives lost. We've told rooms full of hundreds of community members that we hear them and we want to do something. We've told them that they need to participate not just in the protests, but in changing the policies and laws that are at the root of their strife. And then we told them that we wouldn't listen to them. We shut the doors on them on June 1st and June 29th before we recalibrated how we would allow them to engage. We told them that for the public's protection, it would no longer be safe to be in physical space together. We left them hanging and only then offered up more one ended listening sessions where we asked them to continue repeating themselves without engagement from us. Hours of this, days of this, their pleas and our continued silence. Again, tonight, we have nearly 100 people in this room, in these chambers. And I sit up here among a crowd this big by myself for the third time. While some of us chose to continue our business from home, I chose to stay with these people. We were the people we were elected to represent and solidarity with them as the party, as they participated at unprecedented levels in our alleged democratic process. Tonight, there was a point where we had over 300 people on this call. We've agreed as a body to put aside our personal positions to empower the voters to decide on taxes that disproportionately impact the poor, who are largely nonvoters on dog permits, on structural changes for the heads of every agency, and for structural changes to give council powers we need. We've done this all at the request of council sponsors of these bills who may or may not have sufficiently engaged communities that we think are important and necessary. None of the thousands of people who've contacted us about defunding or abolishing the police had to have been included in any of those other stakeholder processes for those processes to be considered valid. I personally did not feel like members of my community were engaged in any of those processes. But does that mean all deprive all of the voters the ultimate engagement of voting yes or no on them for themselves? Of course not. I personally do not support most of them, but I would try to would I try to stop community from having one of the few real opportunities that they get to decide for themselves? Of course not. Democracy is the point. Give giving the people the most decision making authority over changes that impact them is our goal. It's supposed to be.
Speaker 1: You know.
Speaker 0: We don't have to believe that something should or will pass to give people the opportunity to decide. In fact, most of you believe that most of the voters want our current police force, that it is as it is. Well, then you should be confident that the voters will not vote on this measure.
Speaker 1: That sets.
Speaker 0: Out your bias and your beliefs and let the voters tell us. Let the chips fall where they may. We have an opportunity here to help craft this. It's going to be on a ballot either in November or after, with or without us. That's the rights that our citizens. We have an opportunity to give it the attention it warrants to make it better now. Or do we want to wait and fight it and critique it later when we force the citizens to take another path and perhaps make an even more sweeping structural change to the Constitution? What does this bill do? It does one thing. You're right. It's not we don't have to believe that. We have to abolish the police. Nobody is saying that there shouldn't be people responding to emergency calls. What we're saying is that we recognize that there are only two agencies in this city and this one the most that have the protections in our source document that the police have. What we're saying is that reforms don't work because we have it created the accountability mechanisms to make them work. The the foxes guarding the henhouse at every every juncture. And when we make a reform, you can have all eight of the eight, can't wait till eight and still have a city that is murdering and brutalizing black and brown people. What this bill does is it either races the paragraph, the one paragraph in our charter that gives police their existence. And what that does, just by the sheer strikeout, is it disconnects all of the other links, all of the other walls of protection around this fortress of DPD fall down and allow us to start over and decide how we want to protect the people and not that institution. Please don't weaponize process. After declaring a state of emergency and proclaiming a directly related public health crisis. We've allowed numerous bills to be direct filed over the last five months. Bills we had one weekend to respond to that impacted an entire city during the most dangerous moments of our existence. Our actions and inactions this year have put people out of businesses, out of homes, have killed and hurt people. Allowing the people to vote is is not a sweeping change. Allowing them to vote is letting them tell us if they're ready to make a sweeping change. It may or may not succeed. And the weight of this moment should be carried by all of us, not just us, scrambling to spin every request for information from the police as a meaningful step of action. Let the people carry the weight of this moment, too. We can't make the changes we're being asked to make alone, and we can't make the changes we're being asked to make without the charter changing this way anyway. There's no other city department with such detailed protections, pay guarantees, discipline policies spelled out in a source document to ignore and not acknowledge. That is how, since our founding, we baked in structural violence and racism into our core identity, and that is what is truly reckless and irresponsible. Please give this response to community cries its place on our ballot and let our city decide for themselves. They're intelligent and capable of determining themselves. If this is too big of a change, we can't keep the right to participate meaningfully. We can't dictate what participation looks like, and we can't demand that it is only to happen on our terms. To ignore what the people have asked for is what is truly reckless. To say that there has been no engagement is indeed ignoring the people. I'm specific specifically asking those of you who are putting questions on the ballot this November. Clarke. Ortega. Sawyer. Carnage. Herndon show the people the same courtesy as they as we've shown you. Let this go to the ballot and let the people speak. The new reality is masks. But these masks are not muzzles and we can't keep treating them as such.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman. Up next, we have Councilman Hines.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Madam President, we are at a pivotal time in our history. We have a reawakening of the civil rights movement. Don't get me wrong. For many, this movement has constantly and consistently moved forward. But in 2020, that awareness has spread to the public consciousness and have received broad support. In 2020, we're seeing changes in roles of police engagement, including here in Denver. We're seeing new laws strengthening accountability for our public safety, including Senate Bill 217 here in Colorado. I'm proud to say that I personally testified in support of to 17 of the state legislator legislature. And I'm proud of our state legislative counterparts who worked hard and worked with one another to create a bill with strong bipartisan support. I ask myself, what would bomb do? As in Mom would move our money from places that don't make sense to places that do. So let's set our system up for success by creating a place outside of public safety where we have addiction, mental health and social work professionals to train to respond to those particular needs. Let's move our money, including the 690 K that in tonight's bill 20 0759 as just a start to this place which supports people instead of incarcerating them. My numerous conversations and in my process include members of public safety, Denver's public safety, and in conversations with that with them, they too want change. They don't want to be put in a situation where they are required to continue to respond to things that aren't their wheelhouse, aren't their training, aren't their profession. And and I think that that is a is is a conversation that we should look at. I'm sad that we didn't get a bill to look at because I've been doing a lot of research about this topic, and I would love to incorporate it into a bill. Who knows? Maybe we could make a bill stronger than it already theoretically is, and maybe we could engage our colleagues to find something that works for the body and for everyone in Denver. This, but I would say I can't make legislative decisions on a work document. I have to make a decision based on an actual bill that changes actual language. And so I also would say that all the people who wrote in to us, they did so on a theory, on on a proposal in theory and not on an actual bill. I'm definitely theoretically in favor of moving our money. Again, paraphrasing Hamilton, it's easy for me to be in favor of the theory. It's harder to take a position on a specific bill, particularly since it doesn't exist. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 5: Madam President, I wanted to ask if Murphy is still connected. Murphy. Are you.
Speaker 1: Around?
Speaker 2: We can probably get him back up in the queue.
Speaker 5: Okay. I want to ask him a question because at I can't remember. If it was a committee meeting or a mayor council meeting where we talked about a structure that is being put together and idea about.
Speaker 1: Who.
Speaker 5: Community was because community is very broad in our city. We're diverse in age or diverse in socio economic demographics. So I know, Councilwoman CdeBaca, you have a constituency of people you deal with. I've heard from a lot of residents that live in your district in lower downtown and other areas who called in expressing some concerns. So I just wanted to ask Murphy, what is the status of a committee that is being formed to.
Speaker 1: Give.
Speaker 5: Direction and recommendations on proposed changes to the budget for safety? And, you know, I don't think we should just limit it to the police department. I mean, you and I had a conversation today about the public safety cadet program that I think should only be for Denver kids. We pay for years for an education for kids that are not living in Denver. And these are kids that didn't grow up in Denver. And I think that is a program that should be isolated to Denver kids. So, you know, help me understand kind of where we're at in this process as we start talking about where we go in making some structural changes that have been part of these larger this larger discussion.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. And Madam President, members of council. We are working.
Speaker 1: You just.
Speaker 5: Remember. Remind us your your role.
Speaker 3: I sure can.
Speaker 1: Murphy.
Speaker 3: Murphy F Robinson the third. I am the Department of Safety executive director. And in terms of the committee that's being formed. It is a community led committee. We all give history. I started out through the conversations, through my engagement with the community members during the protest and everything else. I started out formulating in committee set by my office when I was informed by council members as well as other community stakeholders that they would like it to be a community led effort. And so I.
Speaker 5: Was not part of that conversation. So that's part of why I'm asking the question, because there were some people involved and a lot of us had no voice in that in that conversation.
Speaker 1: Sure.
Speaker 3: Well, I was asked to hold off and allow the community to lead this effort. And so that's what I agreed to. We agreed to find a facilitator for this, that the COB, the Citizen Oversight Board, as well as the a member of the ministry alliance, is sharing that committee and is working on getting that facilitator in place now. And I believe they're working diligently. There has been a number of community meetings. There's been some things that have come out of that. But I'm also working on in my department to make sure that we are able to do some short term wins as well when it comes.
Speaker 5: So I was promised a list of who is on that committee. I haven't seen that yet.
Speaker 3: Because I don't think it exists, ma'am. I'm not sure that they have set that committee yet. And again, it's a community led committee. And so the best person to talk to is the S.O.B..
Speaker 5: Okay. Happy to reach out. I guess the last thing that I will say is that, yeah, it feels like we're creating a a movement of trying to bully us into how we should be voting on some of these bills. And I think that is totally inappropriate for how we should govern in this city. And I have a lot of respect for Councilwoman CdeBaca. We've worked together on many issues. We're working on a lot of overlapping conversations around national Western and some of the issues in her her district, which is part of my old district that I represented for many years and have long relationships to the people in that district. But for this particular bill tonight to have been filed without any discussion at all in our committee process and having some input and details of what we would put on the ballot that would make decisions for our city for years into the future is is just irresponsible for the way that we are expected to govern. And I get that we're all hearing a lot from different people in our community. And this isn't to discount that input. I think we have all listened. We have heard that input. I think a lot of us are talking about what kind of structural changes that we want to see happen. But to do it as at what feels like a last minute push is just not fair to colleagues who all I mean, we do this with our agencies. We expect them to do their homework and to, you know, give us time to look at the things that they're asking us to look at. Great Hall, big example there. I mean, we could talk about numerous examples, but this this is no different than the same courtesy that we expect our agencies and the mayor's office to give us when they're asking us to look at something, particularly something that is so broad sweeping that makes such a difference in how our community will will operate moving forward. And it warrants thorough discussion with lots of different people at the table to make a final decision about what should be put on the ballot. Thank you so much.
Speaker 2: Q Councilwoman, Councilwoman Sandoval.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam President. So I just have I spoke today with the woman who was putting this forward. I think her name is Katie. Is that correct? Councilman CdeBaca. Candy.
Speaker 2: Councilwoman CdeBaca.
Speaker 0: I think there's actually a pretty large coalition that has been involved in putting this forward. They collected over 5000 pieces of input from community across every single district in this city. So the heads. Yes, Drew Johnson and Katie Leonard are here to speak if you have questions as well. They tried to also meet with all of you. Yes. So thank you. I met with Katie today, and I discussed my concern about being able to read this bill over the weekend and that it got to Clementine's point. It was not even put in register. It was a word document with whereas and so for me, I asked questions such as what kind of outreach have been done similar to the I ask everybody what kind of outreach has been done and who have they met with? And why could this not have been a citizen initiative? Ballot ballot initiative. And I understand it's during COVID and collecting signatures are super challenging. I understand that because I collected signatures for La Rosa Park and I had to figure out a way how to do it in a safe and meaningful fashion so that people could go and sign the petition because it had to be in-person. Yes. At the same time in Council District one, although maybe some, this has been reached out to council districts. I have received overwhelming phone calls and emails of people who were. Flabbergasted at the way that this was done. And asking me questions about the bill when I did not even have I don't even have any answers. I don't have there's not been any robust communication. And so we're working on something that will the city and county of Denver, the Community Planning and Development Department, is working on the group Living Text Amendment, and it's been going on for like two and a half years and people are still saying that there's not enough community outreach. Councilman Hines has been and your council district, there has been an area plan that's been going on for a long time that people have asked for extra time. Councilwoman Sawyer and Councilman Herndon are in a planning initiative that have been going on for a long time, that people are still asking for more public process, and that's just to plan a neighborhood. Those are planning initiatives that set the framework for things to move forward. And for me, as somebody who is born and raised in northwest Denver and lived.
Speaker 1: Through.
Speaker 0: The 93 year of violence, which I'm sure, Candy, you remember as well, it was horrific. It was awful. I lost tons of friends in that in that summer of violence. And it's no laughing matter. And what's going on right now is no laughing matter as well. And so it's so challenging to make sure that we're doing the robust type of outreach that we need to make sure people are engaged, kids are concerned about going back to school. People are concerned about the COVID. People are concerned about unemployment. People are concerned about the police department. There's a whole uprising of civil rights movement that have been has been going on this whole entire summer. And I feel bad that I was not I was not part of the process. I was not I was reached out to last Thursday. I checked my emails and Katie admitted that she had two emails. So maybe there was another time that she reached out to my office. And if she did, I'm sorry, but I can not fully support this moving forward when so many of my constituents who I feel like would have really I'm not the smartest person in the room. I know that. I know that there are tons of people in my community that are super smart and that take this serious and actually really, really want to see reform. And so I need to vet things through them. I don't think it's all about me and what I can direct file and making it a conflict between us and up here. Because, Councilman CdeBaca, you make it feel like it's us versus you, and I'm telling you it's not. I support a lot of your initiatives. I supported a lot of things that are going on, but it's the same violence that is happening in our community. It's black on black, it's brown on brown. And we have women on this council and we have five Latinas who can vote together. And if we all work together, instead of trying to work in silos, we could actually get things done. So in that vein, I cannot move forward and support this. Thank you. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Sandoval. Councilwoman Torres.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam President. I'll be I'll be quick, because I also will be supporting it. I've heard from a number of District.
Speaker 1: Three residents just since Thursday when they got wind of this as well, who.
Speaker 0: Are just.
Speaker 1: Overwhelmingly alarmed at the proposal. And I can't in good conscience or steward of good process vote in favor of it. There's just too many questions that even I have about the language, much less what they have.
Speaker 0: About implementation and budget requirements which weren't included.
Speaker 1: In the proposal. There's no mention of equity standards, of.
Speaker 0: Training, of accountability in the language.
Speaker 1: And while protests have been calling for which I still even struggle with, trying to figure out when we do it, from which part of the safety budget.
Speaker 0: And to where it goes. But they've been asking for diverting.
Speaker 1: Funds from police to public services, not just transferring.
Speaker 0: It to a new city department.
Speaker 1: And then potentially.
Speaker 0: Adding additional funding on top of that for whatever that department may need. It's just it's just too too nebulous.
Speaker 1: If the city if a citizen initiative wanted to put this forward, they should have. But they're going to get extra.
Speaker 0: Scrutiny from these 13 members when you need seven.
Speaker 1: Of them to push it forward. Go for those 8725. I'm sorry, 8265 petition signatures. And that's what makes citizen ballot initiatives one of the easier things that Denver and Colorado provide.
Speaker 0: Residents to do.
Speaker 1: So I'll leave it there.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Madam President, you just missed my clock chiming at 9:00, so I appreciate that. Is Kirsten.
Speaker 3: Crawford.
Speaker 4: In the in the mix here?
Speaker 1: Hmm.
Speaker 4: Stacey, could you bring her in? Thank you. I notice that the bill has no attestation from the CAO, from the city attorney's office, that that this has been reviewed and approved as true to form. And that's generally a requirement. So I'm wondering if we can even vote on this other than to vote it down. But usually when a council bill comes to us, it has been reviewed and approved as not approved as the concept, of course, but I assume that it fits all the legal requirements. Is that is that the case? Because I don't see a signature at the bottom of it.
Speaker 0: So. Kirsten Crawford Legislative Counsel I just want to kind of set one point of the record straight. One of the reasons I, I kind of punted to John Griffin tonight is he's spent an extraordinary amount of time working on some of the bills that have come forward tonight. And we take our job extremely seriously. We are very hardworking. We had a conversation with looking for some guidance from the council president and Councilwoman Zita back on late Friday night about how to proceed. Given that the bill came in very late on Wednesday afternoon and we were trying to ask questions about where it might go. But I just want you all to know that our job is much more than just formatting the bill and signing the sections because our ethical obligations and I think that got really murky tonight about, you know, when we talk about council having their own attorney, our ethical obligation is to city council. And we have to be able to say to city council that we don't have any objections. And I just felt concerned that we didn't have enough time to analyze any of the issues that the bill might have raised. And so we got some guidance from the council, women in Kansas and President Gilmore about how to proceed. So we just ended up taking that signature by craft, but that does not mean that it cannot go to council. We just have an ethical obligation to fulfill those duties.
Speaker 4: Okay. Thank you. I think the biggest issue with it excuse me is, well, there are several. One is the very late nature of it and the failure of the city attorney's office to have sufficient time to review and approve it as as true to form and no legal objection, which we always do with our council bills. The the biggest problem I see with it, number one, is it looks to me like it violates the state constitution, article 20, which when you read Section three, essentially says that Denver shall have a police department. And then the subset to that sub objection to that is that it also requires that that police department be covered by civil service. And this bill removes police from the Civil Service Commission oversight while leaving the fire fire department in. And then it also leaves the police, whoever remains as a certified post certified police officer. It leaves them nowhere because it doesn't put them in career service. It does. So they have no personnel system, so it's just very poorly written. And then that leads me to the the the final objection, which is it violates the single subject rule. And it and the title fails to mention the key provisions of removing the police from civil service. And it also fails to mention the. The constitutional issue. And it fails to mention but fails to mention a lot, frankly. So this is nowhere near ready. And frankly, I think the sponsor knew that when she filed it, that she was putting us in a position where we have to vote no. So that then we can be portrayed as as somehow standing for racism and oppression, which is obviously not the case. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Cashman. Oh, I think you're muted, sir.
Speaker 3: Can you hear me now?
Speaker 2: Mm hmm. Go ahead.
Speaker 3: Very much. I can't let.
Speaker 1: Clown car.
Speaker 3: Sit. We've got 13 council members, a couple of dozen council staffers that work hard every day of the year in the best interests of their constituents and the people citywide. We weren't a clown car when we put the independent auditor in the charter. We were in a clown car when we expanded the S.O.B., when we created the Affordable Housing Fund, the Eviction Defense Fund, or the Immigration Defense Fund. There is no doubt we've got a tremendous amount of work to create a city where equity is more than a watchword. I think it is entirely appropriate to take a look at how Denver has been policed, is being policed with an eye toward ensuring that we're maximizing every dollar spent toward creating a city that's truly safe for all Denver residents and businesses. Inequities have existed that need to be corrected, and I look forward to the discussion that will be coming forth in the next couple of months. It is simply my experience.
Speaker 1: In.
Speaker 3: The five years I've been on council is that we create better policy. When when 13 council members are working together on it. When we take time to be sure that people understand all the nuances, when all voices are heard and when we come up with a solid policy, I can't support the bill that's being put forward today . It is a passionate representation of one side of a very complex issue. I would not be surprised if down the road if elements of it were incorporated in whatever policy comes about. But I just need to leave with I have great respect for all 13 members of the Denver City Council and all the people that work with us. And I think we have it in our ability to create substantive change. And I look forward to being part of that discussion.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman and Councilwoman CdeBaca, since we started out with you, we're going to go to Councilman Canete.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam President. Is my audio working okay? Go ahead. Thanks. So I guess I'll pick up maybe where Councilman Cashman set off, because I think that a fair question is, if not this proposal, then what is what is the next step? And I think that, you know, we have had an enormous councilwoman Zeta backer herself mentioned the enormous number of things folks are dealing with. Homelessness has been a major priority and challenge for council members in all different ways and all different aspects. You know, there have been others as well in terms of virus response and certainly housing and other issues that have been at the crisis level. So the question that I thought about over the last few days is so. I asked folks to support the idea of a community led task force, and I continue to hope that that path will bear fruit. And I believe that they have good intentions and hopefully we'll be able to proceed. I do think we need an update from them and I've requested that update and I know others have as well . But I do think that, you know, now that we are a little further along, I do think that it's important that we have a parallel work plan to complement and go along with a community led task force. And so one of the conversations that I think it's time for us to have is the idea of some expert support where I've been spending a lot of time with my counterparts in other cities. Austin recently had a very thoughtful, specific plan that involved transitions. It involves milestones. Some of the details that I've heard some of the prior speakers tonight raise that are are not they they do not feel are in this proposal. So, you know, reading the math on the wall, you know, it does not look like this is going to be referred to the voters, that I don't believe that that is the end of the discussion. And so I think one thing people are craving is what is the next step? And I think that the next step for this body might be getting some expert support to help guide that in the absence of one sponsor who's able to pretty much spend all their time on this, which frankly is how it's been done in other cities, it's been a sponsor who frankly can drop everything else, and they spend 6 hours a day with a whiteboard and millions of meetings, and they lead and develop a very detailed proposal. And that's been hard because we've got a lot of needs in all of our communities that we're also responding to. So I think that expert help can help to fill this gap. And I don't think that it has to be separate from I think if we have some experts, Viera Institute and dozens of other think tanks have done analysis of police budgets. They could come in and look at hours. You know, in Austin, they looked at pieces that could be unplugged and moved there. And there's questions of which things could or should be defunded and replaced with other things that need to be funded. Some things have a timeline. What does training look like? I think I've mentioned in our committee of the whole that I think we could get much more serious about the categories. Right. There's an independent oversight category. There's a training category. There is a category involving, you know, actual police services. Those are different. And they require some different policy analysis in each of them. And I do think, frankly, that having some professional support of, you know, a very strong research partner that can help us and then create a focal point for us to work as a committee of the whole. Because I hear that in the comments of my my colleagues who spoke before this desire for everybody to be at the table versus one sponsor who is going to figure out all these details in the depth. And so I think that if we were and I talked a little bit to some of you about this, I know I've reached out to council President Gilmore, so if she would like to chime in, that might be helpful. But I think that if we were to commit to having a serious conversation about that and getting that expertize, I think that would help me. For example, with the budget analysis, I've been struggling to get my arms around some of those line items that are not always as evidence. And so there may be other documents, you know, whether it's coffers or whether it's detailed expense reports, there may be more documents we need experts to pore through. And I don't think we have the capacity and our central staff and our our council offices to do that. Other cities have certainly relied on some specialized support to do this. And I don't think there's. And then I my hope would be we can be sharing that information simultaneously with a community task force. And we can continue to have iterative conversations where if ideas come up from one table, they can be shared with the others, as well as with folks who are maybe not at that table, council members who've been working with folks behind this proposal tonight. So so I do think it's time to think about a more robust, specific path for us to build our capacity to get to the specificity that everyone's craving. So, so that's my kind of thought about where we would go from here. And I'm open to thoughts from colleagues about that. But thank you for your consideration, Madam President, of this idea.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Canete. Councilwoman CdeBaca, we have you back up in the mix and then I have comments as well.
Speaker 0: Just to add just a couple of comments on the the ballot question itself actually accommodates for that yearlong committee process with experts. I think we're talking about two different things here. And there's the charter piece of this and the ordinance piece of this and the department piece of this. And what? We're looking at is a ballot question to enable this conversation in a real way. Right now, we've got a collective bargaining agreement coming to us that has a police salary increase in year two and that is in direct conflict with what we're being asked to do. But what can we do about the collective bargaining agreement that's in charter? And so the point of this is, if you look at it like a game of Jenga, the source document is that brick on the bottom. If you pull it out, all of the rest of it falls down. And that is what we have spent years and years trying to do, not knowing what button to push, not knowing which brick to pull. And this single paragraph is that brick. And while, yes, if it is a huge thing, we're undoing generations of systemic oppression. And so it should be a big thing and we should be taking it on when we have an entire community behind us that's willing to run with it. I think it's. Perhaps a little elitist to think that there's expertize outside of us that hasn't been already contributed. You all didn't even give it a second hearing to find out who's been a part of it. And we created barriers for people to participate in democracy the way that they should have. When you ran a citizen led ballot initiative, who do the hearings? Who hosts the hearings? Who is the first person that they go to? Right here, City Council Executive Director of City Council. They come to us for hearings. When people try that, guess where we were not here. Guess where there's contact information for an executive director of city council? Not here. Guess what happened when they sent emails to every single one of your offices, including the Department of Safety's office? They got brushed off. They didn't get met with. And so we've got some major issues in. And we have to hold ourselves accountable for those things because we've made a lot of missteps this year, and we're not taking any responsibility for that. And we expect the whole city to give us grace and we're not willing to reciprocate. And so for this ballot question here, like I said earlier, the people are going to figure out how to get it on a ballot, on a ballot coming soon, whether or not it's the November ballot. But there's also going to be ballot ballots with your names on them that they're going to remember you. This is the moment where you have challenged your community, your constituents, to step up to the plate, to go above and beyond, to work harder, to bring their expertize to the table for free. And we're slapping them in the face for having done that.
Speaker 2: Councilman Hines, you're up next.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. So I actually went back to my email. I was trying to figure out why we would not have met with Kitty Leonard. And so I do see an email she sent August seven. So ten days ago, she identifies as a District nine resident. And so we reached out to the District nine office. We wanted to make sure that what we were hearing back from District nine, because we don't want to step on toes. We did not hear back from the District nine office, so we did not schedule a meeting. But but that's the reason why we didn't meet with her, is because we wanted to. We didn't want to step on the district nine toes. And her email just says that she's an organizer for Antiracist Club Colorado. She didn't say that she was the lead of the the ballot initiative that actually we didn't know was going to be filed. I would also say I was frustrated because I met with Councilmember CdeBaca at 430 on Thursday afternoon about the other two ballot initiatives. And she didn't mention that she had I had earlier that day filed a third. So that's really it's difficult for me to even understand or know what's going on when I don't I don't have all the information. The last thing that I guess I just I just learned through text message that there is still paper filed. I checked this morning. I didn't see it. So I haven't read whatever bill we're supposed to be working on. And I apologize. I can't vote for or against anything that I haven't read, but apparently it came sometime today. So that's really difficult for me to support anything that moves that that accounts for 45 or 46% of the city's budget. And I haven't read it. So thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 2: Thank you Councilman Hines. And seen no one else at the in the queue. I will give my comments last and you know. There's been a lot of judgments about our body tonight, and I have to say that. I respect all of you. And we just had a council retreat on July 17th, and we started to work together to outline our values, to work together on behalf of the citizens of Denver. And we aren't a circus. We are not a joke. We are a body of committed community members who are trying to do the best damn job we can do during unprecedented times. And I know unprecedented times is overused, but. The entire script. Script has been flipped on us with COVID, with the economy, with. Black Lives Matter and historic racism and injustice. We are doing the best job that we can possibly do and I take huge offense of anyone saying that we are doing differently. Because you don't know what our jobs entail. You do not know the family members who call us late at night because they need somebody to talk to because they feel unheard, because they need support. We are there 24 seven for folks. There's a lot of community members who are there, 24, seven for our community, our council aids, our staff, city folks. I hear it and I see it day in and day out. So I would ask that we stop being so hard on each other. We stop name calling. We stop questioning each other's intense because it doesn't get us anywhere. It takes the same energy to give somebody the grace and the benefit of the doubt that they're doing the best that they can. Or it takes the same energy to name, call and go down that path and. We might not get anywhere with that. And so I know that there's a lot of folks that are asking, well, you know, why did you even let this get get filed? Gilmore. Well. I'm the council president and I've been reviewing the powers and duties of president. It's in rule 8.2. I can't compel a council member to use committee and or stop them from filing directly to have it on the council agenda. I specifically asked the city attorneys, could I of stop this, should I stop this? And the answer was denying this would not have been good. Preventing a duly elected council member from trying to pass legislation, I believe is outside my role as president. But what I want to be clear about is that, one, there has never been a council member who has been blocked from bringing a proposal or legislation forward to committee. There are scheduling considerations. But blocked? No, never. And at this point, the way in which these have come forward, I helped with process. I helped administratively so that these were on the agenda. We had a courtesy public hearing because that's my job, is to facilitate that customer service to my fellow colleagues, depending on not not depending independent, though, if I'm for the legislation or I am against the legislation. I am neutral in that part. But I have to say. That these did not come to committee. There was no comprehensive, robust community input. My community for many of them. Don't have the means to get downtown to the city and county building. And I represent the same as you over 65,000 residents. They deserve the time and the engagement to understand what these Charter changements will mean to not only them, but their loved ones and our entire city. And we don't need to keep playing that game of somebody else. Has it worse off than you or vice versa? To know that we're all trying to do the best job that we can do. These are major reforms. They deserve to see the light of day through a robust community process, and they will morph and change based on community and agency input, which will include the Department of Safety and the Denver Police Department as well. None of us, none of us are afforded the privilege to change our charter so drastically without talking to our communities and one another. The intention and transparency of our entire city matters. And this is a Denver wide conversation. City Council is committed to being part of this. And we, if need be, will lead these conversations. Like Councilwoman Canete said, she and I have talked to other council members about us using our city council budget to possibly hire a consultant to start leading initial research, data analysis and vetting of policy options. The city councils in Austin and many Annapolis went fast and they went big. And now they're having to backtrack. This is way too important. We need to make sure we do this process right the first time to avoid any setbacks. Because lives do depend on this. I want to explore and work with community and also our police department to find solutions that will help them be more successful in serving our citizens of Denver. We need to support community members to make sure they have the tools to succeed. And when and if a ballot measure is the direction to go, we want to make sure that it is not followed by a failed initiative looming over it. If this goes to the ballot and it is not ready and it fails. The percentage points of it getting passed the second time around. It's a harder haul. And like I said, this is way too important to mess this up by going too fast. I've got Murphy Robinson, our director of safety and chief. Payson connected with Andre Gregor, a former FBI agent and black man who wrote a compelling op ed for CNN about his experience with the FBI. And he has also offered to help Denver Police Department with utilizing technology to make sure that we have the correct officers going out on calls and ways to hold those officers accountable and also providing officers that might be under stress, the help and the support for them to do their jobs better. We need this activity data. We need. To analyze this, and we need to start to bring our city back together. We are all in this together and we need to do the slow, do it intentional and do it right so we can really undo the hundreds of years. Of issues that we're trying to roll back and we can't do it over a weekend as our city council. I look forward to this work together. I look forward to the hard conversations. And I want to thank my colleagues for your time and engagement tonight. This was a conversation that I think many of us might not wanted to have, but we had it because it's important and it's important for the community to hear our commitment on this topic. Madam Secretary, roll call on Bill 842, please.
Speaker 1: When?
Speaker 4: Now.
Speaker 1: Herndon Hines, thank. I'm sorry.
Speaker 3: Epstein.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 3: Cashman No.
Speaker 1: Carnage? No. Ortega? No. Sandoval. No. Sawyer. Now there is no. Black? No. CDEBACA Yes.
Speaker 3: Clark No.
Speaker 1: Madam President.
Speaker 2: No. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 1: One abstention. 11 nays. One I.
Speaker 2: 11 nays. Bill 842 has failed. That concludes the items to be called out. All other bills for introduction are ordered published. Council members remember that this is a consent or block vote and you will need to vote. Otherwise, this is your last chance to call out an item for a separate vote. Councilman. Clerk, will you please put the resolutions for adoption and bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor?
Speaker 3: Yes, Madam President, I move that the resolutions be adopted and bills on final consideration will be placed upon final consideration, passed in a block for the following items. 829 772 773 1174 458 459 758 764 763 765 775. 255. 727. 751. Seven. 66. 86. And 687. Madam Secretary, I'm just going to double check since we're virtual that I did those all correctly.
Speaker 0: You sure did.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman. It has been me out and I get a second.
Speaker 0: Second.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam Secretary. Roll call.
Speaker 1: Black. I see tobacco.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 3: Clark II.
Speaker 1: Flynn. I. Herndon. I. Hines. Cashman. I can eat.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: Ortega. I. Sandoval. I. Sawyer. I was. I. Council President.
Speaker 2: I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results, please.
Speaker 1: 13 eyes.
Speaker 2: 13 eyes. The resolutions have been adopted and the bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass. We will take a ten minute, ten minute recess excuse me and we will come back at 940. I'd like to remind my colleagues to please mute your mikes and we'll see you back at 940. Thank you. We have four public hearings tonight. Thank you for joining us. Speakers should begin their remarks by telling council their names and cities of residents, city as residents and if they feel comfortable doing so. Their home addresses when called upon.
|
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 in conjunction with the coordinated election of November 3, 2020, a proposed amendment to the Charter of the City and County of Denver creating a peace force that will replace the Police force.
Replaces the city’s police force in Charter with a peace force. Councilmember CdeBaca approved direct filing this item on 8-13-20. Council President Gilmore approved filing this item by title only on 8-13-20.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08172020_20-0161
|
Speaker 2: First up, we have a bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 3201 Curtis Street in five points. Councilmember Clark, would you please put Council Bill 161 on the floor for passage?
Speaker 3: Absolutely. Madam President, I move that council bill 161 be placed on final consideration and do pass again.
Speaker 2: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded.
Speaker 1: The required.
Speaker 2: Public hearing for Council Bill 20 dash 0161 is open. May we have the staff report, please?
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. Good evening. Council and the Chamber. With CPD presenting an official Map Amendment application for 32 A1 Curtis St rezoning from 5379 through umx2x. The subject property is located in Council District nine within the Five Points neighborhood. The subject. Property is on the corner of 32nd and Curtis Street. It contains almost 17,000 square feet of land area. And the structure on the site is a two story firehouse that was constructed in 1929. The applicant is requesting a rezoning TMX to X, which is urban context mixed use with the maximum height of two stories and limited uses. Facilitate reuse of the site. Current zoning on the subject site is former chapter 5950 379, which I will further detail in the next slide. But with the exception of Mestizo Curtis Park to the south, surrounding properties are zoned. You are age 2.5 with the storage structure use overlay and the Curtis Park Conservation Overlay. So getting the.
Speaker 1: Beauty through 79.
Speaker 3: This dates back to 1995 and it's highly customized for the existing building and the current user. Specifically, the beauty sets forth limits on maximum building coverage type setbacks and for area ratio for current buildings, maximum areas for imperfect impervious surfaces, including parking and drive aisles along with minimum landscaping requirements and a minimum number of off street parking spaces are prescribed allowed land uses are those in the R3 three zone district with specific square footage is allowed for additional nonresidential uses, including office food packaging and processing and the retail sale of specialty food products. Existing land use is classified as office of the small scale production, warehousing and retail uses also exist. Surrounding land uses include single to and multi-unit residential as well as park and open space. To give you.
Speaker 1: An idea.
Speaker 3: Of the building form and skill in the area. This aerial photo shows the subject property outlined in yellow looking north. And these Street View photos from Curtis Street show most of Curtis Park on the top right. Followed by the subject property and single unit residences in the north. The subject property also contains a contributing structure within the Curtis Park historic Landmark District, which was established in 2010. Any request for demolition would require a public hearing before the Landmark Preservation Commission, and approval of any such request is extremely rare. Any request for a significant modification of the exterior would also require a landmark Position Preservation Commission design review. At a minimum, any change to the history of the building is subject to the design guidelines for Denver landmarks, structures and districts. Informational notice of this application was sent in mid-November and Planning Board voted unanimously to move the application forward at the February 19th meeting of the City Council. Public hearing for this case was delayed twice due to COVID 19 and the George Floyd protests. Today, staff has received letters of support from both the Curtis Park R.A. and store in Denver. We have also received four letters of support and two letters of concern from members of the public. Concerns raised in these letters include not knowing who the future owner of the property will be and the rezoning that meeting the criteria set forth in the Denver zoning code. Moving to the criteria, CPD staff must find that the rezoning meets all five to recommend approval. There are three plans that impact the subject property. Beginning with Comprehensive Plan 2040. The proposed rezoning is consistent with Plan 2040, particularly with the strong and authentic neighborhoods, vision, element, policies and strategies, as it would better align city regulations to support historic preservation and support the reuse of existing buildings. Similarly, the proposed rezoning is consistent with the climate vision element policies, as it would prioritize the use of an existing building and promote mixed use development where services and infrastructure already exist. The staff report further details a number of other applicable planned policies and strategy. Moving to Blueprint Denver. The subject property is mapped as part of the urban neighborhood context, which contains mobile unit and mixed use areas embedded in one and two unit residential areas. As a proposed end district is intended to enhance the convenience, ease and enjoyment of transit, walking, shopping and other public gathering within the neighborhood. It is consistent with the Blueprint Denver campus. The subject property is mapped as low, medium residential and the future places map below. Medium residential classification includes areas where neighborhood serving retail may be found at key locations with limited mixed use along some arterial and collectors. With 32nd Street mapped as a local or a designated and Kurdish service, serving as a residential arterial, a mixed use district as appropriate. This location has and is consistent. Each place map. The subject property is located within all other areas of the city, which are anticipated to see 20% of new housing growth and 10% of new employment growth by 2040. The proposed MAP amendment to Upmc's two X is consistent with this map, as it will enable compatible adaptive reuse of the existing structure and support continued viability of the existing building. Additional applicable blueprint. Denver policies and strategies are further detailed in this report. This request is also consistent with several northeast downtown neighborhood plan goals which are listed here and speak to promoting the re-use of existing buildings while supporting complementary small scale commercial use. And this map. The subject property is shown as single family row house. These areas are described as moderately dense and primarily residential, but with some complementary small scale commercial uses. The maximum allowable building height in this plan is. Mapping the subject site is 2.5 storeys. Therefore, the proposed rezoning is consistent with the neighborhood plan for the following reasons. The UN Mixed Zone District only allows neighborhood scale commercial uses that are appropriate for the predominant residential character of the surrounding area, and the maximum height allowed by the proposed district is less than the conceptual building heights identified in this plan. Lastly, through the name, a very specific beauty tailored to one specific user and enabling a broader range of land uses. This rezoning will encourage the reuse of the existing historic building that is part of the fabric of the neighborhood. Moving to criteria number two and three. The proposed rezoning to UM X to x will result in the uniform application of zoned district building form, use and design regulations. It will also further public health, safety and general welfare of the city for implementation of adopted plans related to supporting both the re-use of existing buildings and neighborhoods. Serving commercial uses at appropriate locations. The justifying circumstance for this rezoning is that the property has retained former Chapter 59 zoning, while the city adopted the Denver Zoning Code in 2010. Lastly, the proposed zoning would facilitate re-use of the historic building and allow uses consistent with the neighborhood context zone, district purpose and intent statement. CPD staff recommends approval based on finding all five review criteria. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Brandon. All right, we have. Tonight on the rezoning for 0161 Council has received 13 written comments on Council Bill 161. There were ten 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 have read each of the submitted written comments to any members of council. Need more time to read the testimony submitted. Seeing no hands raised. Council Secretary. Let the record reflect that all written testimony, both in favor and in opposition of Council Bill 161 have been read by each member of Council and all written testimony will be submitted to the official record of the hearing. Tonight, we have 15 individuals signed up to speak. We will start with our first speaker, Bruce O'Donnell.
Speaker 3: Can you hear.
Speaker 2: Me? Go ahead, Bruce. Okay.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Members of the council. I'm Bruce O'Donnell, and I'm the owners representative for this applicant rezoning. And I reside at 386 Emerson Street in Denver. We originally were scheduled to come before you at on April 6th, and this is our fourth attempt. So we're delighted to be in front of council this evening. A quick recap of the process. We've had extensive community engagement and public outreach. We did, councilman, see the boxes, request a mailing to all the neighbors within 200 feet. We held an open house in October. At that open house, we had 15 guests sign a petition of support for the rezoning. We also worked with the R.A. Curtis Park neighbors and got extensive input with them. They recommended the two X rezoning districts that we've applied for and we presented to a general meeting of CPS as well . As a result of that, the Reno has issued a letter of support for this rezoning, which was done back in October of last year. And in addition to that, they reaffirmed the reaffirm their support with a resolution last month reaffirming their support since so much time had gone by. The old Chapter 59 Pudi that the property is currently zoned is very prescriptive and it almost limits the use of the building entirely to that for manufacturing, wholesaling, dry seat mix. And so any new use would require rezoning. The fact that this is a contributing structure in the Curtis Park historic landmark district is a great bonus. It's a two story building or a planning for two storey zoning, and no matter what, any exterior modifications are going to have to go through. Landmark Review. I'm not going to repeat CPD's excellent presentation other than to say that this rezoning request meets the criteria in COB Plan 2040 Blueprint, Denver and the Northeast Downtown Neighborhoods Plan. And the justifying circumstances being that it's a former Chapter 59 zoning that we have an opportunity to get into the new code, the Denver zoning code now. Both CPB and the Denver Planning Board recommend approval. The Denver Planning Board voted unanimously to recommend approval. And with that, I ask that city council vote yes to approve Council Bill 20 dash 0161 Rezoning 3201 4232 um x2x and I'm available to answer any questions that members of Council desire that thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Bruce. Next up, we have Tamara Ryan.
Speaker 0: Thank you, members of council. It's nice to see you again. In 1989 when Women's Being Project was founded, we started with an idea if we could give women an opportunity to learn through working how to move into mainstream employment. That would be the cure for poverty and that was the vision of Jesse Eyre, who recently passed away. Today we are a much larger organization and we serve many more women each year. As we followed up with with the women who graduated a year ago in May and June. We found that 100% of the women were still employed, which is a considerable achievement, given the fact that we hire women who have not had a job longer than a year in their lifetime, and the average age is 39. We teach them through working and through life skills training, how to not just get a job, but to keep the job and how to manage their lives and get their children back. And really, ultimately, what we hope is that that benefit extends beyond each woman to her family and the community as a whole. What we are hoping is that this change in zoning is the first step for us to not just sustain our organization, but to further our mission in Denver. As as presented by Brandon. We believe that our application meets the criteria for rezoning. So I respectfully ask that council members vote in favor of our rezoning application.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Up next, we have Paul Ryan, us.
Speaker 3: Thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Paul Grannis and I'm a Denver resident. Support for citizens of Denver with the greatest needs is my passion. So when I first heard about the Women's Being project with a zoning application, I was really excited to learn more. Over the last couple of months, I bought products from their store, reviewed their financial statements and strategic plans, spoke with the applicant and their consultant, listened to the committee hearing on February 25th and heard from longtime neighbors of theirs. Based on this review, I do not support this rezoning application. I ask you to consider the following. First, the questionable nature of whether or not the application actually meets Denver's zoning code requirements. Legal criteria. And second, examine discrepancies that exist between the testimony given by the applicant, their strategic plan, and their financial statements. First, on the legal criteria, Denver's zoning code requires that a rezoning may only be approved by city council if it complies with all of the review criteria. The lens by which I evaluate these criteria is built upon the logic that a current zoning of 32 on KURTIS has enabled women's being project to provide a valuable service to women in need here in Denver. B If this rezoning were to be approved, it would set in motion a chain of events that would remove this service from this building and possibly from the entire city of Denver. C With market forces being what they are and without an operator identified, this rezoning would enable the use of this property in a manner that does not provide equal or greater social benefits to residents as required in the adopted plans. The details of the plan goals that are inconsistent with this application are in the briefing that I have submitted to Council. 3 minutes does not provide me enough time to read them out loud for, but for reference at a high level, their first comprehensive plan 2040 goals. 1.94.14.4. Secondly, Blueprint Denver Goals one, two and eight. And Third Northeast Downtown Denver Neighborhood Plan Goals CDOT two. Moving on to the legal requirement that the proposed official mapping amendment furthers the public health, safety and general welfare of the city. I haven't seen or heard any evidence that indicates that this rezoning will increase the general welfare of the city, and it appears that could actually decrease the general welfare of the city. Switching gears, I'm concerned about the purported discrepancies from the testimony of the February 25th zoning committee hearing, meaning the discrepancies include first, the applicant painted a picture of having outgrown the property due to overwhelming demand for their products. This conflicts with their financial statements showing a steady decrease in product sales from 1.2 million in 2012 to only 756 K in 2019. Second, the applicant testified that when he bought the building in 95, their build their budget was 500 K year and today there are two and a half million dollar operation. This conflicts with their fiscal year financial statements showing their total revenue of only 1.6 million, which is at two and a half million or 1.6. Third, the applicant testified that their goal with rezoning is to employ more women. However. Sorry the screen popped up. However, what they didn't mention is they're facing labor costs are too high, and as a result, they plan on using capital equipment to automate and replace the work of the women that they are employed and helping. Curtis Park. If replacing women with machines is a reason for cashing out of this property, why was that not disclosed to council members? When was during the committee meeting? City Council? Please help resolve these discrepancies. Thank you. I will remain available for questions if needed.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Up next, we have the honorable Albert Wedgeworth.
Speaker 1: Hello.
Speaker 2: Hello. You can go ahead.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much. Good evening, everyone. Madam President and members of City Council. My name is Albert Wedgeworth and I live in Northeast Denver and District nine in the Whittier neighborhood. I was very honored to serve on the Denver City Council from 1999 through 2007, representing then District eight, where the Women's Being project building is located and have supported this organization for many years.
Speaker 3: Because I also grew up in the Curtis Park neighborhood.
Speaker 1: I wish to urge city councilors to support the rezoning tonight because the organization has met the rezoning criteria. They have worked comprehensively with neighborhood organizations.
Speaker 3: And others throughout the neighborhood.
Speaker 1: To ensure that neighbors will be totally engaged with what will be proposed at the site. But most importantly, this will give the Women's Being project the opportunity to grow their mission to support women and their quality of life to return to the workplace. With the challenging times we are facing in our city, we need more programs like the Women's Being Project for people in our city. So again, I urge you to support the rezoning application this evening. And thank you very much for your thoughtful consideration.
Speaker 2: Thank you. All right. Next up, we have Rochelle Subfloor. Oh, I think you're on me still.
Speaker 0: Good evening, everybody. Thank you, city council. My name is Rachel Subfloor and I live at 3327 Arapahoe Street. And I am here to show my support for the rezoning for the 3201 Curtis Street. So I live about two blocks away from the women's game project. And I just want to say, first of all, I think that they are an excellent neighbor and they are a valuable member of our community, of our neighborhood. And I think Denver as a whole, I understand that they have outgrown their space. And in order for them to continue to serve more women, the rezoning plays a key role in in furthering their mission. And I think most importantly, aside from that, is that this rezoning.
Speaker 1: Criteria as previously sold in the it's.
Speaker 0: Supported by blueprint.
Speaker 1: Denver the comp plan as well as the local plan as shown.
Speaker 0: By the approval through the planning board, it has justified circumstances because it currently is a former Chapter 59.
Speaker 1: And a very restrictive one at that.
Speaker 0: Talking with my neighbors, I we have.
Speaker 1: Discussed that or have had casual.
Speaker 0: Conversations with my neighbors. The. Of that, we believe that.
Speaker 1: A limited mixing effect that's being proposed is.
Speaker 0: Very appropriate for the location. And not only that, that.
Speaker 1: Is something that we would like to see.
Speaker 0: As a redemptive use.
Speaker 1: For the structure. I mean, living.
Speaker 0: In this neighborhood, there's a lot of change going on. And I think it's really.
Speaker 1: Refreshing or it has been really refreshing. And we appreciate to have the community outreach that we had gotten from the Women's Game Project.
Speaker 0: I mean, I think that they've done a really great job in informing the community.
Speaker 1: And seeking input.
Speaker 0: And that's I can't really say that I've seen any of that from anyone.
Speaker 1: Else.
Speaker 0: In our area.
Speaker 1: So I definitely. I know that the rezoning is being supported by the SEP as well as.
Speaker 0: The local Arno.
Speaker 1: And by myself.
Speaker 0: And other other neighbors in.
Speaker 1: That community. So for those reasons, I ask for the Council to consider voting yes on this region. So thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Next up, we have Angelica and DeSilva.
Speaker 1: That is correct. Good evening. Thank you. Members of council. Most of you I've wanted to meet all my life. My name is on Hilly, so I reside at 1031 32nd Street. My family has lived here for four generations. I lived two houses away from the Women's Project. I have enjoyed the work and I've seen the transformation that they have provided to empower women. And however, I am concerned with the potential rezoning plan. I'm concerned about the outcome of this plan, for example, traffic or parking accessibility. Another concern that I have is because my hope is that the community members such as myself will have a voice and will be represented and the neighborhood will maintain its integrity and its cultural history. I often walk around my neighborhood, I see all of the changes. They have been positive, but I've also seen the changes. Where is it really reflective of me as a person of color? I see the new homes, the businesses, the establishments that are being built every day. But my hope is that the community once again will be reflective of all its community members. Please do not approve of this zoning plan or changes until we have full transparency. What type of business will be provided at the address that mentioned the Women's Project?
Speaker 5: That's my main concern.
Speaker 1: Thank you for having us. And thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Next up, we have Donald Damon. I think we still have you muted, Donald. There you go.
Speaker 1: Still married.
Speaker 2: Stuff that you needed.
Speaker 3: How out there.
Speaker 2: There you go.
Speaker 3: Okay. Thank you all. Thank you. And good evening. Members of the City Council Committee. I as well, I, I, my entire family have always lived in and raised and grown up in this park. I heard earlier from someone that testified that that we've been contacted. My family and I have lived in the neighborhood for also three generations. 32 zero 432 zero 30 zero 632 ten 3212. Arapahoe Street, which is actually one lot away from the property in question. It's disappointing in many ways that. So when we speak, a lot of these individuals that are being that are speak live within blocks, we when I say we as a family and I, I live within a locked one legal lot away from the being project. Always been a supporter. Not only is order because of my interest in in the being project, but because of having family members gone through the projects at a success rate. I in being at the corner see the traffic has dramatically dropped. It's not what it was before. What's concerning about this is I've always been a supporter of the of the being project and we as a neighborhood when I say we the beam project and and as has the community we have endured quite a bit to get through where we are today. As I mentioned earlier, we're all within a block radius of my family and I. There are six of us and some of them are not here because of that, are not present because of the language barrier. What's concerning about this is that they the I see a lot of information that's put out by the Beam project, which is not true. I speak as an appraiser and a real estate broker, certified appraiser, commercial appraiser. And a lot of what is being said is not reflective of the everything that I've learned in the 33 years in commercial real estate practice. They're very. I read everything that's come my way. And what's bothering some of it all. Is that the. My still on. Hello.
Speaker 2: Yeah, go ahead.
Speaker 3: Okay. The inconsistency the inconsistency of the reports. The big thing is, why is it being project, not being transparent, consistent with the data being provided and being truthful with the true intentions of the reasoning? I can tell you why. As a certified Fraser broker, I could tell you why. They're looking to reason for a larger pool of buyers at a much higher price in the real estate market.
Speaker 2: Thank you, sir. That's your time. We appreciate it. Next up, we have Keith Pryor.
Speaker 3: Can you hear me?
Speaker 2: And I want to have.
Speaker 3: Hi. My name is Kate Pryor and I resided in Champ Street in Curtis Park. And this bill for 3/2 and Curtis, the Women's Being project was originally a firehouse. And so that's why it's part of the historic district, and that's why it's a designated historic structure. So what we're.
Speaker 1: Finding.
Speaker 3: Is it had a life as a firehouse and now has a life as and is being priced, has been a great tenant and it's been a great caregiver for the historic structure, and we've really enjoyed them as neighbors. This community is now they need to look to their future and we need to look to Curtis. And the future life of this building in its new form obviously not going to change the zoning movies. And what we're wanting to do is take it from the section of Chapter 59, which was updated and did take into account a pudi that no longer existing in today's zoning code. And so we really need to update this building into its new world of 22 and the current zoning code. Um oh, the um xaum2x is something that they did to the community and they were wanting to find what would be the best options that would actually bring the best mix of uses for the neighbors. Just as other people have said, they have been a great neighbor and they want to make sure that it continues to have that. There was a great use as a fire department, but obviously we've outgrown and just as the women's project has outgrown this space, we're looking for something that would really work well with the community and with this neighborhood and really bring a successful new life to that building. And the, um, x2x really does have zoning protection not only for the neighborhood, but it also opens it up to something that is way too prescriptive as the current PD, which would seem to be as that tenant. So I'm in very much support of this and we I am supportive. This rezoning it does meet all of the criteria and it will be new life to the building. And, you know, things change. It was no longer a firehouse. It will no longer be the home of the Women's Swing Project. Those are all losses that we definitely agree. But we also see new opportunity and we feel that this is the best and most appropriate zoning. So please do support this.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Next up, we have Jesse Paris.
Speaker 3: So get even the members of council cannot be hurt.
Speaker 2: Uh huh. Go ahead, Jesse.
Speaker 3: Good evening, members of council. My name is Jesse Paris. I'm representing for Denver. Homeless out loud. Black Star Action. War for Self-defense. Positive Magic. Commercial Commitment for Social Change as well as the Unity Party of Colorado, Universal Healthcare, People's Organization and Mile High News. And I will be your next mayor in 2023. I wasn't either for or against this hearing the testimony. I'm leaning more against it because it doesn't seem to be supporting the integrity of the neighborhood of the east side, of which I am a resident or a native of not current resident. I reside in District eight at the studios. But. Me personally, I would have to be I'm against this hearing, the testimony from so-called people of color that reside in the neighborhood, that have lived in the neighborhood for generations. I supported what the band project is doing, but I think they should find another site for this because this is not honoring the culture or the integrity of the Five Points Curtis Park area neighborhood. So I would have to be against this tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Up next, we have Paul Davidson.
Speaker 3: Good evening. My name's Paul Davidson. I live at 3230 Arapahoe Street in Denver. I'm here to speak in support of the rezoning. And I just want to thank you all for hanging in there during a long session. I know the Women's Being project has waited a long time for this hearing. In addition to being a member of the Curtis Park Neighbors Board for the past four years and the neighborhood for the past 19 years, the corner of my property is exactly 24 steps from the corner of the Women's Project. So I hope to provide a unique perspective on both a personal and neighborhood y level. I'd like to highlight two points and then I'll turn it over to the next person. The first is that this application is consistent with all of the city and neighborhood plans, and it meets all the legal requirements for rezoning all of them . Our neighborhood has an urban context. It has numerous mixed use properties peppered throughout, and they're actually encouraged in our neighborhood plan. It is, of course, common practice and encouraged for properties with the old zoning to be moved to the new zoning. And then the second point I want to make is that Curtis Park neighbors, we did a ton of neighborhood outreach before our board is unanimous decision to support the rezoning last summer women's being reached out to our new president Jeff Baker and zoning committee chair Joel Noble requesting a recommendation from our R.A. on what would be the most appropriate zoning. And this is the first time in my time involved in the neighborhood that I can remember someone asking our opinion before applying. And it was sincerely appreciated. And it gave us time to do a significant outreach effort. We passed out over 100 fliers to homes within two blocks of the property. We highlighted the request, provided an F, a Q, provided pros and cons, and gave direct phone numbers and emails for feedback. We spoke to and received replies from about a dozen neighbors within a block of the property. All were in support that we spoke with of the rezoning provided that it had restrictions. And this current proposed zoning of two X is actually the most restrictive zoning available in the new zoning code. So it's it's pretty much guaranteed to fit with the neighborhood and to be and to be within the context of the residential area that surrounds it. So for the reasons above and especially the wide support of the neighbors in the neighborhood, I asked the members of the Council vote in support of this resolution, especially my representative. Councilwoman CdeBaca, thank you so much.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Jeff Baker is up next.
Speaker 1: Can you hear me?
Speaker 2: Mm hmm. Go ahead.
Speaker 3: Hello? Geoff Baker. I am current president of Curtis Park. Neighbors and I reside at 2422 Chalmers Street. Paul, you did an excellent job of explaining kind of the detail that we did there, and there have been some other comments and support. So I will not reiterate the neighborhood plans that it is consistent with the city plan that it's consistent with. What I will mention is that we really appreciated how women's being came to us prior. They gave us the option to select the zone. The reason that we were going to. And. With a significant amount of outreach. The way we view many of our situations like this, like liquor licenses, we go directly to that specific area and do direct outreach to people that's going to directly affect. Yes, we'll take into consideration the entire neighborhood, obviously, through general meetings and other community input and outreach, but we do do a focused and this was very focused. It was very explicit on all of the code and the options and the opportunities and being that this is the most restrictive option available. We will be entering into good neighbor agreements and that will be the that will be the mechanism to ensure that it fits into the neighborhood and that they act appropriately in a residential neighborhood. It is true that we have commercial in many corners and it has been like that since the beginning of time for this neighborhood. Number two. We did the flier outreach that Paul discussed, which was heavily detailed and went out to the immediate neighbors. And the main opposition this evening, I believe, is out of the neighborhood and never reached out to the rhino. I believe that was the second speaker. This evening does not live anywhere near the neighborhood, as far as I understand. And we never heard anything from that person in this opposition. So that outreach would have been nice coming this way. We will miss the Women's Game Project. We ask for your support in the Zone Council. Thank you very much.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Next up, we have Julie Robson. Well, maybe first we're going to go to Ryan Cox. We'll get Ryan and muted here in a second.
Speaker 3: I can hear me now.
Speaker 2: Mm hmm. Go ahead, Ryan.
Speaker 3: Okay. Hi there. I'm Ryan Cox. I live here in Curtis Park on the 29th in Curtis. So about three blocks from the women's been. I'm speaking tonight in support of the red zone request. Paul Keith and others have spoken to different aspects of the rezoning, but I wanted to comment on a couple of things specifically. I'm on the board of Curtis Park Neighbors as well, and women's being involved the neighborhood early in the process and was very interested in seeking zoning that most aligned with the wishes of neighbors and as Paul mentioned and did extensive outreach to the neighborhood, particularly to those that were closest to women's being, which informed the rezoning request . And although Curtis Park had been involved in the process from the beginning and saw it and provided feedback on the rezoning, our councilwoman chose to gather feedback via Facebook survey that may be presented as community input. And although our councilwoman has had no difficulty in posting town halls and other marketing materials directly to the neighborhood Facebook page , she chose not to share the survey to the neighborhood the right up there, and she used the survey provided background information that was frankly misleading and opinionated. The survey questions were then crafted in a way to produce responses that the draft chapters had desired, so the survey could be cited as having gathered community feedback. Women's being has been a great asset and a neighbor. And we truly hate to see them leaving the neighborhood, but preventing them from continuing, expanding their mission of serving more women by attempting to block a straightforward rezoning request is shortsighted and detrimental to not only women's being, but the women they serve and the city as a whole . I ask the city, approve the request. Thanks for your time.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Our last speaker is Brian Conley.
Speaker 3: Hello? Can you hear me?
Speaker 2: Mm hmm. Go ahead, Brian.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Good evening. Council president and members of council. My name is Brian Connolly. Several of you know me as a land use planner, an attorney with the firm of Art and Johnson. However, I am here this evening as a citizen and neighbor of women's being project, and I am fully in support of the rezoning request. I think that, as you all know, this request is guided by the criteria in your code. And I think Brandon did an excellent job of analyzing the application, and I certainly agree with his conclusion that it meets all of your criteria, and certainly it's consistent with the adopted plans of the city. I submitted an email outlining the remainder of my comments so I won't dwell on them. I will just note that several of the opponents of the rezoning have noted that they will lament the loss of women's being project. That being said, as many of you know, as a matter of land use laws, zoning can't dictate who owns a given piece of property. And in fact, in most cases, it can't even dictate the exact design of any building that gets constructed on a given property. However, here we have a unique situation in that the concerns about community character are really mitigated by the protected landmark status of this property. So thank you very much for your time and your service to our city and please vote in favor of the rezoning. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. That concludes our speakers questions from members of council. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. I guess, Brandon, this would be for you. The. The building is a contributing structure in the Curtis Park historic district, but it's not individually designated as a landmark, correct?
Speaker 3: Actually it is a contributing in the district.
Speaker 4: Okay. But it could be designated.
Speaker 3: It is designated if.
Speaker 4: There were an application. Were there any discussions? And maybe Mr. O'Donnell could address this also? But but, Brandon, you would know for certain. Were there any discussions during the negotiations over or over this rezoning as to whether that would become a landmark structure at the end of the process?
Speaker 3: It is already a landmark structure. It is a contributing structure within the system.
Speaker 4: Okay. I guess maybe I misunderstood that it's individually also a designated correct. Ah, the next question is about our criteria. And I was reading the material that Mr. Grannis sent us and talked about here. And one of the criteria is consistency with adopted plans. And I've noticed in all of our rezonings we always pick out two or three goals and strategies with which this application is found by staff to be a consistent. But what occurs to me, as Mr. Grannis has pointed out, several goals and strategies that he finds the application to be inconsistent with. So I'm wondering how does CPD staff deal with an application where you might clearly and I'm not asking you to admit that this is the case here, you understand, but just generally so I can understand. An inconsistency and inconsistency. How does CPD staff handle it when you clearly can see that? Well, this application fits ten criteria in between comp plan and blueprint. But we can also see how it's inconsistent with seven. Does that go forward with recommendation for approval or does it? How do we handle that?
Speaker 3: Good question. So you'll see that in the presentations where you typically highlight a couple of policies and strategies that are applicable, there's usually more detail in the staff report. And then it is a little bit like you alluded to when we look at the number that it is applicable with and consistent with, we have those on balance with what other ones might not be. And for this application, we think that generally speaking, it is. Marcus's work, mostly consistent with the planners, more consistent and implemented, is not okay.
Speaker 4: So it is possible, in fact likely that you could recommend you in the plural, could recommend approval of an application that is consistent with a large number of strategies, but might not be consistent with others. In other words, we don't require that an application has to be consistent with every strategy. In fact, that might not even be a possibility, right?
Speaker 3: Yes, that's correct. And usually that comes up a lot when we have like a newer plan like blueprint and then we have a really old neighborhood plan that, you know, is completely different than the blueprint. So it's it's all about a balancing. And on balance, it's finding that the application does consistency criteria.
Speaker 4: Okay. Thank you, Madam President. That's all.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Flynn or I'm sorry, Councilman Cashman. Let me see. Councilman, I think you're muted. Not yet.
Speaker 3: What else?
Speaker 2: Oh, now we got.
Speaker 3: You got me.
Speaker 2: Now, huh? Go ahead.
Speaker 3: Okay. Yes. For someone from the Beam project. If someone can answer this. Mr. Grant has sent us a detailed, some detailed information. I was just very interested in looking at and seeing that since 2012, the overall sales seem to have declined from around a million to to about 700,000 in last year. And just want to understand that, since my understanding is the idea in selling is to get a larger facility that will have the ability to help more people generate more more bodies. Anyone can answer that.
Speaker 2: We had Tamara Ryan, who was representing the Women's Being project. Hopefully she still.
Speaker 3: President Gilmore, this bruising. I'm sure I'm around.
Speaker 0: And I'm still here. Yeah, that's right here. I'm still here. I was just in nether land, so I would be more than happy. And I've offered this a number of times to talk with anyone about, first of all, the difference between an operating budget and audited financials and also the intricacies of how a nonprofit financials are reported when you also have sales and how net sales are reported. And so all of those financials are are provided on our website. And but don't give you the color of things like we have grown in certain areas and we have also taken write offs for growth in grocery. And and what I will tell you is that it's not it is both about sales is about creating jobs and is about having enough space to employ enough women. So we have challenges with respect to purchasing materials are being supplier recently told us that our minimum order quantity now is doubled which means that 50 foot truck needs to come and offload £20,000 of beans to our site. We don't have space for that. And we are at the point where nearly every week we have some sort of a challenge relative to space that impacts both the business, the number of women we can employ and how we can deliver for our services. And that is that that's the whole story and really cannot be accurately reflected in financials on our website.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 3: Well, but is it is it true that your your sales have decreased a bit further for the reasons you've just stated.
Speaker 0: For one year, 2019, they decreased in this past year, they increased 30%. So taking a snapshot of one year makes it difficult to look at what to surmise that there is a trend. And again, I'd be more than happy to sit with anyone and go into more detail. I, I guess.
Speaker 3: It's not really relevant to the criteria, so we don't need to spend too much time on it. Ms.. Ryan, I appreciate that answer, and we'll let you keep your energy for questions that are really related to your zone.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, ma'am.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilman. Councilman Hines, you a president?
Speaker 3: That's actually what I was going to ask. Could be the business model is not related. That's not one of the criterias. And I mean, it's not even. Remotely. Any of the criteria is right. So we can't make any sort of judgment tonight based on the success or failure or lack of success of of any entity, including the women's project. Is that right? The party's analysis is strictly with legal criteria. Okay. And, well, we could. Well, I guess maybe. Looks like Mr. Griffin is still here. So from the city council attorneys perspective, I hear CBD saying that it's not within your legal criteria. It's not within our legal criteria either. Right. Is that is that just talking with the city council attorney?
Speaker 2: Yeah. Well, I think we've got Nate okay with us, so we'll let Nate weigh in.
Speaker 3: Come on down.
Speaker 1: Councilman Hines, what was the question again? I'm sorry.
Speaker 3: The question is that we're you know, we're obviously we're considering a rezoning at this point. And we have five legal criteria through which we should make our quality judicial decision. None of those criteria consider the success or failure of any business model, including, in this case, the Women's Bean Project. It's like we we must remain blind to whether the whether any entity has a good or bad business model. Is that is that correct?
Speaker 1: Yeah. Thank you, Councilman Hines.
Speaker 3: Thank you for repeating it. I was listening to your commentary and I agreed with it. And so when the question came up, I was like, was there a question there?
Speaker 1: But yes, thank.
Speaker 3: You, Councilman, that you're correct. Okay. Thank you. And this is of which I'm curious the the comment of the councilperson which district doesn't in.
Speaker 2: I believe it's.
Speaker 0: And we are we are in District nine.
Speaker 3: Okay. Well, I'd be curious to hear her comments. So. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam President. I wanted to ask a question. I don't know if former Councilwoman Oprah Wedgeworth is still available. If you are ever. Would you mind? Coming back on for just a minute. I have a question of you.
Speaker 2: All right, we're going to. Can you ask her to raise her hand in the list of attendees?
Speaker 5: Do you see her still on?
Speaker 1: Mm.
Speaker 5: Okay. I don't. Maybe. Maybe, Brandon, you might be able to answer this or Nate. So when the city sold this property originally to the Women's Being project, I remember this being at a significantly discounted price. And I'm wanting to know if there were any reverted clauses in the sales price. I know. What is now our host office. It used to be dildo or OED before that routinely has reverted clauses in a number of their contracts when they sell property to different nonprofits. If they're. Operations, you know, go out of business or they're going to move or whatever that requires the property to revert back to the city . So I wanted to ask if that was looked into by your office or by the city attorney's office to to just confirm that you don't have that as an issue.
Speaker 2: And I believe we have Skye Stewart, who's available, too, to answer.
Speaker 0: Yep. Thank you very much. Sky Store Mayor's Office. I think there has been a little bit of a misconception about that. The city actually did not sell it for less than market value when the property was sold in 1995 for $185,000. The assessor's records for that year were an assessed value of 183,900. So the city actually made a little bit more than the assessed value on that. So it was not sold at a loss at all. And and because that was a market transaction, there was no revert or clause or any other conditions on the property.
Speaker 5: That's that's helpful clarification. And then I just wanted to ask Miss Ryan, there was a comment made by one of the speakers about and I know this is not part of the criteria, but, you know, it's part of the reason for the change is to create the opportunity to grow. But you're going to automate, which means you potentially would reduce the number of women. Is that is that accurate? And let me just do that first and then our last look.
Speaker 1: Sure.
Speaker 0: Thanks for that question that we had in our strategic plan. We talked about automation. And what we realized ultimately was that we were really headed more toward semi automation. And ultimately we have several stops along any production line that includes now filling machines and sealing machines that all have to be operated by individuals. And in fact, what we've learned in that is that not only do we need the same, if not more women based on volume, we actually are teaching skills that are much more relevant to the workplace when the women leave. There is no scenario in which a woman will graduate. Women's being project can go on to landfill, being to mixes. And so what we are teaching them is, is how to operate the equipment, how to troubleshoot with the computerized panels, how to clean the equipment, how to meet food safety standards that are more complex with with machinery . And so what the what we didn't even realize when we were talking about automating our processes is what great opportunity it would actually create for the women. And that really full automation is not going to be possible. That really it's much more a semi automation process.
Speaker 5: Okay. And part of the reason for looking to grow is or looking to make make this changes so that you can grow. And I'm assuming that means looking for a bigger building elsewhere, is that correct?
Speaker 1: Yes, that is correct, yes.
Speaker 5: Have you identified something else that's sort of contingent on this rezoning? And I don't know if you have an option contract on the if somebody has an auction contract on the property. But. Does that then? You know, afford the ability for you to stay in Denver or are you looking elsewhere?
Speaker 0: We absolutely always we're committed to staying in Denver. When we started this process, we did not have a new home. We now have identified a new location and on Alameda in Councilman Clark's district. And we will be we will be occupying this new location adjacent to Denver Housing Authority and some new housing that they will be building
Speaker 5: . Okay, great. All right. And I saw that.
Speaker 2: We have.
Speaker 5: This back on the line. But I don't know. Number one, if you heard my question, it sounded like that was answered. But I wanted to give you an opportunity to see if there was anything more that you wanted to add. No, I didn't hear your question. Can you repeat it, please? I was just double checking about whether or not there was a revert or clause in Skye. Stewart from the mayor's office clarified that the building was sold at market rate and therefore there were there were no provisions placed on the sale.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's my understanding is. Okay.
Speaker 5: Great. I have no further questions. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 2: All right. Thank you, Councilman, and thank you to our speakers. The public hearing for Council Bill 20 dash 0161 is closed. Comments by members of Council. All right. I'm not seeing. Oh, here we go. My Internet said it was unstable for a second. We're back, Councilman Clark.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. You know, this is not in my district, although I was lady. But it was good to hear that women's region is looking to relocate into my district. It's a wonderful organization, which, of course, has nothing to do with our rezoning criteria. But I just didn't see the councilperson for this district. It must not be online anymore. And so I just wanted to make sure to say for the record that thank you to staff. I think that this has been demonstrated that it meets the legal criteria for rezoning, and I will be supporting it this evening before we voted . Thank you. Madam President.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman. I just put my video down, so maybe my Internet's going to work a little bit better. Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 5: In Tibetan president. So at one point, a very, very long time ago, that used to be part of my council district, part of the Curtis Park neighborhood, used to be part of District nine. Back then, at times it was changed. It was not in the district. So I'm very familiar with the neighborhood and of the original sale of this property to the Women's Project. And they have been an amazing employer. I mean, they're the epitome of a a genuine social enterprise that is working with women coming out of our prison system that are gaining a skill set and as we heard, are gainfully employed as a result of coming through this program, which I think we need so much more of these kinds of projects that need to be tied to our shelter system and all of that that really helped people. Councilwoman So you and I have talked about the delay and see Street Project and how successful that model has been in San Francisco. And anyway, I digressing here, but this particular operation has has just been a magnet in this community for for so long since they purchased this property. And again, you know, they meet all the criteria. Glad to hear that they are staying and have found a place in Denver on a bus line that gives them the opportunity to grow and to provide even better skills with some of the automation and whatnot to the women that will be going through the program. And I'll be supporting this tonight. So I just wanted to chime in. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman. Seen no other comments by members of council? This proposal has has met all of the criteria and guidelines, and I'm happy to support this rezoning. Madam Secretary, roll call, please.
Speaker 1: CdeBaca. Clark.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 1: When I. Herndon. I had.
Speaker 3: Hi.
Speaker 1: Cashman. All right. Kenny Ortega. All right. Sandoval. I. Sawyer. I. Torres, I. Black I. Madam President.
Speaker 2: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 1: 12 Eyes.
Speaker 2: 12 eyes. Counsel Bill 161 has passed. Up next, we have a bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 2755 Irving Street in Sloan's Lake. Councilmember Clark, would you please put Council Bill 546 on the floor for passage?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 3201 Curtis Street in Five Points.
Approves an official map amendment to rezone property from PUD 379 to U-MX-2x (planned development to mixed-use) located at 3201 Curtis Street in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 2-25-20.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08172020_20-0546
|
Speaker 2: 12 Eyes Council Bill 612 has passed. We are moving back to Bill 0546. Councilmember Clark, will you please make a motion to reopen the public hearing for council bill? 20-0546.
Speaker 3: Yes, Madam President, I move that the public hearing for council bill five or six be reopened.
Speaker 2: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, roll call on the motion to reopen the hearing.
Speaker 1: Black. I. Clark.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 1: Flynn. I Herndon. I can't.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 1: Cashman. I can. Each. Hi, Ortega. Hi, Sandoval.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: Sawyer.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: Torres. I. Madam President.
Speaker 2: I. Madam Secretary, please, quote close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 1: 12 eyes.
Speaker 2: 12 eyes. The hearing for Council Bill 546 is now reopened. The required public hearing for Council Bill 20 Dash 0546 is reopened. The bill is on the floor for final consideration. May we please have the staff report?
Speaker 1: Let's see if this time it works.
Speaker 2: We got you.
Speaker 1: In for that. No worries. No fear of presenting in public. Oh, good. Good afternoon. Members of the City Council. My name is Phil and I'm an associate city planner with community planning and Development. And today I'm here to present you an overview of the MAP. Amendment 42755. Irvine Street. Subject property is in Council District one. In this lonely lake neighborhood. The property is located mid-block between 29th and 28th Avenue along North Irvine Street, northeast from Sloan's Lake. Besides, about 6350 square feet, and it has a single unit home in it. Property is currently in the Urban Single Unit Design District, and the applicant is proposing to rezone to urban single unit B1 to allow for an accessory dwelling unit. The existing zoning is one single unit which allows for a minimum zone lot size of 4500 square feet. And as you can see in this map, most of the surrounding properties are stone U.S. You be to the west, Utah, you see to the east and some U.S. aid to the north. As mentioned, this site is currently occupied by a single unit home and is surrounded by mostly other single unit and two unit uses. This slide shows the existing the existing area with the site of the proposed rezoning on the top right. And just some images to show the residential character of the neighborhood on the top. On the bottom right. On the bottom left. Speaking to a process. Informational notice of the application was sent at the beginning of April 2020 and then again in mid-May before the Planning Board, public hearing and June 3rd. In that meeting, planning board recommended approval. Notice of today's public hearing was sent on July 27 and the property was properly notice every time. The purpose of present. No comments have been received by the public or registered neighborhood organizations. And this zoning code has five review criteria which I will go over. The first criteria is consistency with adopted plans. There are three plans of legalizes rezoning, comprehensive plan 2040 loop in Denver and housing and interest in Denver. The rezoning is consistent with several of the studies 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 convert by promoting infill development where infrastructure and services are already in place. Subject property is mapped as part of the urban neighborhood context. This context is described as containing small, multi-unit, residential and mixed use areas that are typically embedded in one unit and two unit unit residential areas. Look, patterns are generally generally regular with a mix of early access, and they are described as having a high degree of walkability , likability and good access to transit with less reliance on cars. The future places map designates the subject property a slow residential place type displace type have predominantly single single on two unit uses and accessory dwelling units are appropriate. Urban Street is designated as a residential collector street, which is mostly characterized by residential uses. The growth area in Denver is all other areas of the city. This area is anticipated to see 10% employment growth and 20% housing growth by 2040. You also include specific policy recommendations. Housing policy number four talks about diversifying housing choice through expansion of accessory dwelling units throughout all residential areas. Housing. An interest of Denver encourages expanding the development of accessory dwelling units to incentivize affordable and mixed use housing and as a wealth building tool for low and moderate income homeowners. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the recommendations in the Comprehensive Plan Blueprint Denver on housing and Inclusive. Denver because it will expand housing options and allow the development of an accessory dwelling unit. Stuff also finds that they request that Sony 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. Stuff does find that there's a justified circumstance for the MAP amendment with the newly adopted vision for accessory dwelling units in all residential areas, including Denver. Lastly, the proposed zoning is consistent with the urban context. Residential districts and the USC would be one zone district. Stuff does recommend approval based on finding all review criteria has been met and that conclusion concludes stuff. Presentation. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, friend. Tonight council has reached has not received any written comments on Council Bill 546. We have two individuals signed up to speak this evening. First up, we have Janet and her telco.
Speaker 3: Yes, that's correct. Hello. Good evening, councilors. My name is John for Togo. I am a resident of Newton St in District three, the West Colfax neighborhood. This item asks you to approve a rezoning that appends a one. To the end of this property's existing zoning class. As Fran mentioned, this appendage I wanted in and out is unique among many of Denver zoning classifications, as it includes only one specific purpose for the change. As we've heard often tonight from other presenters, once a lot as zoned, neither citizens nor councilors can control who owns it or what changes will occur on that property so long as the changes meet the zoning standards. So it's an uncertainty that we're faced with. It's always a bit of a gamble. But in the case of this rezoning and others with this one appendage, we know exactly what we're going to get an ADU. In fact, we already know a lot about the specifics of their new construction due to the very narrow eligibility and siting requirements for it to use and why it is important, given the parade of 80 oriented rezoning requests you've heard in just the last few weeks and months, and probably your whole time on council and those that lie on the docket for our next few meetings. I'm sure you've heard this before. 80,000 acres are the very most incremental step of development in a neighborhood that we've seen across the country, that adus can strengthen the neighborhoods that they're in. They can house multiple generations and extended family, allowing three new members to age in place while simultaneously offsetting the expense of senior living and or childcare costs. They can provide a new and stable source of income for long term residents helping stave off displacement. They provide more security for renters by providing a rarely seen type of affordable housing stock in neighborhoods that may otherwise not have such housing types near to jobs and desirable amenities. This minor change in zoning makes sense for this property, as the staff report shows. What you've seen meeting after meeting is that pretty much every applicant for this change type meets all the requirements. Again, those requirements are quite stringent on form and allowance, so there's kind of no point in applying if you don't meet them. So I'm clearly here tonight to ask you to support this rezoning request. However, the process we're following today also cost the applicants over $1,000, adding more cost to projects that are meant to provide affordable housing options. That's not to mention the countless hours of city staff time, your time and late nights like these that these applicant ADA applications engender. So beyond and ask to approve this request. I am also here to ask why North and West Denver Councilwoman Amanda Sandoval and Jamie Torres to please follow the lead of Cathy Park and others and work to convert all eligible zoning classes like this one to allow it to use by. Right. Save us a few of these late evenings. Thank you and good night.
Speaker 2: Q Next up, we have Jesse Paris.
Speaker 3: Good evening, members of Council. My name is Justin Paris. I'm representing the Denver homeless low black star symbol for self-defense of the vertical amendment for social change, as well as the Unity Party of Colorado. Universal and People's Organization, Mile High. No. And I will be your next mayor and 2023. Seeing that this meets all the criteria. There's nothing I can speak up against this. I support any use. I think we need more of those throughout the city and all the districts. So this is going to be a yes for me tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Jesse. That concludes our speakers questions from members of council. All right. I'm not seeing any questions from members of council. The public hearing for Council Bill 20 dash zero five for sexist closed comments by members of Council. All right. C no comments by members of council looking at the presentation. This meets all review criteria and I will be voting in favor of this rezoning for an 80 you. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 1: In all. Sawyer. I, Torres. I. Black I. Clark.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 1: Flynn.
Speaker 4: I. I'm sorry, Madam Secretary. Did you hear that?
Speaker 1: No, I did not. I apologize. I'm sorry. I thank you. Herndon, I think I.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 1: Cashman, i. Kenny. Hi, Ortega. I. Madam President.
Speaker 2: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 1: 11 Eyes.
Speaker 2: 11 Eyes Council Bill 546 has passed. We are on the homestretch, folks. Councilmember Clerk.
Speaker 1: Will.
Speaker 2: You please put Council Bill 620 on the floor for passage?
Speaker 3: Absolutely. Madam President, I move that counts. Votes 6 to 0 be placed on final consideration and do pass second.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 2755 Irving Street in Sloan Lake.
Approves an official map amendment to rezone property from U-SU-B to U-SU-B1, (allows for an ADU) located at 2755 Irving Street in Council District 1. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 6-16-20.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08172020_20-0612
|
Speaker 2: Go ahead and move on to let me see. We're just waiting to see if we because we have this public hearing open. And so I'm going to gavel out of the public hearing 40546 and we are going to go ahead and move on to the hearing for 0612, and we will come back to the previous public hearing . And so, Councilmember Clark, could we please get you to put Council Bill 612 on the floor for passage, please?
Speaker 3: Absolutely. Madam President, I move that counts. Bill six one to be placed on final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 2: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded the required public hearing for Council Bill 200612 is open. May we please have the staff report, Scott?
Speaker 3: Yes. Thank you, Madam President. Scott Robinson with Community Planning and Development. This is a request to rezone 2101, 2119 and 2125 South Church Street from you are h 2.5 to GM three properties located in Council District seven. In the Overland neighborhood is at the southwest corner of Evans Avenue and Cherokee Street. This is where Evans Avenue goes up as a bridge to go over the railroad tracks and Santa Fe Drive. The property does not have direct access to Evans Avenue is served by the Evans Avenue Service. On the lower level there. It is about a block away from the Evans light rail station. Property is just over 15,000 square feet. Currently there are two single unit houses on the property. They said the request is to reach down from you. RH 2.5, which is urban neighborhood context rowhouse zoning with a 202 and a half storey maximum height to GMU three , which is general urban neighborhood context multi-unit residential zoning with a three storey maximum height. The applicant is requesting rezoning to allow for construction of a small apartment building on the property. Here you can see the surrounding zoning. It's the same you are it's 2.5 to the south and east with C imx 553 mixed through Sony immediately to the west and then industrial zoning to the north across those. And here you can see the existing land uses to the south and east, predominantly a single unit with a few two unit and multi-unit residential extend to the west. It has some mixed use multi-unit, residential and commercial and industrial with the station area and then to the north across Evans is predominantly industrial. You can see the subject property in the far right photograph there and then some of the surrounding properties, including the five storey apartment building immediately to the west in the left. The guy and his free zone district will allow a single unit to unit and multi-unit residential uses in the urban house, duplex, garden, court, townhouse and apartment building farms with a three storey maximum height up to 35 or 40 feet, depending on the building form used. This went to planning board on June 17th of this year, received a unanimous recommendation approval went to a on June 30th. You have in your packet 13 letters of support for the proposed rezoning. The applicant also entered into mediation with some of the surrounding property owners, but was unable to reach an agreement with those property owners. In order to approve a rezoning city must find that these five criteria have been met. The first criterion is consistency with adopted plans. There are four plans for the this property. The first is comprehensive plan 2040. After scrapping the staff report, staff has found the proposed rezoning consistent with multiple strategies from Plan 2040 relating to providing a variety of housing types and directing growth transit in terms of equity that finds the proposed rezoning consistent with recommendations or strategies from the equitable, affordable and inclusive vision elements of Plan 2040, including these two relating to, again, providing a variety of housing options in neighborhoods and in terms of climate. Step five Propose rezoning consistent with new strategies from the Environmental Resilience Vision. Element of Component 2040. Again relating to infill development and directing growth in areas where multiple transportation options are are in place. The second plan is Blueprint Denver. The future neighborhood context designation for this property is urban, which calls for a variety of housing forms, including single unit two, unit and multi-unit. This is different from the proposed zone district context of general urban. However, Blueprint Denver says it may be appropriate to shift the boundary or subtly change the the future neighborhood context in certain situations where the overall intent of a neighborhood context map still can't be met. In this area, it's between urban and set, an area where an urban context interfaces with an urban center context. Those in our transect are not adjacent to each other. General urban falls in between. So providing a general urban context here, the zoning is appropriate to serve as a transition from that urban center and more intense context to the less intense urban context. The Future Place designation is Community Corridor, which calls for a mix of office, commercial and residential uses. Those are not necessarily all on the same property. Properties can be all one use, but throughout the entire corridor of those, those uses should be mixed in. Calls for heights, generally up to five storeys, but with high transitions to nearby residential areas proposed supposed residential multi-unit. Three storey is appropriate. Evans Avenue is a commercial arterial, which calls for more intense uses. However, again, the property does not directly, but the commercial arterial portion of that is disturbed by Turkey Street and the Seventh Avenue Access Road, which are both local streets which are appropriate for this type of zoning. The future growth areas strategy for this property is community centers and corridors intended to accommodate 20% of new jobs and 25% of new housing by the year 2040. And then Blueprint Denver also includes additional strategies and recommendations, including this one land use built form, general policy, one strategy talking about directing growth to appropriate areas, including community corridors where transit priority streets are planned and Evans Avenue is designated a medium capacity transit corridor in the plan. So directing growth to this location is appropriate and the proposed rezoning is consistent with the recommendations of the Denver. The third plan is the Overland Neighborhood Plan. This plan recommends. Maintaining the residential character of the residential neighborhoods, encouraging reinvestment and investment in underutilized or vacant land with appropriate character and density. Again, this property serves as a transition from the lower density residential areas to the more intense mixed use and industrial properties to the Northwest. Consistent with the recommendations of the Oakland Never plan. And then the fourth plan is we have a stationary plan which again calls for maintaining that residential character of the residential areas, but does designate this property as mixed use residential, which calls for primarily residential uses, but some office or retail may be mixed in and calls for encouraging a mixture of housing types and densities, including rowhouses, stacked flats, millwork, low rise apartments and multifamily condos. And so three stories is the appropriate height in this location, all consistent with the proposed new three zone district. So staff on rezoning consistent with the adaptive plans and the first criterion met. The second criterion is uniformity of district regulations satisfies the proposed rezoning would result in the uniform application of the three zone district. The third criterion is to for the public health, safety and welfare of city staff. The proposed rezoning would do so by implementing the city's adaptive plans and promoting additional housing options near a transit station. The fourth criterion is justifying circumstances specifying for the proposed rezoning justified by change and changing conditions in the area. There's been new development around the station and on the north side of Evans increasing density, creating more of a mixed use transit oriented development. And this rezoning is appropriate to fit into that and help further that development. The fifth criterion is consistency with neighborhood context zoned district works and to on the proposed rezoning would facilitate development that is consistent with the general urban neighborhood context, description and a purpose and technology and three zone district. So staff finds all five criteria are met and recommends approval. I'll be happy to answer any questions.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Scott. We have two individuals signed up to speak this evening. Dayna Jamieson. Janelle.
Speaker 0: Here. Can you hear me?
Speaker 2: Mm hmm. Go ahead.
Speaker 0: Hi. Good evening. I understand. I have 3 minutes. I have. I have found out all about this all today. I have several questions I'm going to try to raise through this because it's late. And I also want to thank you guys for doing the job that you do and working like you do. I know you do the best you can and you do an outstanding service for them. Okay. So I just found out that this was going to happen today and listening to this for hours. Now, I gather I was supposed to have noticed since I live with my husband, Chad Guidall, right across the street from us and definitely within 200 feet. This is not consistent with neighborhood purpose uniformity. It is not definitely not going to further the public health. And I have one chief reason for that, and that is noise. We purchased our home a year ago, and I live right across the street from.
Speaker 1: This planned.
Speaker 0: Rezoning. One thing we have definitely noticed is that the overpass underpass area, the multiple train tracks, the light rail, the five lane arterial of Evans and Santa Fe create a decibel rating of over 140 to 150 all day, every day. And sometimes that's without a train running. And I did all of that today and a few weeks ago, actually, because it's gotten louder around here. This kind of development would be more appropriate north of Evan's, in my opinion. I believe that the health and safety of any potential future residents, low income or whatever it is, I think that they would not benefit from this and their health would be harmed. I want to know if there are any environmental investigations that are going to happen recording this. There's a great deal of drug use in the underpass, needles everywhere. I will walk down there if you want to give me more than 3 minutes and I will actually film it all right now for you and show.
Speaker 1: You my Naish Decibel app.
Speaker 0: And I will show you how loud it is here. Without any traffic, it's probably more like 90. That's that exceeds the HUD, the Housing and Urban Development Regulation 24 CFR Part 51 Subpart B. And. This would be more appropriate. North of Evans, there's another eight story building incompletion right now. Sorry, I'm trying to just race through this. I want to know why I wasn't notified or my husband. I could have taken more action, been more proactive, and gotten some things signed. The sign itself is hidden actually on the wrong way against a one way street. The proposed building is about 13 feet from Evans. There's a one lane, one way access road. It's a mess. I want to see this development done the right way in our hood. And that's all I'm going to say. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Next up, we have Jesse Paris.
Speaker 1: Got.
Speaker 3: Good evening. Members of council members Jesse Patterson represented for Denver, homeless fellow black strikes and more with the self-defense. Can you hear me?
Speaker 2: Mm hmm. Go ahead, Jesse.
Speaker 3: All right. Similar for self defense, positive for social change, as well as the Unity Party of Colorado. Mile High knows and Universal asking people to argue that they and I will be your next mayor in 2023. I had the same questions the previous commenter had about the traffic in the area. I'm pretty familiar with this area and. Traffic over there is really bad. So I want to know if the occupant has asked about a traffic study, a noise study and also a pollution study. Because if you're going to put housing here, I'm assuming, and I wanted to know what the RMR level was going to be for that house. At the property because the AMP levels over there are 80% or higher and we have a housing crisis and we need to house people who are low income so to 30% so. I wanted to know if anybody could answer those questions for me. That's all I have. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. That concludes our speakers questions from members of council. Councilman Clark.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. SCOTT Or I think the applicant is Kevin And I think I saw him over in the thing. I don't know. We can or if he's already in here. But can somebody speak to the concern raised? I believe it was, Dana, about notification. And what was what happened with notification? Yeah. This application followed our standard notice procedure, which is that the capital register neighborhood organizations were notified by email of properties within 200 feet, were notified when the application was received and before planning board. We don't mail postcards before City Council. That's how it's set in the zoning code. And then the property was posted with the notice sign. So this application met the standards. That's why she didn't receive a postcard before this hearing. Should have received two postcards before the planning board hearing. Okay. And then the the what is on. So what is currently on site is not what the current zoning is looking at. It looks like it's single family homes that does share an alley with a five story building. Correct. Correct. And then the existing zoning that is being asked to change from a you RH 2.5 into GMU three. And so could you just get a quick roll through? You know, not the difference of what it would look like from what's on the ground today to this news on district. But between what could be built used by right. And this existing zone district. Yes, certainly. So there you are. It's 2.5, as you said, in the current zoning, which is rowhouse zoning with a two and a half storey maximum height. So the applicant or the property owner could build row houses, as the name implies, up to two and a half storeys or 35 feet. Under the existing zoning by right. And were we able to promote the applicant and. So I can't see you, Kevin. But if you're there, can you talk a little bit about why you're why why you were going after this zone district versus the used by rate zoning that's already on there?
Speaker 1: Yes. Can you hear me okay?
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 1: Kevin Dickson and live at 1491 South Gaylord. My partner and I.
Speaker 3: Have owned this.
Speaker 1: Corner for about 12 years and the RH zoning, the other developers have been doing a row houses or townhomes that are selling for six and 700,000. And with the state of the affordable housing in Denver and the lack of it, we felt like the $700,000 townhomes, even though we could build ten or 12 of them, wouldn't be helpful. So we were looking at a small 20 unit apartment building and going for a more market rate, affordable one bedroom units and maybe some two bedroom units there. And this zoning.
Speaker 3: Would allow with the.
Speaker 1: Additional units and keep the cost per unit down.
Speaker 3: Thanks. And then you have you have any energy efficiency kind of you know, that's one of the criteria that we look at is, is with climate change, some of that and some of the other projects that you've done in Overland, I know you've done some other kind of think outside the box of anything planned with this when it comes to energy efficiency in construction.
Speaker 1: Yeah, as you know, John, we've been building tandem houses in Overland and they've all been turning out to be zero energy, some of them that are kept as rentals and I pay the utilities and so the tenant. Doesn't have a utility bill. And since I'd put so much solar on the house, Xcel Energy is sending me a check every month. And even though this 20 unit building would be much bigger, we should still be able to achieve zero energy.
Speaker 3: So you're looking for the whole the whole building. You think you're going to be able to get it. You are basically a net zero. Right. Okay. And then, Scott, one of the plans that always comes up in Overland is the Overland Neighborhood Plan. And I don't have it right in front of me, but remind me, it's from what year do you have it there? Yes, it's from 1993. 1993. Okay. I'll I'll opine more on that in the comments. But I just wanted to quickly be reminded what year that was from you. Those are all my questions. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Up next, we have Councilman Hines.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. Mr. Robinson, I've got a question for you about noise levels. 150 to 160 decibels, 140 decibels. Looking at the chart that I just found online, is a jet taking off. So it's. Is it possible that we have a neighborhood that has 150 to 160 decibels? Well, I guess that is not a question. Let me rephrase the question. Assuming that is accurate, is that something that would affect the health, safety and welfare of a neighborhood and affect all of the zoning of anything that has that kind of notable noise level? Potentially, as you said, you know, I'm not an expert in noise levels. When we get a rezoning application, we refer to multiple city agencies, including the Department of Public Health and Environment. And they are very good about reviewing these applications and providing comments. And you have those comments provided by THC in the staff report. They didn't mention anything about ambient noise levels. There's information in there about construction and the requirements you have to meet during construction, but they didn't raise any concerns about the existing noise level and we refer to them on those kinds of issues. Is there a bunch of construction around this site? I mean, I guess it's a high rate, but like what might be contributing to the noise level? I guess I could ever ask the applicant instead of asking you. So I want to redirect the question to the applicant. Is there other construction around this site? And then I want to ask you for your thoughts on are there really sustained noise levels of 150 decibels in this area?
Speaker 1: Thanks for the question. There are trains that sit there and idle next to the light rail station. And so you'll have about three diesel electric locomotives just sitting there idling. And that's probably the loudest thing there. Evans Avenue is busy and it's loud. And then just beyond the railroad track is Santa Fe. And so it's not like a jet taking off. No, but an idling diesel is kind of loud. But our building would block.
Speaker 3: The noise.
Speaker 1: For this, Jamison. So it would actually help her because it would it would be three story building in between her and the railroad tracks.
Speaker 3: Well, that's very kind of you to take this on for her. Okay. I don't have any other questions. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 5: It's her trying to open everything back up. Thank you. I have a couple of questions, both for the applicant as well as for Mr. Robinson. So when you all first saw this application, did you all look at how close that is to the railroad? And were they asked to check the box on the application form that they're within a close proximity? Think 200 feet is the distance to rail existing rail lines. Scott, your muted.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Let me look at the application here and see if that. This, actually, I think. Interesting. This this application is several years old. It came out in 2017. And then it went through that mediation process, which is why it's just now getting to you. But I believe that the application was submitted before we had the the roadblocks.
Speaker 1: That.
Speaker 5: Were roadblocks should have been in place for the last two years.
Speaker 3: Right. And so this came in 2017. So three years ago.
Speaker 5: So and so there's been no updates to it even during all that time to address railroad safety. Because when we talk about health, safety and welfare, that's a critical component of safety issues.
Speaker 3: Yeah, certainly. And, you know, as we've talked about before, those issues are generally dealt with at the site development plan and building permit stage. So about to meet all the standard requirements, go through the standard review when they go to start construction.
Speaker 5: Okay. So let me see. I think I had one more for you. Who generally checks the notification to ensure that the signage on the property that is notifying the neighbors as of rezoning that it is posted so that all the neighbors can see this.
Speaker 3: Yeah. The applicants have to provide a signed up. David saying the property has been posted and then provide photographs to us of the property with the sign posted. And so we review the affidavit and the photographs they provide to make sure that it has been posted properly.
Speaker 5: And and how do you ensure that the placement actually is the most visible for the neighbors to see? A statement from one of the speakers about her concerns that the actual location was not that visible for the neighbors to see. And I know in the past we've had applications that have been held up so that the signage could be done properly.
Speaker 3: Yeah, certainly. So we check to make sure that it meets the legal requirements and our our guidelines, staff guidelines, which are that one side be provided on each product. And so we again look at the photographs and make sure that signage is posted on each frontage without necessarily looking for the the best, best location. However, you might find out that it meets the legal requirements.
Speaker 5: Okay. And I do have one last one for you before I go to the applicant. In your statement, you mentioned there was no agreement with the property owners. Can you highlight what some of their issues were based on? The. Important that your agency received.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I know, I've probably deferred to the outcome on that. They were involved in that mediation, but my understanding was I was concern about the scale of development for the proposed proposed development.
Speaker 5: Okay. So. Mr. Dixon, if you can. Come on for a minute.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah, we will.
Speaker 5: Can you just highlight what those issues were? I heard two comments about concern about traffic. We heard that about noise. It sounds like a lot of that's from both Evans as well as the railroad tracks. But can you just highlight what those other issues were?
Speaker 1: Yeah. So we went into mediation and the main issue was the parking and we originally providing about eight parking spots for 20 units and. So mediation started in late 2018 and in 29, early 2019, we purchased an additional duplex adjacent and that was going to give us four more parking spots. So we increased the amount of parking that was going to be proposed, and this was all laid out in the good neighbor letter. That was. Ready to be signed in 2019. But one of the close neighbors that was objecting actually passed away. And then another one is the one that we.
Speaker 3: Bought the duplex from.
Speaker 1: And and there was one neighbor.
Speaker 3: Left.
Speaker 1: That we were.
Speaker 3: Actually.
Speaker 1: Under contract. But I couldn't get that contract closed in 2019. And so.
Speaker 3: Those negotiations.
Speaker 1: Just kind of fell apart. And the mediator wrote a letter to that effect.
Speaker 5: So thank you for that explanation. Parking was going to be my second question for you. So, Scott, for a 20 unit development, that's I don't know what the distancing is that we use as justification for within the proximity of a rail corridor. But what is the required number of parking spaces for a 20 unit development?
Speaker 3: I don't have that up to my head. If you give me just a minute, I can put that up. Okay.
Speaker 5: And I know some of those were going to be two bedroom units as well as as one bedrooms. So just wanted to get an understanding of the city requirements on that.
Speaker 2: And we'll go ahead.
Speaker 5: And while you're doing that, I just wanted to ask Mr.. Dixon, if you wouldn't mind just sharing if you're looking at accessing any of the low income tax credits through the Colorado Housing Finance Authority to try to address the affordability of the units.
Speaker 1: Yeah. We met with Scott Robinson on that topic and it didn't really seem to fit. We just felt like we could go ahead and build 20 units and rent them at market rate. And I have other rentals in the area and you know, a one bedroom apartment for about $800 is relatively affordable. And that's the type of thing we were targeting.
Speaker 5: How how big are those one bedrooms? Just out of curiosity.
Speaker 1: That would be around six, 700 square feet.
Speaker 5: All right. Thank you. Scott, were you able to find that?
Speaker 3: I have the standards. The standard parking requirements in the urban context for multiple zones is one vehicle per unit. And then there are various exceptions that could be applied. So that's what I still. Trying to check those to see if that could reduce.
Speaker 5: But those details will be worked out when they go through the design and development review process. Correct your agency. But I think just having some understanding that those are going to be worked out so that the neighbors are having to deal with extra traffic on the streets and that kind of thing. Traffic is already a concern in the area and I know this looks like a site that abuts the sort of the underpass of of Evans down there. But still, if it's generating more traffic on the on the residential streets, I think those are what I was hearing as concerns from the neighbors. That concludes my question. So thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman. The public hearing for Council Bill 20 dash 0612 is closed. Comments by members of Council Councilman and Clerk.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President, and thank you, Scott, for the presentation. Thank you, Dana, for coming down to speak. I'm sorry that somehow that notification didn't get to you. You have an amazing neighborhood association in Overland Park Neighborhood Association, and I encourage you to get involved with them because they stay on top of things and just are an amazing group of individuals with a long and rich history in the neighborhood. I think that, you know, a couple of the things we we go back to this requirement to align to all adopted plans in the area. And I'm not going to complain too much about the Oberlin plan being a 1993 plan, because there are a lot of neighborhoods, including other neighborhoods that I represent and have no plan at all, have literally never had a planning effort. And so I'll continue to plug and we need to move quicker and more aggressively to make sure that every neighborhood has an adopted plan that's recent. On top of that, I can't complain too much about that right here because we do have the urban stationary plan, which is much more recent and does reflect the community conversation that we've had around this area. I just think that there's this missing piece in here is that even though we have this newer plan that was a great process and the neighborhood was very involved in, we still also have to tie back to a plan from 1993, the year that the Colorado Rockies were an expansion team playing at Mile High Stadium, the old Mile High Stadium, where literally half of the stadium would float on water and move. That's a different world. And the relevance of that plan to today is. Nonexistent and it's bad, especially when we have another newer plan. I don't know how we break and how we break up with these old plans until we get the new ones. But I think this is a perfect example of one where I don't think we should continue to be lining up with that plan when we have a two year plan. In the parts of Auckland where that plan doesn't reach that stationary plan doesn't reach in the Broadway station plan, and it's literally the only plan we have. Maybe that's better than having no plan at all. But in areas where we have newer plans, somehow breaking up with things that are that old and and not even for the same city that we live in today. I think a couple of things that, you know, the community was very intentional in planning around that that light rail station and about where density would go. And this is one of those places that does create that buffer between Evans in the same way that the five story of the beautiful building there that looks like it's been there forever but is relatively new. That five storey building provides some buffer between the light rail tracks and the consolidated mainline and the neighborhood. This court, this part of Evans adding a little bit more density. There is something that buffers and will ultimately make it quieter because it will reflect some of that noise back. I always appreciate my colleague, council member Ortega, who I was very lucky to sit on the committee that looked at, you know, train safety with her. And, you know, I'd love that she continues to push to make sure that we're living up to making sure that that is a part of our process. This particular property is you know, there is a consolidated main line. Then there's RTD tracks and there's a station, a parking lot, a road, a five story building, an alley, then this property. And so well, it is definitely close enough to walk right over to a wonderful station at urban station. It is quite a ways and quite a few things away from being right on the railroad. But some of the ones that we have seen literally there is building right on the railroad will have. And I think that, you know, as we heard, have been talking about Kevin, as you know, a lot of work he's very invested in this neighborhood is all the neighborhood association meetings that I can remember. He is better I mean, does very small built building tandem houses and 80 used in the neighborhood, but has really done some amazing things when it comes to energy efficiency and combating climate change and creating these zero energy or even where, as you heard it , is generating more revenue back, not just in the ones that he keeps, but for many of my constituents in Overland who have chosen to move into stuff that he's building from somewhere else in the neighborhood and start casting a check from there. Their solar installation, just really cool stuff with heat pumps and some stuff that as we're going through some of the green building stuff, other developers will tell us, You can't do that. You can't make a building that doesn't have this in it. And then I'll go over and over when you meet a constituent and Kevin and they show me that it can be done and it is being done in Denver today. And, you know, especially to have an opportunity not just as an ADU, but a 20 unit building that is going to provide more diversity in terms of what's available in the neighborhood than the row houses that are built and are very, very expensive, replacing, you know, these one storey single family homes. But you have to have all of that be potentially a net zero project. I think it is also very exciting to show that that's not just something that can be done at the 80 level, it's something that can be done to some level of scale here. So all of that being said, I think that, you know, the Stafford Board has shown that this meets the criteria for rezoning and I will be supporting it tonight and will ask my colleagues to do so as well. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Clarke. I agree that this has met all of the rezoning criteria and I will be voting in favor of it as well. Madam Secretary, roll call. Mark.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 1: Flynn, I. Herndon. I. Hines.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 1: Cashman.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 0: Kenny. Hi.
Speaker 1: Ortega. I. Sandoval. I. Sawyer, I. Torres. I. Black I. Madam President.
Speaker 2: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 0: 12 Eyes.
Speaker 2: 12 Eyes Council Bill 612 has passed. We are moving back to Bill 0546. Councilmember Clark, will you please make a motion to reopen the public hearing for council bill? 20-0546.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 2101, 2119, and 2125 South Cherokee Street in Overland.
Approves an official map amendment to rezone property from U-RH-2.5 to G-MU-3, (urban, row-home to general urban, multi-unit) located at for 2101, 2119, and 2125 South Cherokee Street in Council District 7. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 6-30-20.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08172020_20-0620
|
Speaker 3: Absolutely. Madam President, I move that counts. Votes 6 to 0 be placed on final consideration and do pass second.
Speaker 2: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded the required public hearing for Council Bill 20 dash 0620 is open. May we please have the staff report?
Speaker 1: All right. Good evening. This is Libby Kaiser, senior planner with CPD. This is.
Speaker 0: Another 80 year rezoning.
Speaker 1: Request for 1925 Olive Street. This is in Council District eight in South Park Hill, and it is the first rezoning request.
Speaker 0: For an 82 in the neighborhood. The property.
Speaker 1: Is located. In between and then went on the street to approximately 600 square feet and as occupied by a single unit dwelling, the property is currently in the urban edge, single unit de zone district and the applicant is proposing to rezone to urban edge single unit d1x to allow for an accessory dwelling unit. The sub one x requires a minimum size of 6000 square feet and allows for the urban house, suburban house and detached 82 building forms. The maximum height for a house is 30 to 35 feet and 24 feet for the detached adu. As mentioned, the subject property is owned. ESU, D, X and surrounding zone districts include single unit, campus and mixed use. The site is occupied by a single unit dwelling and is surrounded by other single unit uses as well as public quasi public uses, including Johnson and Wills University immediately to the East Denver School of the Arts to the Northeast and the Odyssey School of Denver to the Northwest. The subject property is a two story house as shown center right in the photo, flanked by single storey homes. All have generous setbacks, front loaded garages and attached sidewalks. To the east are two and three storey buildings at Johnston in Wales and to the west is a single family structure. This application has followed all the typical rezoning process. The planning board hearing was held on June 17th and the application was unanimously recommended for approval as a present. We've actually had two individuals express opposition, including one that came in last Friday. Both individuals are concerned that the rezoning.
Speaker 0: Will negatively impact the neighborhood character.
Speaker 1: And infringe on the privacy of their backyards. To approve a rezoning, it must be found that the requested amendment is consistent with five criteria found in the Denver zoning code. The first criteria is that the rezoning request must be consistent with adopted plans at which there are four that apply to this property, including the Comprehensive Plan 2040 Blueprint. Denver Park Hill Neighborhood Plan and Housing and Inclusive Denver. The rezoning request is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The proposed rezoning would allow for an additional housing option within walking distance of four bus routes in an established neighborhood consistent with three strategies and the equitable, affordable and inclusive vision elements. In addition, the rezoning would allow infill development that broadens the range of housing types available in an area where infrastructure and services already exist, consistent with the strong and authentic neighborhoods vision elements as well as the environmentally resilient vision elements. The rezoning request is also consistent with Blueprint Denver. The subject property is mapped as part of the Urban Edge Neighborhood context, which is predominantly comprised of residential uses with single and two unit low scale homes on short walkable blocks. In blueprints under the future. Places MAP designates the subject property as nouveau residential place type, which has single and two unit uses and 80 use are appropriate. Olive Street is categorized as a local or on designated street, which is generally.
Speaker 0: Characterized by.
Speaker 1: Residential use as. As far as blueprint Denver's growth strategy, the properties in the all other areas of the city category where 10% of future jobs and 20% of future housing are desired. This is the least intensive growth category. Blueprint also includes specific policy recommendations. Housing Policy four focuses on diversifying housing choice through the expansion of its use throughout all residential areas, while housing Policy five recommends removing barriers to constructing a two use as this rezoning would accomplish. The Park Hill Neighborhood Plan also applies to the subject property and the rezoning would help implement two of the plan's goals and recommendations, including maintaining the existing character of the neighborhood while allowing for a mix of housing types. Housing an inclusive Denver encourages expanding the development of its use to incentivize affordable and mixed use housing and to help build wealth for low and moderate income homeowners. And the proposed rezoning is consistent with this plan. Staff concludes the requested zoning meets criteria. Number one, consistency with adopted plans. 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 justifying circumstance for this rezoning is a city adopted plan. Since the approval of the existing ESU de zone district, the city has adopted the plan. 2040 Blueprint Denver and Housing and Inclusive Denver. As stated throughout this presentation, the proposed rezoning meets the intent of these plans. Overall, the rezoning is consistent with the urban edge neighborhood context that exists in the surrounding area and the purpose and intent of the ESU, D1 UX District thus meeting the fifth criteria. In conclusion, CPD recommends approval based on finding all review criteria have been met. I'm available for questions and assuming the applicant has hung in here for this long, they should be available as well.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Libby. We have tonight counsel has not received any written comments on counsel Bill 620. And we have one individual signed up to speak this evening. Jesse Paris.
Speaker 3: That evening. Members of council, my name is just there. I reside in District eight, right up the street from where this rezoning is going to be. I'm represented for Denver homicide law, black strikes and self-defense of the Mexican-American commitment to social change, as well as the Unity Party of Colorado and Mile High. No, and I will be your next mayor in 2023. And this meets all the criteria. I would assume it's going to pass. I just had a question. I wanted to know what this is going to be used for. Is it going to be for a family member or somebody that is low income looking for a home? Thank you.
Speaker 2: And you will conclude our speakers right now and we'll go to questions by members of council. And I'm looking here and I don't see any members of council, and so I'll go ahead and pose that last question. Libby. The use of the you.
Speaker 0: Sure in the near term the applicant plans to use it for their aging parents.
Speaker 2: All right. Thank you. See no other questions. The public hearing for Council Bill 20 0620 is closed. Comments by members of Council. CNN. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 1: Herndon.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 1: Hynes Cashman. I can h.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: Ortega, i. Sawyer.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: Torres, I. Black I. Clark.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 1: Flint.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 1: Madam President.
Speaker 2: Hi, Madam Secretary. Please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 1: 11 Eyes.
Speaker 2: 11 Eyes Council Bill 620 has passed. On Monday, September 14th, Council will hold the required public hearing on Council Bill 711, changing the zoning classification for 2535 through 2545 East Ashbury Avenue in University Park and a required public hearing on Council Bill 716 Changing the zoning classification of 755 Lafayette Street and Country Club.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 1925 Olive Street in South Park Hill.
Approves an official map amendment to rezone property from E-SU-Dx to E-SU-D1x, (allows for an ADU) located at 1925 Olive Street in Council District 8. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 6-16-20.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.